Optimal Allocation of Water Resources in Canal Systems Based on the Improved Grey Wolf Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, an improved grey wolf algorithm combined with a particle swarm (IGWO), a genetic-particle swarm fusion algorithm (GA-PSO) and a northern eagle algorithm (NGO) were used. It is an interesting content, but arranged structure needs to be further improved. Therefore, it needs revision before it is published in this journal. Some issues should be carefully addressed. Please check the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1:

Hello! Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper.

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript. The red part that has been revised according to your comments. Specific point-to-point modification instructions are provided in the attached submission.

We apologize for the poor language of the manuscript. We revised the manuscript over a long period of time, and repeated additions and deletions of sentences and sections apparently led to poor readability.

We have now worked hard on both language and readability, and have also had the language revised by institutional professionals. It is our sincere hope that both the fluency and the language level of the manuscript will be significantly improved.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Sustainable development of agricultural water management is a crucial issue under global climate change and water resources scarcity. In this paper, the authors took the canal system in Xinjiang, China as the study object and introduced the improved grey wolf algorithm as well as other algorithms to determine optial alloction of water resources (i.e., least leakage loss). Generally speaking, I think this is an innovative work and can provide new insights into agricultural water management. The importance of intelligent optimization algorithms should be enhanced in this field. However, I also have several major concerns which should be addressed well before paper publication.

(1) I am confused about how the authors selected these four algorithms. I think, for most readers, these methods are not familiar; so, the authors should explain why these methods were selected. As we know, the improved grey wolf algorithm is the key cotent in your work. In my opinon, when one wants to introduce a new method in a certain field, it is better to compare this method with tradition and common methods. In this regard, in addition to the improved grey wolf algorithm, the other three methods are popular or renowned in this research field?

(2) This paper lacks the Discussion section. I know the authors put some contents of discussion into “Results” and “Conclusion”, but even so, I have to say that the authors did not make in-depth discussion. I suggest to add a “Discussion” or “Results and Discussion”. Anyway, the authors should extensively compare their findings with the other scholars’. Only data analysis is far from enough. In addition, I also suggest to add “limitation and future perspective” in Discussion section. Currently, these contents are placed in Conclusion section, this is improper. The author should rewrite their conclusion; this part should be short and concise, only summarizing key findings.

(3)Table 3, why only two algorithms were included here? In addition, I think 2.2.3 should be placed in Results section rather than M&M.

(4) In Table 4, the results of total leakage and diversion time are very close among different methods, and the author stressed that the iterations differed greatly. However, what is the specific influence of iterations? Computing more quickly and costing less time? In practical situations, is this problem really matters? Again, I cannot understand why the authors introduce the three other algorithms.

(5) Throughout the manuscript, many long sentences really bothered me, such as Lines 12-17, 49-54, 297-302, 314-317, etc. These sentences usually have grammar problems, and should be rewritten as short sentences. In scientific writing, clear and precise expression should be placed in the first place.  

Other minor comments:

(6) Line 99, please delete “We”

(7) Line 173, The should be the

(8) Line 362-363, “…was 117500 m³. Reduced 44000 m³” is wrongly written.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2:

Hello! Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper.

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript. The red part that has been revised according to your comments. Specific point-to-point modification instructions are provided in the attached submission.

We apologize for the poor language of the manuscript. We revised the manuscript over a long period of time, and repeated additions and deletions of sentences and sections apparently led to poor readability.

We have now worked hard on both language and readability, and have also had the language revised by institutional professionals. It is our sincere hope that both the fluency and the language level of the manuscript will be significantly improved.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper ‘Optimal allocation of water resources in canal systems based on the improved grey wolf algorithm’ provides a very interesting and innovative study. There are some points which need to be considered for a better presentation of the study, the data analysis is not carried out with force and a discussion section is missing. My recommendation was for “Reconsider after Major Revision.” I have some additional comments and questions.

1)   I suggest restructuring the Introduction. The paragraphs are very long (one has 56 lines) and this discourages reading.

2)   Review all Table and Figure titles. Use Figure 1. and not Figure 1 just for example. Use the . when finishing the title of Figures and Tables.

3)   Table column titles must be capitalized. Use 'Irrigated area' and not 'irrigated area' for example.

4)   Use the title of section 3 as 'Results' and not 'Results and Analysis'.

5)   Enter section 4 Discussion. A full discussion of the results is necessary. Address the main findings and discuss using some references.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3:

Hello! Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper.

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript. The red part that has been revised according to your comments. Specific point-to-point modification instructions are provided in the attached submission.

We apologize for the poor language of the manuscript. We revised the manuscript over a long period of time, and repeated additions and deletions of sentences and sections apparently led to poor readability.

We have now worked hard on both language and readability, and have also had the language revised by institutional professionals. It is our sincere hope that both the fluency and the language level of the manuscript will be significantly improved.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper addresses the problem of optimizing the operation of an irrigation sector based on free surface channels. The objective of the study is to test different optimization algorithms to find which one is more appropriate for the application. The objective function is aimed at reducing the leakages and grouping gate opening and closing operations based on proximity.

The paper is of interest for the journal. Anyway, it needs further improvements.

Some general comments:

1) Grey wolf is a well-known method. Maybe the precise description of the method can be omitted as done for the other methodologies PSO and GA.

2) It is not clear if sections 3.2 and 3.3 are additional results obtained changing the algorithm and the OF or they are results of the algorithm set as discussed in the first part of the paper.

3) English is not always clear; some sentences are confusing and too long. Moreover, sometimes the terms used are not appropriate (specific reviews are in the attached PDF file)

Please find attached a PDF file with point-by-point comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

A deep English review is needed. Many sentences are confusing and too long. Some terms are not appropriate. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 4:

Hello! Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper.

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript. The red part that has been revised according to your comments. Specific point-to-point modification instructions are provided in the attached submission.

We apologize for the poor language of the manuscript. We revised the manuscript over a long period of time, and repeated additions and deletions of sentences and sections apparently led to poor readability.

We have now worked hard on both language and readability, and have also had the language revised by institutional professionals. It is our sincere hope that both the fluency and the language level of the manuscript will be significantly improved.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript's quality has been substantially improved. I recommend its acceptance for publication in its present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have checked the authors' responses and the revised manuscript carefully, and I consider that this paper has already meet the quality requirement of this journal.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for your efforts in revising the work. I think now the paper reached a good quality for publication. Still there are some sentences that are too long (like in the conclusion lines 464-467) and slighltly confusing.