Water Requirements and Comprehensive Benefit Evaluation of Diversified Crop Rotations in the Huang-Huai Plain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review Report

Title: Water requirements and comprehensive benefit evaluation of diversified crop rotations in the Huang-Huai Plain

 In this paper, entitle “Water requirements and comprehensive benefit evaluation of diversified crop rotations in the Huang-Huai Plain. The work provided novel information to understand the water requirements and comprehensive benefit evaluation of diversified crop rotations. In general, this manuscript shows well design and data and merits publication in sustainability. However, there are still some minor issues that need to be revised prior to publication. Some descriptions need to be concise and clarify.

Comments:
1. The language of the article is generally assured, but some grammar usage should be checked
again.

2. Add the solid conclusion at the end of the abstract section according to study hypothesis

3. Increased the number of key words of the manuscript more specifically
4. In the Instruction, there is little reports which focused on rotation of various crops, please add it.

5. Hypothesis of the study is missing; add the study gap (what is new in this study?). Authors should provide a clear research question and explain clearly what is new about your work and provide a clear hypothesis.

6. Results and discussion section of the article is weak, authors mainly focused on their results but they did not discuss them according to international standards. Moreover the writing style of results and discussion section is also ambiguous, with long and weak sentences and in a repetitive way. I am not convinced with the way of discussion of the authors, in its current form it cannot be accepted in sustainability. I will recommend a thorough revision of this section.

7. Quality of figures should be improved. They must be uniform in format, letter font and size should be the same as the remaining manuscript body. 

8. The conclusions should answer the hypothesis of your study and should focus on the implication of your findings. Please, avoid using abbreviations and acronyms in this section

9. Language, wording and paraphrasing should be carefully reviewed and improved. A native English-speaking scientist or professional English editing service must edit your manuscript.
10. The reference of the article needs to be checked, revised and formatted.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Language, wording and paraphrasing should be carefully reviewed and improved. A native English-speaking scientist or professional English editing service must edit your manuscript.

Author Response

please read the attached word file. Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study assessed crop water requirements and irrigation needs for eight crops and constructed 14 crop rotations. The authors quantified  the crop water requirement and irrigation water requirement of eight crops from 2013 to 2018 using the SIMETAW model applied to the Shangqiu area in the Huang-Huai Plain. Fourteen crop rotations with a crop index (CI) of 1.5 or 2, representing the number of crop harvests per rotation cycle year, were created based on the ROTAT model.  The authors reported that the alternative rotations significantly reduced water needs by 9-21% compared to the conventional winter wheat-summer maize rotation.

The paper targets an interesting topic, i.e., diversified crop rotation, which is a farming practice that involves systematically growing different types of crops on a particular piece of land over multiple seasons or years. Generally, the diversified crop rotation offers some benefits, including pest and disease management, improved soil fertility, reduced reliance on chemical inputs, and enhanced overall sustainability of agricultural systems. It is an important tool for promoting long-term productivity and resilience in farming practices. In this sense, the paper is well written and organized, and provide useful information for the reader. Nevertheless, I have a major concern about the applicability of the results and suggestions provided by this study.

Successful crop rotation depends on the varieties of factors that were not fully considered in this study that can affect the final outcome.

First are the regional conditions (i.e., temperature, precipitation patterns, soil fertility, drainage). Do the regional conditions guarantee any crop rotation? The nutrient requirements, maturity periods, root structures, and the ability to fix nitrogen or suppress weeds, and generally growth habits of the crops considered in this study are different from one another. Thus, the theoretical findings may not be applicable to the real world conditions of the region.

Second, depending on the ultimate goal of the crop rotation in a region, the results may vary. For example, is the goal improving soil health? Or managing pests and diseases? Or maximizing yields? Or optimizing resource use? Or meeting market demand? Each region may have a different priority and that could cause the outcome to change.

 

Minor comments:

The section about the evaluation of diversified crop rotations based on Entropy-TOPSIS (section 3.5) is not clear. First how PCA was done here with these inputs? Was it applied to the yearly values?

What was the main purpose of using PCA and what is the main conclusion drawn based on this clustering?

There are a couple of comments that I also highlighted in the annotated pdf. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please read the attached word file. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

sustainability-2417758: This paper is nicely prepared. However, some points need to be improved. 

1) “2.1. Study area”: Soil properties should be mentioned.

2) Statistical analysis should be mentioned in the Method section.

3) Figure 1(b): Delete “2012” and “2019”.

4) Figures 2-5 should be denoted the meaning of the letters (e.g., a, b, c, …). What does it represent? 

5) Lines 464-472: The supported studies from the other countries should be discussed about growing less water-consuming crops (e.g., maize, soybean, mung bean, and cassava) could tolerance with drought [69].  Please see this paper. {[69]   Climate change impact on major crop yield and water footprint under CMIP6 climate projections in repeated drought and flood areas in Thailand. Science of the Total Environment 2022. 807, 150741.}

6) Lines 472-473: You can add that “soybean could also reduce carbon footprint [70]”. Please see this paper. {[70]   Alternative cropping systems for greenhouse gases mitigation in rice field: A case study in Phichit province of Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 2016, 133: 657-671.}

-

Author Response

please read the attached word file, thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved their work but there are still missing parts that have not been accurately modified considering my previous comments.

My first comment targeted the ultimate goal of the crop rotation in the study region. The authors need to specifically discuss the goal of crop rotation in their study region.

I suggest the authors modify/add their last paragraph of their response to my first comment to the manuscript: “This study highlights potential, promising alternative crop rotations which can be considered in the future for sustainable agricultural development in the study region. Meanwhile, the paper’s methodology used can be adapted to other water stressed agricultural regions. Candidate rotations for such regions would be defined according to the local weather, soil, social, and economic conditions. Regarding the multiple values of diversified crop rotations in soil health, managing pests and diseases, and optimizing resource use, those are beyond of scope of this study, however, they are definitely worthy of expounding in future studies.”

 

In my other comment of the previous revision, I asked the authors to explain about the fact that agricultural intensification is not always possible due to the limited water availability in many regions. The authors responded that they have enhanced this in the Discussion part. But I did not find the part related to this section. Please refer to the annotated pdf and check my comment on the discussion part related to this section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see the attached file, thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form.

-

Author Response

Thanks so much for your positive comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf