Assessing the Performance of Irrigation Systems in Large Scale Urban Parks: Application to the Case of Valdebebas, Madrid (Spain)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a relevant contribution for the Remote Sensing journal presenting an approach for assessing the spatial-temporal irrigation performance in large automated parks. The work holds the novelty required for publication in the Journal following consideration of the minor corrections suggested below:
- Table 1: Please check the cover area values, the sum is equal to 101%;
- Figure 4 and Figure 5: For a better visual comparison between ET0 and Pe values, I suggest to use the same scale of the horizontal axis;
- From line 400 to line 402: replace "11" with "12";
- Figure 12 - third graph: in the legend replace "COL" with "FLO";
- Discussion: The authors need to place their findings relevant to the existing literature. Thus, I propose, to integrate the paper with a valid discussion, which integrates the study with a comprehensive review of research findings in the context of the peer-reviewed literature.
Author Response
- Table 1: Please check the coverage area values, the sum is equal to 101%;
R1: The sum of the values was corrected
- Figure 4 and Figure 5: For better visual comparison between ET0 and Pe values, I suggest using the same scale of the horizontal axis;
R2: The horizontal axis of the figures was equalized
- From line 400 to line 402: replace "11" with "12";
R3: The numbers were corrected
- Figure 12 - third graph: in the legend replace "COL" by "FLO";
- R4: The legend was replaced
- Discussion: the authors should situate their results in relation to the existing literature. Therefore, I propose to integrate the article with a valid discussion, which integrates the study with a comprehensive review of the research results in the context of the peer-reviewed literature.
R5: The discussion was revised and improved
Reviewer 2 Report
In general article is very important for Remote sensing and water management sectors. But methodology and researches in this direction provided by many scientist. It will influence to actuality of the research work. Has a lot of general information in the result part but detailed explanation is given few. Some figures are invisible and some of them bigger than list border.
Author Response
The article was improved for better understanding. The size of the figures was revised.
Reviewer 3 Report
The work is aimed at optimizing the efficiency of automatic drip irrigation in municipal parks in the Valdebebas district of Madrid. The aim of this optimization is to ensure the aesthetic value of park vegetation with optimal use of water for irrigation. The study was conducted in 2017-2019. The authors took into account a number of factors influencing the irrigation needs of plants, resulting from climatic, plant, soil, operational and other characteristics.
Despite very strong algorithmization and visualization of the irrigation control process, not always satisfactory results were obtained. In 2017, over-irrigation was done. There were also cases of plants drying out due to too little doses of water in relation to the water needs. A breakthrough in the optimization of irrigation was also not achieved by the calculation of the NDVI index based on satellite images, which did not reflect over-irrigation.
The results show how difficult it is to automatically control irrigation in large city parks. Computer algorithms should be corrected by humans on an ongoing basis, based on soil moisture measurements and plant condition observation.
The work is primarily of practical importance and deserves to be published.
Please, verify the following issues:
- Fig. 1 No markings (legend)
- Fig. 2 No markings (legend)
- Tab. 1 Inadequate title of the table
- Line 146-148 Please check the size of the parks or the length and width
- Line 315-316 Please check the rainfall data and compare with Fig. 5
- Discussion is basically a discussion of the results, not enough references to literature are provided.
Author Response
- Fig. 1 Unmarked (legend)
R1: The figure was checked - Fig. 2 Unmarked (legend) R2:The figure was replaced
- Tab. 1 Inadequate table title
R3: Table title was modified - Line 146-148 Please check size of parks or length and width.
R4: The size of the parks was checked, these correspond to urban parks that are located in medians of streets and avenues. - Lines 315-316 Please check precipitation data and compare with Fig. 5.
R5: The data were reviewed and the previous paragraph improved. - The discussion is basically a discussion of the results, not enough references to the literature are provided.
R6: Discussion was modified and improved
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript “Assessing the Performance of Irrigation Systems in Large Scale Urban Parks: Application to the case of Valdebebas, Madrid (Spain)” aims at assessing the performance of a landscape irrigation system using water supply and remote sensing based indicators. Overall, the paper is not well-written, and flow of information needs to be improved. These issues should be addressed before this paper can be recommended for the publication. Following are my comments:
Introduction:
Introduction in general is not written in a professional way. It could be fixed with use of better English and adding more relevant references. Some issues I found are:
Line 32-33: wrong sentence. Do some grammar check, please.
Line 35-36: Using the word ‘ameliorate’ more than once in a sentence. Also, use of this words adds confusion.
Line 42-43: Rewrite this sentence. Use more technical words.
Line 50-51: This is not a story. We usually do not use ‘sometimes’ in technical papers.
Line 57-59: Read this sentence again, does it make sense?
Line 65: On the contrary, not At.
You have not cited any recent literature for irrigation water use efficiency. Following are some examples that can be used as latest references: Li et al., 2021, Ajaz et al., 2020, Khachatryan et al., 2019.
Line 92-93: This is not summary. This is the most important paragraph of introduction where you are showing the need of this study. Authors should consider using more precise and technical terminology.
Line 114-115: You are not completing this information, you are adding more information to knowledge that you are developing using the water-supply based indicators.
Please add clear objectives with numbering at the end of the introduction.
Case of Study:
Figure 2. This figure does not provide any useful information. Consider zooming different parts and patching them together in a figure. Also, there is no legend provided.
Materials and Methods:
Line 182-186: Authors need to provide background of KL, which can be linked to crop coefficient (Kc) and it will provide more information to readers regarding these coefficients. Also, add some references here that describes plant coefficients in detail.
Line 214: second indicator
Results:
Figure 4 and Figure 5 should go to Case of Study.
Line 449-455: Not sure what authors trying to explain in these sentences. So the spatial and temporal variability in irrigation performance was not clear in your study? I don’t think you are making your point clear here.
Overall, the discussion part is not up to the mark. Need to provide more justification and plausible reasons for the obtained results.
Reference:
Li, A., Mu, X., Zhao, X., Xu, J., Khayatnezhad, M., & Lalehzari, R. (2021). Developing the non‐dimensional framework for water distribution formulation to evaluate sprinkler irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage.
Ajaz, A., Datta, S., & Stoodley, S. (2020). High plains aquifer–state of affairs of irrigated agriculture and role of irrigation in the sustainability paradigm. Sustainability, 12(9), 3714..
Khachatryan, H., Suh, D. H., Xu, W., Useche, P., & Dukes, M. D. (2019). Towards sustainable water management: Preferences and willingness to pay for smart landscape irrigation technologies. Land use policy, 85, 33-41.
Author Response
- The introduction in general is not written in a professional manner. It could be fixed by using better English and adding more relevant references. Some problems I found are:
- Line 32-33: incorrect sentence. Do a grammar check, please.
R1: The sentence was changed. - Line 35-36: Use of the word "improve" more than once in a sentence. Also, the use of this word adds confusion.
R2: The sentence was changed - Lines 42-43: Rewrite this sentence. Use more technical words.
R3: The sentence was rewritten - Lines 50-51: This is not a story. We do not normally use "sometimes" in technical documents.
R4: The sentence was changed - Lines 57-59: Read this sentence again, does it make sense?
R5: The sentence was changed - Line 65: On the contrary, not in.
R6: The sentence was changed - You have not cited any recent literature on irrigation water use efficiency. Below are some examples that can be used as more recent references: Li et al., 2021, Ajaz et al., 2020, Khachatryan et al., 2019.
R7: The introduction was modified. Emphasis is given on irrigation management rather than hydraulic efficiency of irrigation systems. - Line 92-93: This is not a summary. This is the most important paragraph in the introduction, showing the need for this study. The authors should consider using more precise and technical terminology. R8: The introduction was modified.
- Line 114-115: You are not completing this information, you are adding more information to the knowledge you are developing using the indicators based on water supply.R9: The introduction was modified.
- Please add clear objectives with numbering at the end of the introduction.
The objectives were included.
- Case study:
- Figure 2. This figure does not provide any useful information. Consider enlarging different parts and joining them into one figure. Also, no legend is provided.
R10: The figure was changed to images of the parks.- Materials and methods:
- Line 182-186: Authors should provide the background of KL, which may be related to the crop coefficient (Kc) and will provide more information to readers regarding these coefficients. Also, add here some references describing the plant coefficients in detail.
R11: Costello 1994, which is cited in the paragraph, presents in detail the methodology required for the estimation of coefficients, incorporating them would extend the article. - Line 214: second indicator
R12: The word was changed
Results: - Figure 4 and Figure 5 should go to the case study.
R13: The manuscript was restructured and the figures included in the Case Study section. - Line 449-455: I'm not sure what the authors are trying to explain in these sentences. So the spatial and temporal variability of irrigation yield was not clear in their study? I don't think you are making your point here.
R14: The sentence was unnecessary and was changed in the revised manuscript. - Overall, the discussion part is not up to par. More justification and plausible reasons for the results obtained need to be provided.
R15: The discussion was rewritten.
Reviewer 5 Report
The article proposed for publication represents a very good analysis made for the irrigation system in green urban areas.
The article would be more suitable for publication in a journal that aims to highlight research related to the sustainable management of green urban areas and the implementation of innovative techniques and methods to increase the quality of these lands.
The NDWI analysis would outline a validation of the proposed techniques and methods for land management and increase their quality.
From my point of view, only performing an NDWI spatial analysis does not qualify the article for remote sensing publication.
If the article had integrated supervised classification stages to identify the type of vegetation, correlating these surfaces (with different types of vegetation) with the amount of water needed for irrigation, then the article proposed for publication could have been integrated into remote sensing.
Author Response
The introduction, results and discussion sections were rewritten to improve the flow of the manuscript, as well as to emphasize the need for ongoing evaluation of irrigation efficiency and how irrigation management affects the ornamental quality of urban parks.
The literature on the characterization of NDVI values for monocultures is extensive and it is easy to correlate it with their irrigation needs. On the other hand, there is limited information about NDVI values for ornamental species and even less for hydrozones and irrigation coefficient values for these species. Therefore, the results obtained are an important contribution to develop methodologies for measuring ornamental quality using remote sensing.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The revised version still needs some improvements before this manuscript can be recommended for publication. Following are my comments:
- Authors should see some other published papers to see how the objectives are added. I am surprised to see how the objectives have been added as if it is some non-scientific publication. First, you state the overall goal of the study that is followed by objectives. This is important so the readers can link the results of your study with the objectives. This would go right before the last paragraph.
- Suggestions for adding the latest literature review are not addressed. Line 55-75 are the paragraphs where you need to provide some details on irrigation efficiency/ irrigation performance indicators. The current revised version is not providing the necessary background of irrigation application efficiney. The authors’ response (R7) is not satisfactory. Keep in mind that to manage irrigation, you need to have performance indicators (i.e., irrigation application efficiency). Moreover, you were not suggested to discuss the hydraulic efficiency of irrigation systems (that is a different concept).
Author Response
Point 1:
Authors should see some other published papers to see how the objectives are added. I am surprised to see how the objectives have been added as if it is some non-scientific publication. First, you state the overall goal of the study that is followed by objectives. This is important so the readers can link the results of your study with the objectives. This would go right before the last paragraph.
Response 1:
The main goal and objectives of the study have been rewritten according to the reviewer comment.
Point 2:
Suggestions for adding the latest literature review are not addressed. Line 55-75 are the paragraphs where you need to provide some details on irrigation efficiency/ irrigation performance indicators. The current revised version is not providing the necessary background of irrigation application efficiney. The authors’ response (R7) is not satisfactory. Keep in mind that to manage irrigation, you need to have performance indicators (i.e., irrigation application efficiency). Moreover, you were not suggested to discuss the hydraulic efficiency of irrigation systems (that is a different concept).
Response 2:
Dear reviewer, we have made a new literature review in order to address the latest scientific background and the paragraphs were rewritten.
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors have improved the article submitted for publication. More emphasis should be placed on the conclusions in order to clearly highlight the usefulness of remote sensing in such studies.
Author Response
Point 1: The authors have improved the article submitted for publication. More emphasis should be placed on the conclusions in order to clearly highlight the usefulness of remote sensing in such studies.
Response 1: Dear reviewer, the paragraphs in the conclusion have been rewritten to highlight the importance of remote sensing in this study.
