Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

Below are suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.

1. A general map of the studied region could be presented in the Materials and methods section.

2. The percentage of sand particles could be presented in the Table 2.

3. Soil texture could be checked based on texture triangle. For example, in the first row, the texture is detecting silt      loam, not clay loam.

4. The method of estimation ETo (Figure 1) could be specified in the Materials and methods section.

5. The irrigation water in Table 2 could be checked, once more.

6. How to estimate WSI?

7. Calculation of water scarcity footprint could be completed based on the published valid documents.

8. In Table 2, the sowing and harvesting dates are for which crops?

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

1. A general map of the studied region could be presented in the Materials and methods section.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We initially included a general map of the study area in the original manuscript to provide context and enhance understanding of the study region. However, one reviewer suggested that we remove this map, as there are already numerous maps in the manuscript. Taking into consideration feedback from several reviewers, we have decided not to include the map in the Materials and Methods section. Thank you once again.

2. The percentage of sand particles could be presented in the Table 2.

Response: Thanks for the comment. We have reviewed it.

3. Soil texture could be checked based on texture triangle. For example, in the first row, the texture is detecting silt loam, not clay loam.

Response: Thank you for your observation. We have reviewed the soil texture based on the texture triangle. Upon re-evaluation, we acknowledge the error in the first row, and indeed, the texture should be classified as silt loam rather than clay loam. We appreciate your attention to detail.

4. The method of estimation ETo (Figure 1) could be specified in the Materials and methods section.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. For clarity, we have specified the method for estimating ETo in the Materials and Methods section and have added the relevant references.

5. The irrigation water in Table 2 could be checked, once more.

Response: Thank you for pointing it out. We have reviewed the irrigation water values in Table 2 once more to ensure accuracy.

6. How to estimate WSI?

Response: Thanks for the comment. “The WSI values for wheat and maize are provided by Stephan Pfister and Peter Bayer's research [26]”. We have cited the research findings of others here.

7. Calculation of water scarcity footprint could be completed based on the published valid documents.

Response: Thanks for the comment. We ensure that the calculation of the water scarcity footprint is based on the published valid documents as recommended.

8. In Table 2, the sowing and harvesting dates are for which crops?

Response: Thanks for the comment. I have added some descriptions in the manuscript to clarify this issue. “Note: Both the sowing and harvest dates are for winter wheat. Summer maize is planted after the winter wheat harvest, and harvested before the winter wheat is sown, thereby achieving two harvests in one year.”

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Taking into account the answers by the authors on my previous comments, remarks and suggestions, I do not have further comments.

Author Response

Taking into account the answers by the authors on my previous comments, remarks and suggestions, I do not have further comments.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you've put into reviewing our work. Based on your previous comments and suggestions, we have carefully revised and made necessary adjustments to our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you have no further comments. Should you have any future suggestions or queries, please do not hesitate to let us know. Once again, thank you for your valuable insights and guidance.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor

Thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Most of the suggestions have been made in the manuscript. However, for acceptance, it is necessary to reformat the abstract section based on crop irrigation water requirements and water scarcity footprint.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Responses to Editor and Reviewers

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

I appreciate the feedback and the opportunity to revise the manuscript for possible publication (Manuscript Number: agronomy-2785428). I have carefully reviewed the reviewers' comments and suggestions. In accordance with your guidance, I make sure to highlight all the changes I make in the revised manuscript in blue. If any additional information or clarification is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time and guidance, and I look forward to working on the revisions and resubmitting the manuscript.

Best regards,

Xiumei Tang

Reviewer 1

Thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

1. Most of the suggestions have been made in the manuscript. However, for acceptance, it is necessary to reformat the abstract section basedon crop irrigation water requirements and water scarcity footprint.

Response: We are pleased to hear that most of the suggested revisions have been revised in the manuscript. Based on your recommendation, we have revised the abstract section to emphasize the crop irrigation water requirements and the water scarcity footprint. We believe that this adjustment can enhance the clarity and focus of our research findings.

Abstract: Reducing crop-related water consumption and enhance agricultural water resource efficiency in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, this study employed the AquaCrop model to simulate crop yield and irrigation water requirements, and calculated the water scarcity footprint (WSF). The results were as follows: (1) The AquaCrop model exhibited strong applicability, with R², RMSE, EF, and d values of 0.9611, 6.6%, 0.91, and 0.98 (winter wheat), and 0.9571, 5.5%, 0.95, and 0.99 (summer maize) for canopy cover simulation. Similarly, above-ground biomass simulation yielded values of 0.9661, 0.8 t/ha, 0.93, and 0.98 (winter wheat), and 0.9087, 1.3 t/ha, 0.90, and 0.98 (summer maize). Winter wheat soil moisture content simulation showed an R² of 0.9706, RMSE of 3.7 mm, EF of 0.93, and d of 0.98. (2) The AquaCrop model simulated winter wheat and summer maize yield and irrigation water requirements for the years 2009, 2014, and 2019, validating the scalability and spatial visualization capabilities of GeoSim in extending AquaCrop simulations. (3) Integrating water footprint and the water resources system, the study assessed the WSF of winter wheat and summer maize. From 2009 to 2019, winter wheat production in the region increased by 25.08%, and summer maize production increased by 37.39%. The WSF of winter wheat decreased, whereas the WSF of summer maize increased. It was recommended to reduce crop cultivation areas in regions such as Daming County, Ningjin County, and Dingzhou City, while further improving irrigation water efficiency, which would facilitate the sustainable utilization of water resources in the area.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments
Specific comments
Introduction

L35: not sure “irrational” is the correct word. Better to use “unsustainable”

L39: “our country” write specifically “China”.

L40: “most prominent areas”: for what, agriculture? Need references!

L50-51: source for groundwater utilization?

L56-58: ibid, no references are provided.

L68-69: but where? Where all these studies conducted in China?
L71: ?

L83: less intuitive data? What do you mean? In that case other models could be better suited.

L84: the reference number is missing.

L100: here you use the term “optimizing” which is the term you need to use the entire paragraph. You are not trying to rationalize water allocation but finding some possible optimization.

Materials and Methods

L104: located in

L110: “belongs” ? better rephrase. This climate classification is odd. Better to use a recognized scheme (Koppen Geiger for example)

L117-118: what does this mean? The previous sentences demonstrated that water utilization was high.

L121-124: additional details about soil properties are needed. Provide a table listing the thew key characteristics of the major soul type in the study area.

L125-126: what types of data are available concretely? Yield only? Again, give a table and provide these data for major regions.

L128-129: at the very least provide the compile crop yield/ planting area data.
L130: ibid. The authors provide no details. What was available, how accurate are these reports? What did the authors use and compiled.

L132-134: ibid. Give details! How many stations? Where are they evenly distributed over the study area? Some kind of map would be useful…

L142-143: that is where the map would be useful. We have no idea where in the research area this station is located. Are the data more or less representative for the entire area?

L144: What is the control data?

L145-147: not clear at all. If I understand thew original data was Lai and needed to be converted to CC using the two equations provided. What is the source of these two equations?

L153-156: No references at all.

L166: “only irrigation water usage” in contrast to what? This is very unclear.

L169: how is WSI is computed, what is the unit. You need to provide the equation and explain what data were used to compute it. Is the value different across all administrative units? Is it computed using annual, monthly values? Are the different types of water sources accounted for…

L171: where does this threshold come from? Provide adequate references.

L172: what is LCA?

Results

L191: We know nothing about experimental values. How many data points (plots). What about irrigation during the experiment. Did the crop experience water stress or temperature stress?

L193: from default value?

L197; figure 2? The different points represent what? Different time? Different replication?

L220-225: you gave zero information on how AquaCrop is effectively integrated into GIS. How does the final product effectively work.

L227-228: the authors gave again no information regarding the simulation settings. How was irrigation managed? Is the automatic scheme used, ensuring no water stress? Without such information Figure 3 is completely useless!!

L229-230: compare the value with the literature. Are the values you provide in line?

L239: simulation settings not provided. Did you really simulated from 2009 to 2019 or only 2009 and 2019?

Discussion and Recommendations

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1: legend for min/max temperature missing.

Fig. 2: what do the different dots represent? Different growing period? If this is the case why not displaying time series?

Table 1: for the numbers, be consistent for indicating thousand. In some case you added as space (e.g., 1 000) is other cases none (e.g., 1000). I think it would be best to simply use a comma (e.g., 1,000).

Water productivity is a conservative parameters and as stated in the AquaCrop manual: “Conservative crop parameters which do not change substantially with time, management practices, geographic location or climate. They are also assumed not to change with cultivars unless shown otherwise. Examples are the thresholds for stresses and the normalized biomass water productivity (WP*);”. As a result, I strongly recommend keeping the default value for this parameter as the authors are possibly over tuning the model. You need to justify the very high value for the harvest index associated with winter wheat.

Figure 3: for area where no crop was planted, leave the area in white. The International System of Units (SI) is meter. Change the scale to use km.

Figure 4: same as above. Something is wrong with the caption (for e?)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine and the article is largely understandable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

With many thanks for opportunity to review this manuscript.

 This study was well organized and it was interesting to me. However, the following suggestions are provided for improving the manuscript.

1. Measured and simulated yields for wheat and maize could be added in Fig. 2 with related discussions.

2. More details about model calibration and validation could be provided in the Materials & methods; and results sections.

3. Are the data in Table 2 applied equally for all regions? Or the average applied data is presented in Table 2.

Best regards,

Reviewer