Risk Assessment of Waterlogging in Major Winter Wheat-Producing Areas in China in the Last 20 Years
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
---------- Specific issues ----------
1. In line no. 3 of the abstract, “Studying the change trend” should be replaced with “Studying the changing trend”.
2. The keyword should be a word not a sentence kind of thing and therefore replace “main winter wheat production areas in China” with a suitable keyword.
3. The source given in the 3rd line of the Introduction section “(https://www.fao.org)” must belong to the exact page on FAO website, where the fact is mentioned.
4. Replace “Woolmer et al. [21]” by “[21]”, “Araki et al. [22]” by “ [22]” , “Cannell et al. [25]” by “[25]”.
5. Replace “waterlogging is affected by t various” with “waterlogging is affected by various”.
6. Revise the caption of Figure 1, it should be self-explanatory. What does the grey colour on the map show? North arrow, scale and legend of the map are basic elements of a good map and all are missing from it.
7. In equation 1, how did the ?? and ?? were calculated? Incorporate the calculation of it in section 2.3.1.
8. In section 2.3.2, replace “sunshine time in this moth” with “sunshine time in this month” to remove the spelling mistake.
9. Section 2.4 can be removed and the software used to plot the graphs can be mentioned in the acknowledgement section of the manuscript.
10. Which correlation method was adopted in the present study, mention the method and the reason to select it in the methodology section. How significant are the correlation results? The degree of correlation shown in Table 1 is not satisfactory and therefore the results on the association of different parameters with each other cannot be relied on. The recent study by Saini et al. (2022) can be cited in this manuscript concerning the correlation method and significance level used.
Saini, A. et al. (2022) ‘Unraveling Intricacies of Monsoon Attributes in Homogenous Monsoon Regions of India’, Frontiers in Earth Science, 10(March), pp. 1–17. doi:10.3389/feart.2022.794634.
11. Explanation of the correlation in the results section must also show the value of the correlation coefficient along with its level of significance.
12. The caption of Figure 2 must be self-explanatory too. The explanation on different panels in Figure 2 is missing in its caption and the font of the labels can be transformed into black colour rather than grey.
13. Revise the caption of Table 3. Replace “Region division” with “Regional division”.
14. The increase/decrease of different parameters shown in Figures 2-6 must be tabulated in a table to show the monotonous increase/decrease in the parameters along with their level of significance. The whole study is based on the trend of waterlogging risk and even the title of the manuscript mentions this, however the method used to calculate the trend is mentioned neither in the methodology section nor anywhere in the results section. A paper by Saini et al. (2021) and its explanation can assist (especially Figure 5 mentioned in their study).
Saini, A. and Sahu, N. (2021) ‘Decoding trend of Indian summer monsoon rainfall using multimethod approach: (Century long Indian monsoon rainfall trend)’, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 35(11), pp. 2313–2333. doi:10.1007/s00477-021-02030-z.
15. How the level of significance was calculate as mentioned in section 4.3 in line “Among them, the precipitation in Nanjing and Hefei was significantly higher than that in other cities”?
16. Colour contrast in all the figures of the manuscript can be increased to highlight the variation in the colour in a much better way and make the figure more appealing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been well prepared.
The abstract is properly prepared
The introduction is adequately prepared. I have one comment.
The following text is not needed in the introduction as it relates to materials and methods.
„We conducted statistical analysis on the meteorological data such as ten-day sunshine time and ten-day precipitation during different wheat growth stages, calculated wheat climate yield through the moving average simulation method, studied the waterlogging index, the annual occurrence frequency of water-logging, the annual average yield reduction rate of waterlogging and other parameters”
The objective is too poorly articulated
The research methodology is correct
The results are accurately described. It seems that a more synthetic description of the results would be beneficial, but I do not think this is necessary.
Figures are properly prepared and described
Tables.
Table 3 should read Grade II instead of Grade III
The title of table 4 is not very clear. It would be better to take the title from the sentence introducing Table 4.
„precipitation and interannual variation of precipitation during wheat growth period in different cities were significantly different (Table 4).”
The discussion could be broader in scope, not limited to the most important winter wheat production region in China.
The conclusions are appropriate
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please make some little improvement.
For example Introduction should not be too long.
If possible please give also recommendation(s) for further research.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised manuscript still needs a lot of English revision and spell checks.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment, we have used English editing services supplied by MDPI (https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english). Here attached the certificate.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
