Simulation of Maize Growth Under the Applications of Brackish Water in Northwest China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides valuable insights into the use of brackish water for maize irrigation in Northwest China and demonstrates the effectiveness of the AquaCrop model. With minor revisions, it can make a significant contribution to the field of sustainable agriculture.

·         There is too much repetition in title and the key words. The title could be “Simulation Maize Growth Under the applications of Brackish Water in Northwest China”, to reduce its length and remove excessive repetition.

·         Line 16 and Line 17: The units of the values regarding RMSE and MAPE are wrong. These indicators are unit less??

·         The authors mentioned the objectives of the study but the significance of the study needs to mentioned clearly. Moreover, the outcomes of the study are obvious and simple. What is the novel part of your study? Describe these contents in Introduction section.

·         Why did you select Aquacrop model? What are the superior features of this model compared to others?

·         The methodology of calibrating and validating the AquaCrop model with experimental data from 2022 and 2023 is sound. However, it would be beneficial to include a more detailed description of the experimental setup, soil properties and the specific calibration process to enhance reproducibility.

·         The presentation of results is attractive with various graphing glimpses. However, the study could benefit from a more in-depth discussion on the implications of the increased reliance on groundwater when using high mineral content water. Additionally, exploring the long-term sustainability of such practices would be valuable.

·         In discussion, please include a comparison with other irrigation models or techniques to provide a broader context for the AquaCrop model's performance.

·      The findings of the study are simple. Try to analyze the data in some other context to relate it with more practical input options. The one-line recommendation could be added in conclusion section.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides specific knowledge about optimization of irrigation with waters of different quality for maize using the Aquacrop model and isotope tracing techniques.

The title of the manuscript is sufficiently expressive.

Relevant international references are cited in the Introduction section, which also justifies the study very well. The objectives of the study could be clearer and better formed. The practical importance of the study is obvious.

The Materials and Methods section is quite complete but contains some less professional terms (indicated in the text).

The structure of the Results section is not obvious to me: I suggest revising the order of the subsection, e.g., starting with the soil- then the plant parameters (as the latter are the consequence of the former ones), and measured data before the model-calculated ones. Specific terms should be revised here, too.

Most of the tables and figures should be revised making them self-explanatory.

The first part of the Discussion section is rather the summary of the results. I recommend starting the discussion with the measured data (recent chapter 4.2.), then the evaluation of the applicability of the Aquacrop model should be the second. A few references are cited here in order to compare the findings with others’ results.

The Conclusions part is logically structured. It provides methodological conclusions and concrete practical recommendations based on the results.

I inserted several specific remarks in the pdf file of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revision is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was just partly improved, several corrections of mine were ignored (in some cases creating inconsequent use of terms). I indicated (again) the shortages. Please consider them.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, We have addressed all the terminology errors as per your annotations. Additionally, we have revised the discussion section accordingly.