Performance of AquaCrop Model for Maize Growth Simulation under Different Soil Conditioners in Shandong Coastal Area, China
, Lijun Su 1,*, Jihong Zhang 2,3,*, Quanjiu Wang 1, Junhu Wu 1, Weiyi Mu 1 and Yan Sun 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewers comments for the manuscript ID: agronomy-1764098Reviewer #1:
Major revision
A/ General comments
This paper presents an interesting evaluation Of the performance of a biophysical model « Aqua- Crop model » for maize growth simulation under different soil conditioners types and different dosages and irrigation amounts in saline-alkali area of China. Authors have proceeded to a modelling and optimization of the irrigation and to determine the applicability of AquaCrop model in coastal saline alkali land and provide reasonable irrigation amount.This paper addresses a very relevant question and is worth of interest. But the manuscript needs to be significantly improved on three aspects in order to be acceptable for publication:
1. Athor should eliminate all repeated sentences in the text and must rephrased all these sentences to better desting between all text section (exemple : sentence L-19-22 (ABSTRACT) as compared to sentence L-84-87 (Introduction). This comment must be taken in consideration for all the manuscript sections.
2. The results are not well discussed in the Discussion section, author need to detail more the results in particular with the reported previous results in the literature that were focussed on (i) Aquacrop model validation on maize crop, (ii) Aquacrop validation and calibration on another crop (cereals crop) and (iii) as compared to other model application and which were simulated the most of studied variables in this study (i.e. STICS, CHN and another model that simulate water balance and yield parameters).
3. For all modelled results, author need to represent the standard error for all observed values that was mentioned in all graphs. This request is important to better take an idea concerning the statistical precision of observed (measured) data. Indeed, author must also adjust well the writing of the number of equation in the text within the homogenious styl (exemple: equation 6, 7, 13////etc) numbers are not aligned with there relatives equation.
B/ Specific comments
- Abstract: The background of abstract is much longer, it need to be rephrased
- Abstract: The novelty of study need to be well rephrased in the abstract section (please give the novelty just before the background of study)
- Abstract: please integrate the name of cultivated variety of maize in L23
- Abstract: Please add “soil” just before “Conditioners » term in line 37 ?
- L36-38: Did you think that after your study: the validation of Aquacrop model will be applicable for all agricultural area in coastal saline alkali areas (or we need to calibrate the model for some regions in which soil characteristics are different?).
- Introduction: Author start the back ground of introduction by citing China and the area of experiment study, author need to talk about on the saline-alkali land concerne (in relation with decreasing crop production) in the agricultural area of world than he could pass on China.
- Introduction: Line 55 and 57: HA and CMC abbreviations are already defined in the abstract , so it is not important to re-define these terms.
- Introduction: Line 61 and 63: The following models are also important and which focus on water balance, plant growth and yield (soil conditioner fraction, maize and also crop practices…etc) STICS model (Kherif et al. 2022, European journal of agronomy) and MOMOS model (Kherif et al., 2020, Ecologcal modelling).
- Introduction: Author need to add a paragraph for describing the application of the cited models on maize crop which is in relation with the studied species (I propose before the Line 79).
- Introduction: In the end of introduction, author give us only the main objective of the present study, author could detail the specific objectives.
- Materials and Methods: L-93: in this sentence “(37°21′N, 118°57′E, a.s.l 10 m) : replace « a.s.l » by altitude (abbreviation was not cited previously in the text).
- Materials and Methods: Line 96-97: The average temperature, frost…etc were given from wich period (in years ?) ??? Please check the line 98 “ d,” ?????
- Materials and Methods: In table 1: replace “Depth” by “Soil depth”
- Materials and Methods: In the “site description” author could describe and interpret the table 1 in the text to better complete site description
- Materials and Methods: The figure 1 is not important, in the text we well understand the planting design, so please remove this figure
- Materials and Methods: The total experiment design area is not given in “experimental design” section?
- Materials and Methods: Line 111 and 113: The definition of AH and CMC could deleted from the text because they was previously defined in abstract and introduction section
- Materials and Methods: According to which reference you adopted the applied (dose) of irrigation (120) in your study? This need to be explaned in the material and methods section as compared to crop and region characterisation.
- Materials and Methods: The irrigation 120 mm was applied for all soil conditions? If you have the same dose of irrigation why you mentioned (table 2) this same dose in table, you could delete it and just mention this in the text.
- Materials and Methods: L133: why you said the calculated values of rainfall , you calculate only ETR values while rainfall was collected from meteorological station????
- Materials and Methods: You need to cite the source of your metrological data that was used in this present study
- Materials and Methods: Why you decided to work with the equation 2 for LAI estimation? Please explain me the equation with more detail
- Materials and Methods: Did you measure only WUE for yield or for both yield and biomass? WUE for biomass is really important for maize crop
- Materials and Methods: For the parameters that were represented in table 3:
- Are you mentioned all model parameters
- Did you optimize any parameter? There are some estimated parameters from the literature? Which methods you used for calibration? You need know that there are differences between optimization and calibration? So if you optimized some parameters you need to explain the optimization methods.
- Materials and Methods: You have not calculated and mentioned the “model efficiency: EF” parameter for simulation quality evaluation? Why? You need this evaluation for comparison your results with another that of previous works.
- Results and discussion: In all results section, please remove the definition of all abbreviations that were previously mentioned in the text.
- Results and discussion: Line 257: Remove the red color from AC
- Results and discussion: Line 256-257: You are not requested to give this sentence, you are in results section you need just to start with Line 258.
- Results and discussion: Line 265-266: This sentence must be removed from results section to discussion section
- Results and discussion: You need explain with which year data you calibrated the model and which data (2020 and 2021???) you validated and evaluated the model, you need give these informations in mat and methods and also recall this in results and discussion.
- Results and discussion: L282-283: what do you mean by this sentence?
- Results and discussion: Why you used Treatment in table 6 why you changed you terms of treatment by T and not by the real terms as that you mentioned in the previous text????
- Results and discussion: Please change the abbreviation of this sentence “d after sowing” on DAS in all the text.
- Results and discussion: L293: you have used EF? Is this term mean model efficiency? I have not detected this parameter in the figures or table? How can you explain this?
- Results and discussion: In figure 3 and 4, author need to add the standard error of the observed values
- Results and discussion: Pleas add year and treatment in GRAS in figure 3 and 4 to better make the difference between the sub-figures.
- Results and discussion: In discussion section, author need to more explain the poor simulation that was performed for biomass in somes treatment in 2021 year (figure 4).
- Difference between the sub-figures.
- Results and discussion: If you have applied you calibration with 2019 season? Why? Did you confirm that 2019 was a normal year in term of climate data?
- Results and discussion: You need to enrich your discussion section with more references in terms of models that simulated you studied parameters with Aquacrop and also in terms of Aquacrop calibration, validation on maize crop in another regions in world.
- Conclusion: You need to mention the originality and novelty of the work in the conclusion section and also in the first section of discussion. You need also to add some major finding in the conclusion section.
- References: Please try to make all reference homogeny in the list of references (exemple : space, .;…..etc). Check also that all references that were cited in the text are availables in the list of references.
-
-
Author Response
We responded to your comments one by one, as detailed in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I revised the manuscript "Performance of AquaCrop Model for Maize Growth Simulation under Different Soil Conditioners in Shandong Coastal Area, China" submitted to the Agronomy journal. The manuscript is interesting and well structured. However, I have some concerns which need to be addressed before considering for final publication.
Minor comments:
1. Section "1. Introduction". I think it is worth adding a paragraph on the effects of water and salt stress on maize growth and yield.
2. Line 95. Delete ".0". This is not needed here.
3. Line 98. Does the "d" mean days? If so, replace "d" with "days".
4. Line 118-119 There are other irrigation values in the abstract (lines 24-25). Organize this information. In addition, provide information on the average precipitation value for each year. This information can only be seen in Figure 2.
5. Line 128. The space in "from2019" is missing.
6. Table 2. The table shows the same irrigation values for each year. Perhaps you should describe this in text instead of a table?
7. Line 133. The used abbreviation "Eto" should be explained the first time - e.g. evapotranspiration (Eto).
8. Line 152. Add the BBCH scale value for each day.
9. Line 165. Instead of "ETc" shouldn't it be "ETo" here?
10. Table 3. Shouldn't the unit for the growth cycle be given in "days"?
11. Line 219-221. I suggest adding another error indicator which is MAPE (https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060609).
12. Section "References". A lot of references are relatively old. Only one reference is from 2021, while there are none from 2022. I suggest adding some recent references.
Author Response
We responded to your comments one by one, as detailed in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The subject of the study is interesting and topical, with scientific and practical importance.
The introduction is presented correctly, in accordance with the subject. Numerous scientific articles, in concordance to the topic of the study, were consulted.
Methodology of the study was clearly presented, and appropriate to the proposed objectives.
The obtained results are important and have been analyzed and interpreted correctly, in accordance with the current methodology.
The discussions are appropriate, in the context of the results, and was conducted compared to other studies in the field.
The scientific literature, to which the reporting was made, is recent and representative in the field.
Some suggestions and corrections were made in the article.
The following aspects are brought to the attention of the authors.
1.
It is recommended to revise the positioning of the some equations number.
Eg
Page 5, rows 173, 175
other positions in the article were also suggested
2.
It is recommended to check in Figure 7, page 13
Most likely "Fitting curve" instead of "Fitting cuve" of Yrel
Similar for WUE
3.
References
It is recommended that you check the text settings in the References chapter to be according to Instructions for Authors, and Microsoft Word template, Agronomy journal.
Styles:
MDPI_7.1_References
Justify
Some articles also presented “doi number”, and others did not.
It would be recommended, if possible, to present the “doi number”, at the other articles as well.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We responded to your comments one by one, as detailed in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Author give the response of all proposed review
Author Response
Our manuscript has undergone English language editing by MDPI. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms, and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
