Effect of Climate Change on the Quality of Soil, Groundwater, and Pomegranate Fruit Production in Al-Baha Region, Saudi Arabia: A Modeling Study Using SALTMED
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented a study of assessment of climate change on soil and GW quality of local horticultural crops in an arid climate area using SALT-MED model. The strategy that the authors used in the study is acceptable. The article is written in a good manner and has valuable content for the Journal's audience. The article is simple but concise and thorough and should be considered by one a good read. Even though a lot of approaches are possible when assessing climate change impact on an area, this research design is not questionable, but some methods could be better described. The scientific soundness is on point, while there is room for improvement. While the authors are making bold statements in the article, I believe this paper is a good fit for Sustainability.
My minor remarks:
L185: Please be more precise in this paragraph. This is vague. Define YOUR methods in more detail.
Figure 3. I suggest you make one figure out of this and combine it. It's unnecessarily demanding to look at one point in time.
Author Response
Responses to the Reviewer’s comments
Reviewer # 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors presented a study of assessment of climate change on soil and GW quality of local horticultural crops in an arid climate area using SALT-MED model. The strategy that the authors used in the study is acceptable. The article is written in a good manner and has valuable content for the Journal's audience. The article is simple but concise and thorough and should be considered by one a good read. Even though a lot of approaches are possible when assessing climate change impact on an area, this research design is not questionable, but some methods could be better described. The scientific soundness is on point, while there is room for improvement. While the authors are making bold statements in the article, I believe this paper is a good fit for Sustainability.
Response:
Thank you for this comment, the manuscript revised accordingly
My minor remarks:
Comment:
L185: Please be more precise in this paragraph. This is vague. Define YOUR methods in more detail.
Response:
More detail for model calibration and validation included as follow:
The SALTMED model has been subjected to calibrations and validations by numerous studies. Such as Aly [30] successfully used the SALTMED to simulate the water table, salinity, and yield of olive in the Siwa Oasis, Egypt, Aly et al. [31] successfully calibrated and validated the SALTMED model using greenhouse data of cucumber in Saudi Arabia, Hirich et al. [23] successfully investigated changes in corn yields in the Souss area in Morocco with climate change using the SALTMED, and Hirich et al. [40] successfully calibrated and validated the SALTMED model using field data of three growing seasons of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.).
Comment:
Figure 3. I suggest you make one figure out of this and combine it. It's unnecessarily demanding to look at one point in time.
Response:
The figure revised accordingly
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to the Reviewer’s comments
Reviewer # 2
Comment:
I think this paper has author did a good job discussing, My concern is that literature is not well cited, in the introduction the author writes almost an entire paragraph before citing one or two articles at the end. Major revision is required in that section, and major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clearly stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives at your debate or argument.
Response:
Revised accordingly
Comment:
A more suitable title should be selected for the article.
Response:
The article revised to be: “Impact of climate change on soil and groundwater quality and pomegranate fruit production in Al-Baha region, Saudi Arabia: A modeling study using SALTMED”.
I hope this is proper now.
Comment:
The article should be carefully checked for: typos, space, punctuation marks and uppercase issues.
Response:
The manuscript revised accordingly
Comment:
The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the need for the research, and the major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone
Response:
The abstract revised accordingly
Comment:
Please double-check the manuscript for abbreviations. Abbreviations must be spelled out the first time they are mentioned in the abstract and starting again with the introduction section
Response:
Thanks, the manuscript double-checked for abbreviations
Comment:
The list of keywords should be selected carefully
Response:
The keywords revised accordingly
Comment:
Please be consistent in using the terms like that dS m-1 and (dS/m) whole manuscript
Response:
The manuscript revised accordingly. The dS m-1 adopted all over the manuscript.
Comment:
Line 173. please seen the carefully subscript and superscript thoroughly whole manuscript
Response:
The subscript and superscript thoroughly whole manuscript revised accordingly
Comment:
Line; 356-383 the conclusion part is too much longer it should be concise and informative. So this part to be recasted as it needs proper knitting to make it more appealing. (Take the help of linguistically competent person). Kindly concise the concluding remarks for a gist and clearly mention the how this paper could play role for scientific community. Add some limitations, and underscore the scientific value added to your paper in the conclusion section.
Response:
The conclusion part revised accordingly and with help of linguistically competent person
Comment:
The novelty of the work must be identified and stated. The authors should try to explain why this paper is relevant to the wider readership.
Response:
This research has a new idea and approach and the approach used in this study can be applied in alike environment worldwide. This approach can help to predict and understand the impact of climate change on soil salinity and crop productivity. Furthermore, it can help to address the climate change impacts; consequently, reach sustainability.
Comment:
Please highlight the novelty of work in the right manner. Clearly discuss outcomes and what research gaps it covers. Please show how this paper has a strong correlation with environmental/atmosphere cleaner production/sustainability concerns
Response:
The manuscript revised accordingly
Comment:
Grammar and syntax must be improved. Revision with the help of a native English speaker is highly recommended.
Response:
The manuscript revised with the help of a native English speaker
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to the Reviewer’s comments
Reviewer # 3
Comment:
In the Introduction section, the authors point out the climatic changes that potentially affect groundwater quality. However, it is worth noting that temperature fluctuations are not only a result of climate change but also of the seasons (spring, summer, autumn, winter). Many studies confirm the impact of seasonality on groundwater and water supply quality. I propose to supplement this section with an excerpt of the effects of seasonality on water brightness based on the latest literature: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030981; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-020-00357-6; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124018
Response:
This study focus on one only summer season, August 2020. This helps us to make temporal monitoring since the seasonal variation is fixed. However, the seasonal variations are included in the introduction section.
Comment:
At the end of the Introduction section, please include the structure of the rest of the manuscript, which will improve its clarity.
Response:
The introduction part was ended with the objectives
Comment:
At the end of the Conclusions section, please have the authors indicate the limitations and opportunities for future research in this area.
Response:
The conclusions section revised accordingly
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Review of Sustainability-1925838
General comments: This manuscript describes the calibration and validation of the SALTMED model for estimating future pomegranate yields, soil salinity, and groundwater salinity levels in Saudi Arabia. The manuscript presents some interesting information and findings, but there is a lack of detail in the description of the methodology used which makes me question whether or not proper methods were employed in the study. Thus, I cannot recommend publication unless the authors provide clear responses and revisions to the paper based on the detailed comments below.
Specific comments:
· Lines 24-25: The authors do not provide any support for these assumptions. On what data are these values based? The authors need to provide some evidence for their choices.
· Line 62-63: What is the baseline period to which the authors are comparing these 1995-2020 data? Since a range of decreases are given (i.e., 1.1-1.6 *C), the authors should clarify what data these values are being compared to.
· Line 88: Define “SALTMED”
· Line 111: Change” …it might predict…” to “…it is suitable for predicting…”
· Line 124 and several places elsewhere: should be “mean annual temperatures”
· Line 215: Calibration data cannot be used to validate a model because the datasets are not independent. The authors should clarify what is meant here.
· Line 216: How were calibrated data obtained from field measurements? Again, there is a language issue here and the authors need to clarify what they mean.
· Line 220: The authors need to explain, cite, and described the climate projection dataset used here. This is an enormous omission is the study methodology.
· Line 224: What is the evidence hat the authors have for using these assumed salinity values? No support or citations are provided.
· Figure 3 B is missing approximately 7 years of data.
· Lines 277-282: Is increased soil salinity caused by irrigation with saline water, or by upward migration of salts from groundwater, or both? What is the depth of groundwater here? This information needs to be included in the paper.
· Line 331: Tables 3 and 4 should be moved to an appendix, and only summary statistics should be stated in the text of the paper.
· Line 319: There are significant questions here about the modeling methodology. The authors state that the model was run for the years 2044, 2068, and 2092. How was this done? It seems the authors modeled each year individually rather than running the model for the full 2044-2092 time period. Was there any warm-up period for each of these model years? If not, how certain are the authors that the model results are reliable? What are the error bounds and uncertainty associated with the model outputs? What model forcing data were used? Were there other changes made to the model for each of these years (e.g., simulations of increased groundwater use, etc.)? The authors need to provide a much more thorough explanation of their modeling methodology.
Author Response
Responses to the Reviewer’s comments
Reviewer # 4
Comment:
Lines 24-25: The authors do not provide any support for these assumptions. On what data are these values based? The authors need to provide some evidence for their choices.
Response:
The paragraph revised to be:
It is assumed that the temperature will increase, while the annual rainfall will decrease in upcoming decades. Consequently, the groundwater salinities will increase 1.44, 2.59, and 4.67 dS m-1 for the years 2044, 2068 and 2092, respectively. The results revealed that the soil salinities will increase 113%, 300%, and 675%, respectively compared with the average soil salinity of the year 2020 (2.22 dS m-1). Furthermore, the..
Comment:
Line 62-63: What is the baseline period to which the authors are comparing these 1995-2020 data? Since a range of decreases are given (i.e., 1.1-1.6 *C), the authors should clarify what data these values are being compared to.
Response:
Climatic data were collected for Al-Baha region during the period 1995-2019, the data were collected from the KSA General Authority for Meteorology and Environmental Protection (GAMEP, KSA). The Twenty-five years period was divided into 5 cycles (1995-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2019). The data shows a clear trend of increasing temperatures and decreasing rainfall with time. Therefore, the first cycle period, (1995-1999), was taken as the baseline time period to assess further changes in temperature and rainfall over time. The average values of decreasing rainfall and increasing temperatures presented in the manuscript are, therefore, based on the average values presented in the first cycle.
The paragraph revised accordingly in the manuscript.
Reference: GAMEPKSA (General Authority of Meteorology and Environmental Protection in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), National Center for Meteorology. https://ncm.gov.sa/ar/Pages/default.aspx#. Accessed on July 2022.
Comment:
Line 88: Define “SALTMED”
Response:
The SALTMED model is a generic model that can be used for a variety of irrigation systems, soil types, crops and trees, water application, different water qualities, and others.
Comment:
Line 111: Change” …it might predict…” to “…it is suitable for predicting…”
Response:
Changed
Comment:
Line 124 and several places elsewhere: should be “mean annual temperatures”
Response:
Revised accordingly
Comment:
- Line 215: Calibration data cannot be used to validate a model because the datasets are not independent. The authors should clarify what is meant here.
Response:
Thanks, Calibrated removed. The manuscript revised accordingly.
Calibration data do not be used to validate a model as descripted in the manuscript
Comment:
Line 216: How were calibrated data obtained from field measurements? Again, there is a language issue here and the authors need to clarify what they mean.
Response:
Thanks for this comment, actually there is a problem in language issue.
The sentences “which were obtained from field measurements of irrigation water salinity” removed
Comment:
Line 220: The authors need to explain, cite, and described the climate projection dataset used here. This is an enormous omission is the study methodology.
Response:
The validation process of soil salinity was based on use of the irrigation data, flow rate, duration of irrigation, and climatic data from the year 2020.
Comment:
Line 224: What is the evidence hat the authors have for using these assumed salinity values? No support or citations are provided.
Response:
The following is included to the manuscript:
“the model was run with new irrigation input files for years 2044, 2068, and 2092. It was assumed that the groundwater salinities would be 1.44, 2.59, and 4.67 dS m-1 for these years, respectively. This assumption is depend upon the finding of Alghamdi et al. [20] whose monitored the groundwater of the Al-Baha region over a period of 4 years, 2016- 2020, and found that the average groundwater salinity increased by 27.3%.”
Comment:
Figure 3 B is missing approximately 7 years of data.
Response:
The two parts (A and B) of figure 3 were combined into one figure (now called figure 3) and avoided any missing data in the period 1995-2020.
Comment:
Lines 277-282: Is increased soil salinity caused by irrigation with saline water, or by upward migration of salts from groundwater, or both? What is the depth of groundwater here? This information needs to be included in the paper.
Response:
The following paragraph is included:
“Due to the groundwater of Al-Baha is located in unconfined shallow aquifers (5-10 m in depth), it responds quickly to climate change, low rainfall and increase temperature; therefore, increase salinity [20]. In response to the increase of..”
Comment:
Line 331: Tables 3 and 4 should be moved to an appendix, and only summary statistics should be stated in the text of the paper.
Response:
Tables 3 and 4 moved to an appendix, and only summary statistics stated in the text of the paper
Comment:
Line 319: There are significant questions here about the modeling methodology. The authors state that the model was run for the years 2044, 2068, and 2092. How was this done? It seems the authors modeled each year individually rather than running the model for the full 2044-2092 time period.
Response:
Yes, we modeled each year individually. The Saltmed model has no access to model for the full 2044-2092 time period.
Comment:
Was there any warm-up period for each of these model years? If not, how certain are the authors that the model results are reliable?
Response:
The model calibrated and validated and statistical analyses such as root mean square error (RMSE) and coefficient of residual mass (CRM), and the coefficient of determination (R2) were used.
Comment:
What are the error bounds and uncertainty associated with the model outputs? What model forcing data were used?
Response:
We used statistical analyses such as Root mean square error (RMSE) and coefficient of residual mass (CRM), and the coefficient of determination (R2).
Comment:
Were there other changes made to the model for each of these years (e.g., simulations of increased groundwater use, etc.)? The authors need to provide a much more thorough explanation of their modeling methodology
Response:
Line 371-377: the model predicts that pomegranate yield will be decreased by 24.0%, 36.6%, and 41.6% (Ì´ 6.9, 5.76, and 5.3 ton ha-1) in the years 2044, 2068, and 2092, respectively compared to the yield of the year 2020, if the same amount of irrigation water is used but with increased temperatures and irrigation water salinity (Fig. 7). However, when we assume that the amount of irrigation water will be decreased in the year 2068 and 2092 by 32.5% and 65%, respectively due to precipitation decrease, the yield is then projected to be decreased by 38.3% and 53.7% (5.6 and 4.2 ton ha-1), respectively [26, 34].
I think the modeling methodology and whole manuscript are much more thorough explanation, thanks for valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
none
