Evaluation of Sustainable Water Resource Use in the Tarim River Basin Based on Water Footprint
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1) Poor writing style by the authors noted. For instance, one sentence paragraphs and generally short sentences are a major chaaracteristics of the draft manuscript.
2) Values presented should include the standard deviation from the mean as well for rainfall, temperature, yield etc
3)CRW is best calculated on a monthly basis based on the varoius crop development stages rather than using one consolidated value.
4) revise Equation 1 to include the four development stages over the entire crop development period.
5)There are field methods of determining the Total available water (TAW) and therefore, this element should be clearly included and used to refine the results. Further, ther are simple field methods of determining field infiltration rates that are comparable to rainfall rates. Bring out this aspect clearly in the write up.
6) data presented under Table 2 should include standard deviation values where possible.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors assess the sustainable water resource based on water footprint. Although, the paper is interesting, but, it is very difficult to read the paper due to poor English used in the paper. I suggest some comments before the revised paper:
-Abstract: Actually, what can do the author in abstract. Authors hapazadlly provided all the information n this section. Please rewrite it, background, knowledge gap, hypothesis/ objectives, results and concluding remarks
-Introduction: What is the justification of this research, how this study can contribute the past literature? what is the knowledge gap? those are unclear in this section. I suggest authors rewrite this section. Because, it is poorly written. You can introduce DPSIR model and its advantage and show the research gap. Yu should clearly write the objective and hypothesis of the study
-method- what is the justification for using DPSIR model in this research?.
what is the quality control of the dataset?
-Discussion- The study lack of scholarly discussion. I suggest authors will add limitation, and future research direction
-conclusion- not convincing. its tooo long. It should main finding, novelty, policy implication, further studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Find the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript concerns the sustainable water resources use in the Tarim River Basin, China, by using the water footprint approach. The contribution is important from the point of view of optimal water use for sustainable agriculture. However, I would like to propose to the Authors to introduce some changes in order to make the manuscript more clear. Below please find my remarks and sugestions:
1. Proofreding of the manuscript is a must; some parts are not readible due to very long sentences, or a lack of verb in a sentence, e.g.
"5. Conclusion Based on the water footprint theory, this paper calculated and analyzed the irrigation water and crop production water footprint of food crops in the Tarim River basin from 2000 to 2019, and conducted a spatial and temporal analysis of the water footprint of food production and the blue water resources, which account for a large proportion of the water footprint composition; based on the calculation results, we constructed a water resources sustainable use evaluation system and used the comprehensive index method to evaluate the sustainability of water resources. "
Such a text has to be divided in separate sentences. Other examples:
"Agriculture, as the largest water-using sector in the world[2]. Consumes most of the water resources in the production process, among which water for food production is of key concern due to its huge consumption and impact on regional water resources[3]. "
"Before 2010, the Tarim River The sustainability of the watershed is less than 0.4, that is, the sustainability of water 25 resources is basically unsustainable and basically unsustainable."
When submitting the manuscript, please make sure that correction was done; the reviewer is loosing time trying to quess what the Authors wanted to say. Besides, if You would like to get high quality remarks, your text should be well prepared and understandable.
2. Introduction: Lines 70-82. Please clearly formulate scientific questions/hypotheses/novelty of the approach applied.
3. Figure 1: Please correct hydrographic network by using the same color, or differentiate different tributaries but then add proper legend. Besides, design a figure in a way that names of the districts are within the districts. Small inset of inset is not viisible. Could You please enlarge the Figure?
4. Section 2.2. Water Footprint Calculation for Food Production:
Please decribe how your approach is similar/different from those You have mentioned. What is novelty in your approach not applied earlier by others?
5. Line 137: CROPWAT model: please refer to the literature, please cite proper source, and version of the model.
6. Equation 3: please explain the correction factor of 10.
7. Equation 4 and 5: what is a time step for calculating these values to find maximum and minimum? Please add explanation.
8. Please explain what is meant by Pe (effective precipitation)
9. Line 160: CROPWAT software - please cite proper link, literature, version..
10. Line 199: please explain the abbreviation AHP
11. Line 226: what criterion was used to divide it into 4 levels?
12. Figure 3 should be placed in results. Besides, trend lines and method of trend analysis should be described in methods section. Which method is applied to say there is a trend or ther is no trend?
13. Line 274: First You describe Fiigure 6, and then Figure 5; please correct.Placement of figures should be in these sections where they are cited.
14. Line 281: What is meant by "positive trend of correlation"??
15. Lines 416-421: Please correct
16. Lines 434-440: Please correct
17. Line 447: Spatial distribution of what? Please add explanation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
authors have addressed all the raised concerns. Now, it can be accepted for publication
Author Response
Thank you for your second letter and reviewer comments on our manuscript entitled "Assessment of Sustainable Water Use in the Tarim River Basin Based on Water Footprint" (Manuscript ID: sustainability-1828066).
Based on your comments and suggestions, it has been thoroughly checked and revised.
Thank you very much again sincerely.
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to thank the authors for their revised version following the comments and suggestions. However, there are some aspects should be clarified before publication such as “20a period” in Line328 and 386.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors: thank You for your response and addressing my suggestions. There are still couple of small corrections that might improve your manuscript. Please consider them:
Figure 1: In legend, please remove the word "Value (m)" and add "m a.s.l."
scale bar usually ends with 300-0-300 km...
In left-upper corner, there is an inset. In this inset, there is another inset: in my opinion it does not clear up more than the large inset; I suggest to remove it.
Figure 3: Please correct symbols; as in text (Equation 2) and Table 1, the Water Footprint is named as WFblue and WFgreen, please correct symbols that occur here in the Figure 3, to keep consistency.
Figure 3: Please locate Figure 3 in the section "Results". Please mark in the Figure, which R2 belongs to which WF, it is not clear. You can also relocate the R2 values to put them under each element of the WF legend. The Point 12 in the Review 1 was not fully addressed:
Point 12: Figure 3 should be placed in results. Besides, trend lines and method of trend analysis should be described in methods section.
Response 12: According to the comments and suggestions, the order and position of the illustrations in the text have been changed, and the corresponding text description has been corrected.
Line 380: 3.89 × 106 tons in 2000 to 6.75 × 106 tons; please correct
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
