Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment:

This manuscript entitled “Evaluation of aquacrop model's ability to simulate water stress based on long-term experiment of water nitrogen coupling ” by Zhou et al. reported valuable insights into the AquaCrop model's performance in simulating water stress under water-nitrogen coupling. In general, the manuscript is interesting and suitable for publication in the Agronomy MDPI journal after minor revision. My specific comments are:

1.      The abstract is concise but lacks essential information on the key numerical findings and implications of the study.

2.      Please consider proofreading your manuscript for grammatical and punctuation errors (e.g. line 15 and many others).

3.      There is no reference for the first paragraph of the introduction which seems to be suspicious. The authors made several statements in the whole paper which need strong citations in order to support their claims.

4.      Line 42: Zhang [1] believed. Science doesn’t work on beliefs. Consider correcting such words/problems in the entire paper.

5.      The introduction is informative, but it could be strengthened by providing a more comprehensive background on the AquaCrop model and its significance in agricultural research. The research gap and motivation for conducting the study could be articulated more explicitly.

6.      Correct symbols and units in the manuscript. For example, X is used for multiplication signs and many others. Super and subscripts in units are not consistently written. Also, either use “-1” format or “/”, but not both.

7.      Define abbreviations used in the tables under their footer.

8.      Ethical statements are generally provided below the conclusion section and not in the middle of the paper.

9.      Please correct the formatting issue in the entire paper. It is very hard to check the paper when all track changes are messing with the text. Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please consider proofreading your manuscript for grammatical and punctuation errors (e.g. line 15 and many others).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• 1. I recommend that the authors review the entire manuscript to remove any English language errors.

• 2. I recommend that the authors update the entire manuscript and cite more recent references, considering that the authors have only cited outdated references. It is very important to provide readers with fresh literature information.

• 3. The authors mentioned the years 2017 and 2018 as the years of research conduct. Do the authors have more recent research information, considering that we are in 2024?

• 4. I recommend that the authors improve the quality of the results presentation so that it fits the style of articles published in high-impact scientific journals. For example, the authors could remove the bars in the background of the figures and provide an explanation list for the abbreviations used for figures and tables.

• 5. The Discussion should contain citations from various articles on the same research topic and a relevant comparison of literature, including citations to recent articles.

• 6. Have the authors considered incorporating other parameters and high-quality statistical tests? Indeed, this issue is recommended to enhance the quality of the presentation of experimental results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see the comments to the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: the title is misleading, rephrase it stating clearly that this is a 2-year case study for maize crop applying aquacrop model.

There is a lot of bibliography missing.

In the abstract it is preferable not to include abbreviations that have not been introduced in full previously. Only make as general a statement as possible.

1 Restructure in a much more clear way the introduction, e.g. you state that "it is necessary to build a computer model based on field experiment data" and later you present AquaCrop model, it is not an elegant way of presenting it you can state that such issued are addressed by AquaCrop.

2.1 Show a proper map of the site in Chine and a second high resolution map showing the plots, it is not clear how the plots are arranged, are they all packed in a 6m x 8m rectangle? Can this proximity of the plots despite being isolated at the soil block level affect the experiment in any way via communication of the crops via volatile compounds? Add some pictures.

2.1.2. Ethics statement. There is a proper section at the end of the paper to put this things, check MDPI layout. Honestly, it's the first time I've seen a statement placed so randomly in a section where it has nothing to do with it. Aside from the fact that this statement is absolutely not necessary anywhere in the paper, it is totally superfluous.

2.2 Cliamte Data from line 102 to line 117 there is lot of thing but definetly not climate data. Resection it. This section is quite messy, try to be much more clear and put some climatograph and a plot of soil moisture during different periods (see Benfratello method or similar.).

2.4.2. Calibration parameters: This section says nothing about calibration parameters, and in general the paragraph is quite chaotic in its structure and in its divisions into sections and subsections, reorganize everything more clearly.

In general, I believe that the paper is structured into sections and subsections in a disorganized manner since the parameters measured to calibrate the model are considered results themselves when they should instead go to the Materials and Methods section. The results of the study are the prediction given by the model, not the parameters collected and measured to calibrate the model. My general advice is to reorganize the study well, perhaps adding a Data section in Materials and Methods. The paper is very poorly structured and difficult to follow, the final result is not well presented and clear. In general, the study, although simple, seems to me to be conducted in an adequate manner, however its presentation is not well-constructed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is very chaotic and difficult to follow. As an example, I show how I would reorganize a paragraph. This work must be done throughout the paper.

ON THE PAPER: Simulation results of total soil water content in 2018 showed that: The AquaCrop model can simulate the change of soil total water content during the growth of summer maize well, and the change trend of the simulated value is basically consistent with that of the measured value. The evaluation index values are all in the range of good applicability, which indicates that the calibrated model has good applicability to simulate the change of soil total water content during the summer maize season in the test area. It can be used to study the total soil water content in this area.

HOW TO REPHRASE: In 2018, simulation results of the total soil water content indicated that the AquaCrop model effectively replicates the variation in soil water content throughout the growth stages of summer maize. The simulated values closely align with the observed values, displaying a consistent trend. All evaluation index values fall within the range of good applicability, affirming that the calibrated model is well-suited for simulating changes in soil total water content during the summer maize season in the tested area. This suggests that the model can be reliably employed for studying total soil water content in this specific region.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I do not have more recommendations.

Author Response

Responses to Review comments

We appreciate the reviewe for providing us with these valuable comments once again. They are really very helpful for us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to their comments. All the changes are included in the revision. Listed below are the detailed explanations or statements of revisions for all the comments one by one. We hope now it is clear enough.

I suggest reorganizing various aspects of the presentation, for example on line 126 the formula written in brackets makes the text very heavy, in general the use of brackets must be done appropriately. The organization of the paper is still quite heavy to follow.

Reply: Thank you for carefully reviewing our manuscript. We accept your comment and have made corresponding revisions to section 2.4.3 based on your comment, have highlighted it in red in the manuscript. We hope it is concise enough now.

An image of the organization of the experimental plots is missing, you put it in the comment but you didn't integrate it into the paper. I suggest developing the same image better by clearly highlighting the experimental plots and their position.

Reply: Accept, we have included an image of the organization of the experimental plots in the manuscript, hoping that it can provide readers with a more intuitive understanding of the settings of our experimental plots organization.

Figure 1 has very small axis labels, it is difficult to read, in general I suggest taking better care of the presentation of the graphs and images in order to make everything more harmonious and elegant.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We have made revise to all the graphics in the manuscript to make it as harmonious and elegant as possible.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest reorganizing various aspects of the presentation, for example on line 126 the formula written in brackets makes the text very heavy, in general the use of brackets must be done appropriately. The organization of the paper is still quite heavy to follow. An image of the organization of the experimental plots is missing, you put it in the comment but you didn't integrate it into the paper. I suggest developing the same image better by clearly highlighting the experimental plots and their position. Figure 1 has very small axis labels, it is difficult to read, in general I suggest taking better care of the presentation of the graphs and images in order to make everything more harmonious and elegant.

Author Response

Responses to Review comments

We appreciate the reviewe for providing us with these valuable comments once again. They are really very helpful for us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to their comments. All the changes are included in the revision. Listed below are the detailed explanations or statements of revisions for all the comments one by one. We hope now it is clear enough.

Reviewer #3 Evaluations:

I suggest reorganizing various aspects of the presentation, for example on line 126 the formula written in brackets makes the text very heavy, in general the use of brackets must be done appropriately. The organization of the paper is still quite heavy to follow.

Reply: Thank you for carefully reviewing our manuscript. We accept your comment and have made corresponding revisions to section 2.4.3 based on your comment, have highlighted it in red in the manuscript. We hope it is concise enough now.

An image of the organization of the experimental plots is missing, you put it in the comment but you didn't integrate it into the paper. I suggest developing the same image better by clearly highlighting the experimental plots and their position.

Reply: Accept, we have included an image of the organization of the experimental plots in the manuscript, hoping that it can provide readers with a more intuitive understanding of the settings of our experimental plots organization.

Figure 1 has very small axis labels, it is difficult to read, in general I suggest taking better care of the presentation of the graphs and images in order to make everything more harmonious and elegant.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We have made revise to all the graphics in the manuscript to make it as harmonious and elegant as possible.

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

The North China Plain is an important grain production base in China. Solving the problems of uneven water distribution and high environmental pressure caused by traditional farming methods has always been an important research topic in that area. This manuscript is based on two years of field monitoring data, with suitable design and research methods, and has a certain degree of innovation; The authors’ research results are complete and reliable; The research results have a certain degree of innovation, as well as theoretical value and application prospects; Based on AquaCrop model, the effects of different water management modes on crop growth, soil water nutrient capacity and water use efficiency in the North China Plain were quantitatively studied, and the simulation results were reliable; The simulation results of the AquaCrop model in Fengqiu area of the North China Plain after parameter localization can be used to provide data support for local agricultural production, provide theoretical and technical support for green, safe, high-yield and efficient agriculture in the North China Plain, and provide reference for regional large-scale comprehensive management. However, there are still somethings that can be improved such as follows.

1.    The manuscript data is reliable, but there is no discussion on the data results, so which need to made up to highlight the innovative points and ideas of the article;

2.      Further summary and discussion can be conducted on the experimental results of crop growth, soil water nutrient capacity, and water use efficiency; And in the conclusion and discussion section, refine the experimental results and propose more discussions, and strengthen the discussion of targeted and applicable analysis results;

3.      the reason for the deviation between the AquaCrop model and the measured data can be analyzed to some extent. Can this reason be avoided or reduced to achieve higher simulation accuracy?

4.    Please provide a detailed list of model fitting parameters when simulating production and ET at point 3.4 (with two 3.4 to be verified) in the text. The references format should be unified. Reference 15 is missing, and after reference 16, the citation numbers are chaotic. Moreover, the literature is a little bit old, and new literature from the past 5 years should be added.

5.     The annotations and styles in the figure should be unified. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 should be labeled with legends inside the figure.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is not bad.