All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I would like to thank you for accepting the referees' suggestions and improving your article based on their suggestions. Your article is ready to publish. We look forward to your next article.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Dezene Huber, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors!
Thank you very much for answering all my questions, I have no more questions regarding the manuscript.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Edits suggested by the authors were made
Please carefully read the reviewers' suggestions about your article. If you do not accept one or more of their suggestions, give your reasons.
Please linguistically improve your article.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The authors endeavoured to classify S. transiliense, C. arenarius, P. sibirica, and bare land by utilising hyperspectral imaging data. Although a lot of work has been done, the main drawback of the work remains the lack of reproduction of the experimental result over time.
The paper references outdated articles that no longer accurately reflect the current state of the issues being addressed (Lines 50, 53, 58, 63, 66…). Reference should be made to more modern works.
Why weren't more efficient methods such as Random forest, CNNs, etc. applied for the task at hand? (Dainelli et al., 2021)?
Dainelli, R., Toscano, P., Di Gennaro, S.F. et al., 2021. Recent Advances in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Forest Remote Sensing—A Systematic Review. Part II: Research Applications. Forests 12, 397. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040397
The use of ANOVA and LDA assumes that the data are normally distributed. It is known that most vegetation indices are not normally distributed (Raeva and Karel, 2020; Martín-Sotoca et al., 2019; Bounouh et al., 2020). In particular, the DVI distribution for Seriphidium transiliense in April. Results of tests for normality of distribution should be reported.
Raeva, P., Karel, P.Jr., 2020. GEOSPATIAL AND TEMPORAL ANALYSES OF RURAL AREA FOR VEGETATION ANALYSIS. Stavební obzor - Civil Engineering Journal. 29. 246-254. 10.14311/CEJ.2020.02.0021
Martín-Sotoca, J.J., Saa-Requejo, A., Moratiel, R. et al., 2019. Statistical analysis for satellite-index-based insurance to define damaged pasture thresholds, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 1685–1702, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-1685-2019
Bounouh, O., Tarquis, A.M., Essid H. et al., 2020. "Normality of NDVI Time Series Under Scope: Case Study of Various Plant Types of Tunisia, A Mediterranean Country," 2020 Mediterranean and Middle-East Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (M2GARSS), Tunis, Tunisia, pp. 355-358, doi: 10.1109/M2GARSS47143.2020.9105227
It is known that models built according to remote sensing data often do not work in other periods of the study. This is also confirmed in this study (section "Characteristic parameter discrimination" and "Vegetation index model and accuracy evaluation").
Lines 81, 88. A misspelling of the author of the taxon.
Figure 3. All text must be in English.
Line 133. Please specify the spatial resolution.
Line 140. “A total of 150 images were collected”. Maybe 450?
Line 167. Why were these 12 vegetation indices chosen? Why were wide-band indices used if the survey was conducted using a hyperspectral camera?
Table 4, 5. What are a, b, c? From the names of the tables it is not clear what kind of data they contain.
Line 240. How does "1200 samples of the three plants and bare land" correspond to the data in the "Extraction of spectral data" section?
abstract
The abstract needs a revision. In this section, please mention First-order differential processing. How many samples were used to test the discriminations? The results in the abstract should be rewritten because the meaning is not clear. The conclusion in the abstract should be improved, for instance, which vegetation index was more convenient to identify the species?
Introduction
Please follow universal rules about writing Latin names of plants.
Please check all references you cited in your article, for instance,
Lie et al. (2010) in line 50 is not available. Please replace it with another one.
Please check the date of Boegh et al. (2012) in line 58.
Please check the author of Ce et al. (2020) in line 59.
Material and Method
Please change the title of Figure 1, this title does not reflect this figure.
Please give a reference for the meteorological data you used in the article.
Please detail the title of Table 1.
You should check all tables and figures in the article.
Please check the number of parallel transects in line 126.
Please write the formula of Fisher discriminant analysis in line 170.
Please write how you analyzed your data including software.
Results
Results should be comprehensively revised. In the current way, the section looks like a scientific report instead of an article.
Discussion
Please check your reference in line 342 (Roos and Scott, 2018) because in the article I did not find a statement about the spectral reflectance.
Please check your references like in line 362.
You should discuss your data with previous studies based on characteristic parameters and vegetation indices. Therefore, you should use fewer values in the discussion and discuss them. Please give details about your cited studies such as line 377.
I suggest combining results and discussion sections.
Conclusion
The last sentence of the conclusion seems to belong to the result section. This section should be completely revised.
Additional suggestion
Your article needs linguistic revision, especially grammatical corrections. I suggest you should get help from one of your colleagues or our editing service to edit your article.
The references needs to be revised. For example, Ghada K, Mona Y. 2021 is given in the references, but it is written as Ghada K, Mona Y. 2020 in the introduction.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.