General comments.-

The article tests multiple machine learning methods for the prediction of VHI (agricultural drought) in Brazil on land cultivated by maize and soybean. It uses as predictors climate variables, soil moisture, and drought indices such as SPI and SPEI at multiple time scales. The article lacks the use of substantial and proper references about the matter. The article does not state a clear definition of the objectives, which could lead to a better structure for the manuscript. Due to this, it was hard to follow and understand the storyline. Finally, the manuscript looks careless, with multiple typographical errors.

TITLE.

The word "impact" in the title induces me to think about the consequences of drought (socio-economic, human, etc.). The title should be improved.

INTRODUCTION

The introduction is not easy to follow; it doesn't have a clear scientific meaning, has vague sentences, and does not have a proper order of ideas. It needs some improvements to make it scientifically sound. For example, the paragraph talking about drought impacts on Brazil should be moved up before the paragraph talking about drought monitoring (L35). Also, it should be presented with some numeric figures of the real impact rather than solely indicate where it has impacted. Further, the paragraph describing previous works using machine learning lacks robustness; it should not only describe what types of methods have been used but also describe what results these works have had. The definition of the objectives is vague; the authors should go directly to the scientific aims of the work rather than deviate toward the potential benefits of the results or come back to defining the importance of the indices. Defining two or three clear objectives that will lead the work is preferred.

METHODS

It is needed to provide a better description and justification for the use of the crop grid dataset (Tang et. al, 2023) instead of just presenting the reference.

In the sentence (L130), it says, "... NDVI which is in turn converted to TCI, VCI, and the vegetation health index (VHI)," which implies that the TCI is derived from NDVI when in fact it is derived from the thermal bands.

Please add a table for a better comprehension of all the satellite data used in this work and its characteristics.

There is too much description of the data used, but it was not calculated in this work. I believe it should be good to reduce this and focus on what was made in this work, i.e., forecasting by machine learning. The acronym for the method used is not described here.

In the evaluation section, the authors describe classification methods for the onset of drought; this method should have been described earlier in the manuscript. The section on evaluation should have only the methodology for evaluation (e.g., metrics of performance).

I think it is important to somehow analyze the spatial cross-validation. But, as it is currently written, it is not clear to me what the purpose of the spatial clustering analysis is. It needs further clarification regarding its link with the rest of the methodology. Also, authors should not cite figures from results in the methods section. The cluster allows for the splitting of the data (training and testing), and it affects the regression (forecasting) and classification (onset of drought)¿?

RESULTS

There is an excessive number of figures that can be reduced. For example, Figs. 14, 15, and 16 could be reduced to one and perhaps a table summarizing the results.

The study area includes crops of soybean and maize; it would be good to know how the ML model performs per crop type.

The quality of Fig. 17 is poor.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion is too general and does not specifically state what the main results are. What variables were the best predictors for VHI? What machine-learning methods achieve the best performance? What is the main contribution to the drought research in the article?

The authors explored machine learning as a method to forecast the vegetation health index (VHI), for large scale monthly drought monitoring across agricultural land in Brazil. Though the work is largely well-written, the article still needs significant improvement in the introduction, results and discussion, and conclusion sections. Considering my observations as follows, I suggest major revisions before considering it for publication. 

1. There are too many paragraphs in the introduction. I suggest to rewrite the introduction with 3 paragraphs, highlighting the basic content of the research field in the first paragraph. Then review the research progress of the literature in the second paragraph, and in the third paragraph, analyze the limitations of past research and clarify the innovation of your own research.
2. The importance of ML compared to other methods such as statistical, probabilistic, and time series modeling for drought monitoring and drought forecasting is missing in the introduction section. I would suggest to add this in the introduction section.
3. The description under section 2 (page 3; line 85, 90, and 95) is not so much important. Please delete these lines.
4. Rewrite the study area highlighting the key geographic features, climate, and physiography of the study area. Please omit the first three line of the study area.
5. The author used 1,2- and 3-month SPI. Why did the author not use the SPI 6? SPI 6 indicates the seasonality of agricultural drought.
6. Why was only precipitation used as a predictor variable? Was it average precipitation or total precipitation? I think using only precipitation does not make any sense as the author used SPI and SPEI index, which is the form of precipitation-based drought index. In this regard, I would suggest adding precipitation anomaly index (PAI) as a predictor variable instead of only using precipitation. 
7. In case of the machine learning model what amount of data was used for training, validation and testing of the model? I mean, how was the model built? How was it calibrated? The most important parameters and the choice of values for the model were not explained sufficiently much more explanation needed.
8. What does “SEA AV” mean for? What kind of model was it? What is the utility of using “SEA AV” model?
9. Page-16 (line 300): Please close the first bracket for “(Figure 7”
10. The author discussed only the forecasting performance of various machine learning models. But I did not see any forecasted results of VHI by the machine learning model, which performed better compared to other models. It is very important to add results of forecasted VHI by the best machine learning model.
11. Conclusion can be improved by highlighting the innovation content of the paper, future research direction, and recommendation for policy formulation.