Examining Crop Yield Losses in Iğdır Plain Irrigation Systems in Türkiye Amidst Water Constraints

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper discusses the issue of crop yield losses in the Iğdır Plain of Turkey under water constraints. The article has a complete structure and a clear objective, mainly through the assessment and proposal of measures to improve water resource management efficiency to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The research method integrates field data collection and the CROPWAT 8.0 model, taking into account the local specific crop planting patterns and irrigation needs. The policy recommendations proposed by the study have practical application value in enhancing agricultural sustainability. However, before publishing the paper, the author needs to address the following points:

1. Data Source and Transparency: Although the paper mentions the use of multiple data sources, it lacks detailed information about the specific origins of the data and the methods of data collection. Providing a more detailed description of how these data were obtained and processed would increase the transparency and credibility of the research.

2. Inconsistent Citation Format: In citing references, some do not specify the publication year and author, which may affect the academic rigor and the convenience for readers to trace information.

3. Redundant Content: There is redundant description of water resource management in the methods section, which may be due to editorial oversight. Deleting redundant parts would make the article more concise.

4. Clarity of Diagrams and Models: Some diagrams and models are not explained in detail, especially how specific agricultural recommendations are derived from the model results. Adding detailed explanations of the diagrams could help readers better understand the research findings.

5. Limitations of Discussion Results: Although the study conducts an in-depth analysis of the situation in the Iğdır Plain, it lacks discussion on whether this model is applicable to other regions. Expanding the scope of the research or mentioning the limitations and applicability of this model in the discussion section would be beneficial.

6. Explanation of technical terms: The article uses a large number of technical terms, which may be difficult for non-professional readers to define. Or simplifying the presentation might make the article more accessible to a wider audience.

7. Grammatical errors: There are some grammatical errors in the text, including inconsistent subject and predicate agreement, inconsistent use of tenses, etc. These errors may affect the reader's understanding of the content and the overall quality of the article. Build quality. It is recommended that proofreading be done on the understanding of the content and the overall quality of the article and the grammar to improve the readability and professionalism of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some grammatical errors in the text, including inconsistent subject-verb agreement, inappropriate use of tense, and complex sentence structure. These errors may affect the reader's understanding of the content and the overall quality of the article. It is recommended to proofread and revise the grammar of the entire text to improve the readability and professionalism of the paper.

Author Response

All comments were evaluated and necessary edits were made to the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sustainability

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: 2999443

Title: Examining Crop Yield Losses in Igdır Plain Irrigation Systems in Turkiye Amidst Water Constraints

Article Type: Research article

This manuscript is a good start to understanding the impacts of different levels of irrigation for cash crops in northeastern Turkey. The author need to make improvements to the manuscript in order for this to be suitable for publication in MDPI Sustainability. I would be willing to review this manuscript after co-authors have made the following THIRTY substantive edits:

   1)      It is not clear if actual data from irrigation studies were used to validate the CROPWAT 8.0 model or not. It is not clear 

   2)      In general, the manuscript needs to do a better job of not listing results and the results are extremely repetitive and could be consolidated to improve clarify. 

   3)      Please use “Turkey” throughout the manuscript as that is the common spelling. 

   4)      For the maps in Figure 2, there needs to be (A), (B), and (C) and explanation of these in the title. The Google Earth image does not have latitude, longitude, north arrow, nor distance scale. 

   5)      The maps in Figure 2 are too small and the writing cannot be read. 

   6)      There are tracts of writing that need to be broken up into shorter paragraphs throughout the manuscript. For example, start new paragraph on L60 with sentence starting “The water efficiency rates…” 

   7)      All equations need to be indented relative to the writing. The (#) need to be all the way to the right an in alignment with others. 

   8)      The [#] citations in text are not correct and confusing. Please refer to the template on the MDPI Sustainability website. For example on L29, [5-28-45] could be [5,28-45] which means citations 5 and 28 through 45. Or this could be [5,28,45] which means only citations 5, 28, and 45. 

   9)      A paragraph by definition needs to have a minimum of 3 sentences (topic sentence plus two supporting sentences. For example on L45-49, there are only 3 sentences. Either break up the writing so that there are 3 sentences or add another supporting sentence. 

   10)  Is Table 2 classified as Methods or Results? What is the data source? Did you personally go out and measure this? Or are the data from a government source? If another sources, then you need to cite with [#] and have this listed in the References. 

   11)  In Table 2, numbers like 0.057 are not a percentage but rather a proportion. Please correct all these numbers. Add a column to the left in the table titled Type of Crop so it is easier to understand the types of crops. 

   12)  For certain tables, please widen columns so all of the numbers fit without spilling over to the next line. 

   13)  There should be no writing to the left of the left margin. For example on L217, the word Where: should not be there but rather add to the end of the sentence on L215 a sentence that describes what exactly this equation is. 

   14)  There needs to be a blank row added above and below each equation or block of equations. 

   15)  Font size needs to be consistent throughout the writing. For example, several equations have larger font size. 

   16)  When using crop simulation models, it is important to VALIDATE the model using real world data. This was not done. Either this needs to be done or there needs to be explanation as to why this real world data does not exist. 

   17)  The Results section can reduce the number of graphs by combining graphs where appropriate. Having 11 figures and 12 tables is too many. Please cut in half. Create efficiency in what you graph to reduce this number. Figures and tables that do not support the critical arguments in the manuscript can be put into Appendices or a Supplementary Materials file if need be. 

   18)  For water constraint values graphed in Figures 3 through 11, it is not clear why linear regression was used to fit the data since the data does not conform to a straight line. 

   19)  It would be helpful to present all data points for Figures 3 through 11. 

   20)  Please create separate sections for Results and Discussion. Some of the writing in the Results section can be moved to this new Discussion section. 

   21)  The Discussion section needs to focus on:

a)      Contrasting the model results with field studies from the literature.

b)      Key implications of the model results.

   22)  In all figures, if there is a negative sign used such as for the axis labels, then this needs to use the longer endash symbol and not the shorter hyphen. The endash needs to also be consistently used throughout the manuscript such as for page ranges for cited journal articles, etc. 

   23)  Figures and tables are stand alone in terms of understanding and the reader should not have to refer to the writing to understand what abbreviations stand for. For example in Table 11, what does Du mean? Widen columns to make the writing fit better. 

   24)  For each major section of the manuscript (e.g., Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion), please define abbreviations such as Du in 23) above. Readers often do not read in direct order. 

   25)  For example in Table 7, are “tons” literally English tons or are these metric tons? Please clarify in the label. 

   26)  Do not write the Conclusions section as a series of single sentences during the later half of the Conclusions section. Please write in paragraph format. 

   27)  Keep the Conclusion section to one paragraph (maximum of two paragraphs). 

   28)  All back matter sections are missing between the Conclusion section and the References. Please refer to the Word template for authors provided on the MDPI Sustainability website. 

   29)  The References formatting needs to be consistent with MDPI Sustainability. Please use journal names that are in italics and that are abbreviated (e.g., Soc. Indic. Res.) and for abbreviations look these up via web search by writing the journal name and then abbreviation in the search bar. Year needs to be in bold. Volume (issue) needs to be in italics. The DOI needs to be in https:// format. Please refer to the Word template for authors provided on the MDPI Sustainability website. 

   30)  The Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note is missing after the References section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In general, the writing could improve being edited by a native English speaker. I will edit for line-number specific edits after the first round of revisions are made.

Author Response

All comments were evaluated and necessary edits were made to the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments

The author examined crop yield losses due to various water constraints in Igdir plain, Turkiye.

Throughout the paper, several flaws were noticed, including repetitive content in multiple locations, issues with in-text referencing, data arrangements in tables, etc. Further, the method of data collection the experimental method and the control experiment were not clearly stated. The total yield, water use, and revenue for the control experiment were also lacking. Overall, the paper needs significant formatting improvements.

Additionally, I have the following observations relating to this paper.                                                            

Comment no.	Section/page/line no.	Comment
1	Abstract Page 1 lines 5-24	The abstract should briefly explain the importance of the study, location, methods used, results, and findings.  The reader should be able to get a clear basic view of the study after reading the abstract.  However, the abstract is limited to the above information. Therefore, I recommend rewriting the abstract.
2	1. Introduction Page 2, line 45	In order to ensure … de”mand, … Correct typo in the sentence.
3	Page 2, lines 60-65	Remove repetitive sentences/contents.
4	Page 2, line 79	PWD and SIV Define the abbreviations PWD and SIV.
5	Lines 84 and 89	You have used two different terms for yield, i.e., Yi and Cp, please confirm.
6	Page 3, Table 1	Improve table presentation for clarity.
7	Lines 93, 101,109, 121, 127, 143, 149	Key Performance Indicator (KPI), Define the abbreviation ’KPI’ at its first citation and use it consistently thereafter.
8	Lines 118-119	A research study was undertaken …. Provide a relevant reference for the above statement.
9	Lines 120-121	Clarify the ‘border irrigation’ technique.
10	Lines 122-123	Specify the selected irrigation method (border or furrow irrigation) for clarity.
11	2. Material and Method Table 2, line 193	Improve the table format to clearly identify the 3 different crop types selected, total extent, etc.
12	Page 6, line 218	ETc  …(6)   Change the format (italic E) to match the definition.
13	Page 6, line 229-231	Irrigation efficiency? Did you mean water use efficiency here? Keep it consistent throughout the document. It is not clear with what (Ea*Ec) multiply to calculate the irrigation efficiency. Please include the equation to calculate the irrigation efficiency here to make it clearer.
14	Page 7, Figure 2, Line 251	Improve the figure for better readability. Also, link/explain the image next to the location map.
15	3. Results and discussion Page 8, lines 271-277	Avoid repeated content/ideas. Delete/rearrange.
16	Page 9, lines 296-297	… unit value of water increases,   Is it unit value or constraint value? Pls. confirm.
17	Table 4, Table 5	Improve table formats.
18	Page 11, Lines 341-346	Avoid repeated content/ideas. Delete/rearrange.
19	Page 12, Lines 362	Table 858. 30 ha. It seems something missing here. Correct the sentence.
20	Lines 364, 366	You have separately discussed melon below. Consider combining both or deleting it from here.
21	Lines 383, 384	Refer to comment no. 20
22	Page 18, line 481 Page 19, line 498	.. corn, …. Did you mean maize here?  Pls. make it consistent throughout the paper.
23	Results and discussion	Strengthen the discussion by linking the results to relevant references.
24	References	Reorganize the in-text citations and reference list according to journal recommendations, with references numbered in order of appearance in the text.

Author Response

All comments were evaluated and necessary edits were made to the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sustainability

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: 2999443

Title: Examining Crop Yield Losses in Igdır Plain Irrigation Systems in Turkiye Amidst Water Constraints

Article Type: Research article

This manuscript is a good start to understanding the impacts of different levels of irrigation for cash crops in northeastern Turkey. The author need to make improvements to the manuscript in order for this to be suitable for publication in MDPI Sustainability. I would be willing to review this manuscript after co-authors have made the following FOURTEEN substantive edits:

   1)      It is not clear HOW the data used for the CROPWAT 8.0 model was collected. Please clarify if this was observational data or if it was actually measured by the researchers. 

   2)      For the maps in Figure 2, there needs to be (A), (B), and (C) in upper left corner of each sub-map and explanation of these in the title. This was not corrected. The maps in Figure 2 are still too small and the writing cannot be read. 

   3)      The [#] citations in text are still not correct. Please refer to the template on the MDPI Sustainability website. For example on L30, need to be [4-9] which means citations 4 through 9 and these do not need to be literally listed as 4,5,6,7,8,9. 

   4)      What is the data source of the data presented in Table 2? Government statistical data? You need to cite with [#] and have this listed in the References. 

   5)      In Table 2, all rows other than the top header row should NOT be in bold. 

   6)      There should be no writing to the left of the left margin. There are words and sub-section headers on L211, L221, L265, L286, L304, L330, L346, L365, L383, L390, L406, and L423. The font size is too big and not Palatino Linotype. The sub-header format would be for example: 3.1. Wheat 

   7)      There needs to be a blank row added above and below each equation or block of equations. For example, between L66-67. Please correct this elsewhere. 

   8)      The data in figures do not conform to a linear relationship. Please use non-linear methods for best selection of functional form that fits the data. OLS is not appropriate. Please let specify the functional form. 

   9)      The Results section can reduce the number of graphs by combining graphs where appropriate. Having 11 figures and 12 tables is too many. Combine similar crops on the same graph. Put expected yield and revenue tables into an Appendix where you label as Table A1 for example. 

   10)  The Discussion section needs to focus on: 

a)      Contrasting the model results with field studies from the literature. This was not done. It means you compare your results to the results from similar studies and cite them as [#].

b)      Write more on the key implications of the model results.

   11)  Figures and tables are stand alone in terms of understanding and the reader should not have to refer to the writing to understand what abbreviations stand for. Please write out what Dn and Dt stand for in the first header row. 

   12)  If you write “tons” and you mean metric tons then you need to write in the manuscript as “metric tons.” Tons means English tons. 

   13)  The back matter sections added need to be separated by blank rows. Please follow carefully the Word template for authors provided on the MDPI Sustainability website. 

   14)  The References formatting needs to be consistent with MDPI Sustainability. Please use journal names that are in italics and that are abbreviated (e.g., Soc. Indic. Res.) and for abbreviations look these up via web search by writing the journal name and then abbreviation in the search bar. This was not corrected. Volume (issue) needs to be in italics. Please refer to the Word template for authors provided on the MDPI Sustainability website.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In general, the writing could improve being edited by a native English speaker. I will edit for line-number specific edits after the first round of revisions are made.

Author Response

All comments was evaluated and carried out as much as possible. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sustainability

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: 2999443

Title: Examining Crop Yield Losses in Igdır Plain Irrigation Systems in Turkiye Amidst Water Constraints

Article Type: Research article

This manuscript is a good start to understanding the impacts of different levels of irrigation for cash crops in northeastern Turkey. The author need to make improvements to the manuscript in order for this to be suitable for publication in MDPI Sustainability. I would be willing to review this manuscript after co-authors have made the following EIGHT substantive edits:

    1)      It is not clear HOW the data used for the CROPWAT 8.0 model was collected as the manuscript is currently written. You described this better in the response to the last round of edits, but you need to write this into the Methods section where you discuss the CROPWAT model. 

    2)      For the maps in Figure 2, there needs to be (A), (B), and (C) in upper left corner of each sub-map and explanation of these in the title. When you do this, you also need to put (A), (B), and (C) in the figure caption as part of the description. The maps in Figure 2 are still too small and the writing cannot be read (this is still not corrected). 

    3)      Please change the symbol sued in the range from a hyphen (shorter) to an endash (longer), so from example from [4-9] to [4–9] on L30. Please make similar edits using the endash throughout the manuscript. 

    4)      The data in figures do not conform to a linear relationship. Please use non-linear methods for best selection of functional form that fits the data. OLS is not appropriate. Please let specify the functional form. You keep trying to clarify what an OLS is and that is not the clarification that needs to be made. Please re-run your entire statistical analyses using non-linear functions. 

    5)      The Results section can reduce the number of graphs by combining graphs where appropriate. Having 11 figures and 12 tables is too many. Combine similar crops on the same graph. Put expected yield and revenue tables into an Appendix where you label as Table A1 for example. This was not done and if you do this it will make the manuscript a lot easier to read. 

    6)      The Discussion section needs to focus on (these edits to the Discussion section were not done): 

a)      Contrasting the model results with field studies from the literature. This was not done. It means you compare your results to the results from similar studies and cite them as [#].

b)      Write more on the key implications of the model results.

    7)      The back matter section that still needs to be added is the Acknowledgements. 

    8)      The References formatting needs to be consistent with MDPI Sustainability. The font is currently not consistent with the edits you most recently made since the font is Palatino Lynotype font size 9 for the References. For the main text it is Palatino Lynotype font size 9 for the References. You still need to make sure the volume (issue) needs to be in italics.

 

Specific Line Number of Manuscript Figure/Table comments (note that requested change of word(s) in quotations where NO edits need to be made for writing before/after each “…”):

In general, the writing could improve being edited by a native English speaker. I will edit for line-number specific edits after this current round of revisions is made.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author of the manuscript still needs to make 8 of the last 14 requested edits. Please communicate to the author that all these edits need to be done else the assessment will continue to be “Major Revisions.” I think it will take them longer than a week to complete since I am asking them to re-estimate their figures not using OLS (linear regression) but rather non-linear functional forms. I think the author is not understanding what I am asking. Please look at the raw data and it is clear that the data does NOT conform to linear functional fits. I would like to review all edits made before recommending this manuscript for publication.

Author Response

I revised the manuscript according to all comments. I understood that raw data does not conform to linear functional fits. I used exponential models to better fit data and figures were updated accordingly. Moreover all remaining requested edits were completed as per instructions. Your guidance and advise have strengthened this manuscript considerably

I appreciate your patience and guidance, and I am committed to ensuring that the manuscript meets the required standards. I would be grateful for your review of the revised manuscript to confirm that all changes are satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx