The Design and Testing of a Field Operations Visualizer

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below (in red) and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Addressed in the comments

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Not applicable

NA

Is the research design appropriate?

Not applicable

NA

Are the methods adequately described?

Not applicable

NA

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Addressed in the comments

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Addressed in the comments

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The abstract is too generic. No identification of problem to be solved and the objectives were not specific.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the wording to clarify that there is a research capability gap related to our ability to explain to farmers, landowners, and other researchers the specific timing requirements of a cropping systems. Furthermore, we modified to emphasize that this this lack of “timing visualization capacity” is particularly a barrier to novel system deployment and improvement.

Comments 2: Line 39 ; authors can’t start a new sentence after full stop with while. Please, revise

Response 2: Respectfully disagree, it is acceptable (and commonplace) to begin a complex sentence with a dependent clause in this way (e.g., Strunk & White, The Elements of Style, page 41, example at top of page). No change made.

Comments 3: Line 41, which ones, you have to be specific

Response 3: Excellent point, thank you for identifying it. Changed “ones” to “decision making tools” to clarify.

Comments 4: The introduction is too shallow and not well enriched. The lack of a particular focus affected the introduction. The literature review in the introduction is insufficient, thus there is lack of direction and even specific objective. For example, what is the research gap.

Response 4: We were surprised by this – our introduction (with 22 unique references) was structured specifically as follows:

Paragraph 1: Novel cropping systems are emerging, but explaining the specific timing needs – while important – is not readily done.

Paragraph 2: There are informal ways of expressing timing requirements, but no formal methods – that is the gap and we use that wording in the middle of the paragraph.

Paragraph 3: The proposed development of a FOV is both possible and potentially useful Paragraph 4: We undertook to develop an FOV using human-centric principles

Although no other reviewers had this concern, we changed the wording in paragraph 3 to emphasize the relevance of this work. Specifically: “The FOV could thus serve as an enabling technology to assist in the adoption of these sustainable practices.”

Comments 5: Authors kept mentioning FOV, which aspect of field operation in particular. This area of application where the visualization needed to be applied must be stated, even from the introduction.

Response 5: This is a very good point. We did two things to address it. First, in four instanced prior to the materials and methods, we added the qualified “machine-enabled” prior to “field operations.” Then, in the last part of the first sentence of section 2.1 (materials and methods overview), we added the following explanatory text:

In all cases, our focus was on critical machine-enabled field operations such as tillage, planting, harvesting, fertilizing, and spraying. While it is possible to include other operations – e.g., manual scouting, drone imaging – in any of the proposed systems, the focus here was primarily on operations requiring critical machinery.

Comments 6: It was in section 2.2.1 that authors just linked the area of application of the FOV to a corn, field, which is not good enough. Readers must be well carried along right from the abstract.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We believe that the changes made for Comment 5 have addressed the core of this concern. We do not think that the FOV is in any way limited to maize production systems, nor to systems of a particular size, so we stand by introducing the “exemplar” in 2.2.1 without discussing it prior.

Comments 7: Please, also rework on the referencing style. This is not in conformity with the Journal style of referencing.

Response 7: Thank you for noting this and we apologize for this error. We have accordingly modified the referencing style to conform with the Journal.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Moderate editing of English language required.

Response 1: We have done repeated edits and have three coauthors who have served or are serving currently as associate editors for well-respected journals in our respective fields. We feel the English is strong in this paper.

5. Additional clarifications

NA

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below (in red) and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Not applicable

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Lacks quantitative identification of the benefits of the use of the proposed newly developed FOV

Response 1: Thanks for pointing this out. Section 3.4 provides quantitative metrics on the benefits of the proposed FOV from the participants.

Comments 2: It is not justified how the study fits well into the journal scope and if it is of interest to the readership from academia. Although the work refers to agriculture and engineering its relation to those fields is marginal, all in form (visual design, not content behind the visuals). It is not elaborated in sufficient detail what are the traditional tools for the visualization of agricultural activities, what are their disadvantages and how will one new tool make an impact, which and whose need will it fill. The authors explore the design for the future product. It leaves the impression of the fragmented work. The state of the art is well outlined, based on the transfer of knowledge (solutions in healthcare for instance), however it is not explained in sufficient detail how the new, proposed tool is backed up by science. Agricultural science, and how it is backed up by engineering.

Response 2: We understand that this subject is in a liminal space between pure graphic design and agricultural systems. We added to the conclusion this wording: “Our intention is to disseminate insights from our study that contribute to advancements in agricultural practices and technology.”

We relied on the scientific evaluation conducted by other authors referenced in this article on the use of visualization in addressing domain-specific challenges. We intend to assess our proposed solution at a future date following its roll-out. As one of the primary aims of AgriEngineering is the rapid and accelerated dissemination of emerging findings, we recognize the importance of sharing this information now to foster collaboration.

We believe that our survey results (shown in the paper) along with conversations with multiple advanced-degree agronomists and agricultural engineers in industry and academia during the FOV development have indicated that this is a genuine gap.

Comments 3: It is emphasized that the FOV was created through a user-centered process, involving multiple iterations and stakeholder feedback and the focus is put on timing (FOV visualizes operation sequences, overlaps, durations, and timings).  The use of phases of FOV development as per Figure 1, where authors show FOV was developed through an iterative, user-centered process involving stakeholder feedback, for naming the choices in later rank ordering might be confusing.  

All three 'phases', i.e. voters (1. students, 2. staff/faculty, 3. affiliates) had the same set of multiple visualization designs which were tested, it is not explained in sufficient detail if and how voters passed their influence from 1 to 2 to 3, the influence in finding the most effective way to represent operation sequences and timings. Should their opinion be independent, why would 2 form opinion based on Rev 2.x , and why would 3 form opinion based on Rev 3.x.

Response 3: Excellent point, thank you for identifying it. We added the paragraph [Line 257] “The sets of FOV designs ranked by survey participants from Phase 1 to Phase 3 remained largely consistent, with only minor adjustments, such as increased font size. Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 groups suggested a font size increase, which was implemented, resulting in no substantial design modifications. Despite these adjustments based on participant feedback to enhance the FOV, the designs continued to appear nearly identical.”

We believe Section 3.3.2 encapsulates how survey participant feedback can influence the design direction, we relied on the feedback to make changes and cover blind spots, so the same suggestions are not provided concurrently by the different groups.

Comments 4: It is not shown, in a scientific, measurable, quantitative way, how proposed FOV aims to improve the management of novel cropping systems, potentially increasing their deployment and delivering ecosystem services.

Quantitative results are all about finding the best design, visually, not about the impact which that design makes or would/could make in agriculture, and, most importantly, not about the correctness, reliability of that timing. Let's say, We found the best design and now what? Who/ what , (how did we show we cared about) guarantees the times are appropriate for field actions. Is the product usable for other crops, which modifications, who how should make in order to be so?.]

Response 4: Thank you for noting this. The scope of this article is limited finding was to express the timing requirements of cropping systems in a standardized and formal way.

We believe our introduction and conclusion were structured to communicate this; examples are as follows:

Paragraph 1 [Line 38] – “Although growers are able to find ways – for example through handwritten notes or spreadsheets – of representing timing to ensure operational tasks are completed as planned, a standardized way of doing this is lacking”

Paragraph 2 [Line 48] – “The FOV aims to clearly communicate the intricate requirements and uncertainties in timing of novel cropping systems, offering valuable insights into their challenges and guiding improvement efforts.”

Paragraph 3 [Line 437] – “This study presents the FOV, a new visual format aimed at improving the communication of operational schedules and timing requirements essential for efficient crop pro-duction”

Evaluating the impact of the FOV will be done after the web-app is completed which makes it available to the public so we can have some feedback “There are two critical future steps that we have identified as being needed to make the FOV truly useful. One is automation – the current FOVs are hand-crafted using the Figma software. It appears that creating an interactive web application using open-source frameworks is doable, and this is a short-term goal of the team.”

We do not think that the FOV is in any way limited to maize production systems, or to systems of a particular size, so we stand by introducing the “exemplar” in 2.2.1 without discussing it prior.

(An aside, our authors examine a range of critical new farming practices including cover crops and perennial groundcovers. In those contexts, we publish research focused on selecting the appropriate field actions and timing. The need to communicate these critical points to stakeholders and each other drove the initial concept. Guaranteeing “the times are appropriate for field actions” is beyond the scope of this paper.)

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

5. Additional clarifications

NA

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below (in red) and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Please see details below.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Please see details below.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Please see details below.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Please see details below.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Please see details below.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Title: Word testing: Have you applied this method in the field?   I think you need to replace this word.

Response 1: The four surveys of different populations of ag-knowledgeable individuals, totaling over 60 persons, was a series of tests of the effectiveness of the FOVs at conveying information. For this reason, we prefer to leave the word in the title.

Comments 2: Abstract- 

-        Describe the problem statement, what's the impact of measuring this method.

-        present the innovation point in the abstract.

-        focus more on the main results

-        Describe the methodology

-        add the conclusion  of this work

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out these concerns. We revised the wording to clarify that there is a research capability gap related to our ability to explain to farmers, landowners, and other researchers the specific timing requirements of a cropping systems. Furthermore, we modified to emphasize that this this lack of “timing visualization capacity” is particularly a barrier to novel system deployment and improvement.

Comments 3: Introduction

-need to add more recent articles related to the subject. It needs also some improvements to show the problem statement, previous studies related to this work and the research gap. How will this work cover this gap?.

-Please summarize the previous studies and explain what has not been done and the necessity of this study.

- Does this innovative method have an impact on the carbon footprint and achieving sustainability? This should be explained in detail in the introduction.

- The last paragraph )line 55 to 62) should be rephrased so that the objective of the research is clear.

Response 3: Thank you for these suggestions.

Regarding the first two bullets: We did extensive searches in major databases (Web of Science) looking for papers that discuss visualization of agricultural field operations. Our intro reflects those papers – there are extremely few of them. We believe our discussion (lines xxx to xx) does explain directly how the gap can be filled by this work.

Regarding the third bullet – yes, excellent point and thank you. We have added wording to the first paragraph “…and ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and nutrient retention…” to call this out.

Regarding the fourth bullet – this is an excellent point and an oversight on our part. We have added as the first sentence of the last paragraph of the introduction the following: “The objective of this work was to develop a high-quality FOV capable of representing the agricultural field operations timing sequence of any proposed (or existing) agricultural production system.”

Comments 4: Material and Methods

-        Line 179 delete 2.3.1

-         Methodology not clear, what program did you use in the design, and the steps clearly?

-        What are the limitations of your study?

Response 4: Thanks for your comments, the section number [2.3.1] has been deleted. We note the following:

-        2.1. Overview provides a summary of the methodology used in the study

-        Figure 1 illustrates this as well

We stated challenges faced, e.g., Line 72 “The process revealed some proposed features were unachievable with the current tools, necessitating the formulation of guiding criteria and constraints. This led to the creation of refined digital illustrations in Microsoft PowerPoint”

Comments 5: Results and discussions

-   The study could be strengthened by including a sensitivity analysis to show how the groups you selected( 1) Graduate students…(2)… affect the finalresults 

-  The aim of the research is stated as achieving sustainability, the results lack how this study achieves sustainability through technical, economic, and environmental aspects

More discussion is needed to compare the results obtained with previous recent works to promote the present study.

Response 5: Thanks for the feedback and suggestion. Although the article may benefit from a sensitivity analysis, we are unable to include them due to the following reasons

-        The goal for ranking the FOV designs was to ascertain the most preferred designs and not to investigate the reason for the participants decisions

-        There are variations between the groups and responses are highly subjective

Hence, we deem our selected approach as sufficient in finding the design elements in each FOV that makes them impactful.

With regards to “achieving sustainability” with the FOV, we believe we do not draw a direct causation but rather seek to address a communication challenge stated by farmers who are willing to adopt modern farming practices which are environmentally-friendly and more sustainable.

Comments 6: Conclusion: What is your contribution to the present study

Response 6: Thanks for the enquiry. We think the sentences below in the conclusion section addresses your question:

[Line 423] – “This study presents the FOV, a new visual format aimed at improving the communication of operational schedules and timing requirements essential for efficient crop pro-duction”

[Line 441] – “The FOV shows promise as a valuable tool for farmers, agricultural advisors, and re-searchers in planning and optimizing farming operations, particularly for novel and sustainable cropping systems. Its ability to clearly communicate complex operational requirements could play a crucial role in facilitating the adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices”

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Minor editing of English language required.

Response 1: We have done repeated edits and have three coauthors who have served or are serving currently as associate editors for well-respected journals in our respective fields. We feel the English is strong in this paper.

5. Additional clarifications

NA

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Please see below for details.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

Please see below for details.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Please see below for details.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Please see below for details.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Please see below for details.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

Please see below for details.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: this authors declared they proposed a novel cropping systems FOV, How is the quality and quantity of data ensured through online surveys in this article?

Response 1: Thanks for the inquiry. Qualtrics incorporates features like response validation, logic branching, and randomization. These tools help in minimizing respondent bias and ensuring that the data collected is accurate and relevant. It also adheres to stringent data security standards and compliance regulations, such as GDPR and HIPAA. Some references have been provided below:

General Data Protection Regulation // Qualtrics

Response Quality

Question Types

Also, these were targeted groups so that random individuals did not have access to the survey:

“we targeted individuals with robust backgrounds in agronomic sciences and engineering, especially those with experience in crop farming within the Corn Belt region of the United States as ideal participants for providing insightful feedback.

Participants were not chosen through random sampling. Instead, they were carefully selected and classified into distinct groups, allowing each group to benefit from the in-sights gained by its predecessors.”

Comments 2: FOV is a multimodel systems, how to fusion different modal data?

Response 2: The FOV is not really a model, it is a way of doing visual representation of key machinery field operations. We have added a clarifying sentence regarding scope at the end of section 2.1 (lines 68 – 70): “While it is possible to include other operations – e.g., manual scouting, drone imaging – in any of the proposed systems, the focus here was primarily on operations requiring critical machinery.”

Comments 3: More details should be provided on the specific design of the model, the design of the algorithm, and the training of the data.

We apologize for the confusion. There is not an algorithm per se, nor is there training data. This is a paper about a method to visualize the timing of field operations.

Comments 4: How does the system handle the different characteristics of various crops?

Excellent question. Different crops require different field operations at different times. As detailed in Table 2, Constraints section, the FOV uses as input “…tabular input data with the following four fields: (a) Field operation name; (b) Target mid-point date of operation (MM/DD/YY); (c) operation window size (days); (d) Operation category (tillage, planting, chemical application, harvest)” The FOV is therefore crop agnostic.

Comments 5: Some figures are not clear, recommended to use vector graphics or high-resolution original images.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. SVG images will be used

Comments 6: The title is too broad and more like an explanatory report. Have you considered modifying it to a more specific research content as the title?

Response 6: Thank you for this comment. We did iterate a variety of titles prior to submission, and we think this is a fair critique. However, we believe the broad nature of the FOV, and the “here is a new method” nature of the paper mean this is exactly what the title should be. We envision (but have not written at this time!) follow on works where the FOV is used to examine farmer interest in novel cropping systems, or to systematically identify pinch-points for farmers in using a new system – those works will have much more specific titles.

Comments 7: How is the accuracy and reliability of decision-making information ensured in the experimental section? Are there corresponding experimental validations?

Response 7: The reliability of the input data for an FOV representation is entirely up to the user, who specifies the field operation critical information in tabular form.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

5. Additional clarifications

NA

Response to Reviewer 5 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Please see below

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Must be improved

Please see below

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

Please see below

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Please see below

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Please see below

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Please see below

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The paper states that the FOV was iterated through a user-centered process with extensive stakeholder feedback, there is no information on the specific methods used for collecting and incorporating this feedback, as well as the number and diversity of stakeholders involved. Providing details about the development process would enhance the credibility and robustness of the research

Response 1: Thank you very much for your review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of describing the methodology, especially around the user-centered development process and stakeholder involvement.

We believe that our article addresses this aspect by outlining the iterative approach and the nature of stakeholder feedback without delving into the specifics, which could detract from the primary focus of the paper. Reference can be made to the paragraphs below (not exhaustive):

Paragraph 1 [Line 179] – “Our study adopted a cross-sectional research design to explore stakeholder preferences for the optimal FOV design [31]. To gather this feedback, we deployed an online questionnaire. The collection and subsequent analysis of the survey data would be crucial in identifying significant patterns and trends in stakeholder preferences. In-sights gained from each phase would be instrumental in guiding the iterative enhancements and modifications of the FOV design. This process allows for a responsive and informed approach to the design.”

Paragraph 2 [Line 187] – “To assess the effectiveness of the FOV designs, particularly its capacity to accurately convey the sequencing, duration, and time sensitivity of field operations, we developed a comprehensive online questionnaire. This was distributed via the Qualtrics XM platform to the selected group of participants. It featured a multidimensional structure, incorporating a combination of multiple-choice, open-ended, and ranking questions. Additionally, background questions were included to gather qualitative insights from participants' perspectives.”

Paragraph 3 [Line 360] – “Throughout the development process, stakeholder feedback was invaluable in refining the FOV. Despite generally positive receptions, participants provided constructive critiques that was instrumental in guiding further enhancements to the FOV. Recommendations included improving color differentiation for better readability and inclusivity, especially for color-blind users, and depicting multi-year rotations based on historical data to add realism. Suggestions also emphasized the need for the FOV to adapt to seasonal weather changes, acknowledging the dynamic nature of agricultural operations.”

Comments 2: “The paper mentions that the Field Operations Visualizer (FOV) was iterated through a user-centered process with extensive stakeholder feedback. It would be beneficial to provide more details on the specific methods used for collecting and incorporating this feedback, as well as the number and diversity of stakeholders involved. This information would help assess the robustness and inclusivity of the development process”

Response 2: Thanks again for your feedback. We do, however, believe the current level of details in the sections below addresses your comment:

“3.3.1. Incorporating stakeholder recommendations

Throughout the development process, stakeholder feedback was invaluable in refining the FOV. Despite generally positive receptions, participants provided constructive critiques that were instrumental in guiding further enhancements to the FOV. Recommendations included improving color differentiation for better readability and inclusivity, especially for color-blind users, and depicting multi-year rotations based on historical data to add realism. Suggestions also emphasized the need for the FOV to adapt to seasonal weather changes, acknowledging the dynamic nature of agricultural operations.

3.3.2. Enhancements in Revision 5.x

With the transition to Revision 5, encapsulated in Prototype 8.4.C as seen in Figure 14, the FOV saw significant enhancements aimed at incorporating the suggestions and feedback. This iteration introduced features such as the depiction of ideal fieldwork days and anticipated workloads, equipping users with a more refined understanding of seasonal variations and their impact on farm operations. Days suitable for fieldwork in Prototype 8.4.C was based on an extension resource which averages the suitable days from 1964 to 2019 with the central district selected for the illustration”

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Minor editing of English language required.

Response 1: We have done repeated edits and have three coauthors who have served or are serving currently as associate editors for well-respected journals in our respective fields. We feel the English is strong in this paper.

5. Additional clarifications

 NA