Simulating Potential Weekly Stream and Pond Water Available for Irrigation in the Big Sunflower River Watershed of Mississippi Delta
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
L 102: What is average Evapotranspiration in the basin?
L 113: You mentioned that you applied SWAT data from the previous study[23]. The previous study mainly analyzed groundwater storage and recharge, and the SWAT model was calibrated for this purpose. Your research is focused on pond water and irrigation. I think that SWAT's analysis method is different according to the difference of the research aim. What is authors opinion on this?
L 130-146: Please add the reference to the bibliography
L 183: Table 1 and Table 1 in the previous study[23] are different. Why is that?
L191-201: In Figure 3 and 4, SWRP and PWRP differ by watershed and month. It is thought to be due to the amount of irrigation caused by land use. Please add an additional discussion, including information on the land use type in each subbasins.
L 206, 212,259: Compared to Figure 1, is the scale in Figure 3 Figure 4 and Figure 7 correct ?. Please revise.
L 234-238: Authors analyzed the ASWR and weekly available surface water for six landuse scenarios. Please provide a further detailed description of each scenario. (i.e: application watershed area)
L 293-314: In the conclusion, only the summary of the study results is described. Findings and limitations on the results of the author's research should be further described. It should also describe the excellence and utilization of the study.
Author Response
L 102: What is average Evapotranspiration in the basin?
Response (Line 103): “….and annual evapotranspiration of 800 mm, while and the average temperature of 18℃.”
L 113: You mentioned that you applied SWAT data from the previous study[23]. The previous study mainly analyzed groundwater storage and recharge, and the SWAT model was calibrated for this purpose. Your research is focused on pond water and irrigation. I think that SWAT's analysis method is different according to the difference of the research aim. What is authors opinion on this?
Response (Line 129): One of the objectives of this study is to quantify available weekly surface water resources for irrigation. The previous study have already calibrated and validated the SWAT model by using the streamflow data and ET data, therefore SWAT can be used to estimate surface water resources (include water in stream and pond)
L 130-146: Please add the reference to the bibliography
Response (Line 136, 138,141): Add reference [23]
L 183: Table 1 and Table 1 in the previous study[23] are different. Why is that?
Response (Line 187): The irrigation amount in the previous study are monthly scale which is sufficient in our study, therefore we used the weekly data from the study of Tang et al. [5]
L191-201: In Figure 3 and 4, SWRP and PWRP differ by watershed and month. It is thought to be due to the amount of irrigation caused by land use. Please add an additional discussion, including information on the land use type in each subbasins.
Response (line 206 to 209): In general, SWRP and PWRP differ by sub-basins and month, this might be caused by amount of irrigation caused by the landuse in each sub-basin. In sub-basin1 to 13, the area of rice account for nearly 70% of the total rice area in BSRW, which consume amount of water for irrigation, therefore, SWRP and PWRP were less in these sub-basins.
L 206, 212,259: Compared to Figure 1, is the scale in Figure 3 Figure 4 and Figure 7 correct ?. Please revise.
Response: correct. Figure 1 is based on HRU scale and Figure3,4,7 are based on sub-basin scale.
L 234-238: Authors analyzed the ASWR and weekly available surface water for six landuse scenarios. Please provide a further detailed description of each scenario. (i.e: application watershed area)
Response (line245-250): These scenarios include only planting soybean (scenario1, arear for soybean is 6742 km2 ), only planting corn (scenario 2, arear for corn is 6742 km2), only planting cotton (scenario 3, arear for cotton is 6742 km2), planting soybean and corn (scenario 4, 3371 km2 for soybean and 3371 km2 for corn), planting soybean and cotton (scenario 5, 3371 km2 for soybean and 3371 km2 for cotton), planting corn and cotton (scenario 6, 3371 km2 for corn and 3371 km2 for cotton).
L 293-314: In the conclusion, only the summary of the study results is described. Findings and limitations on the results of the author's research should be further described. It should also describe the excellence and utilization of the study.
Response (line333-344):The main findings of this study is that farmers in this area should reduce planting areas of rice to reduce irrigation amount, which is helpful for groundwater resources management in this study. The limitation of this study is that the groundwater flow model is not used to simulate the groundwater recharge which is very important for drive the SWAT model to simulate the interactions between surface and groundwater, therefore, this model can be used in the future study. e main findings of this study is that farmers in this area should reduce planting areas of rice to reduce irrigation amount, which is helpful for groundwater resources management in this study. The limitation of this study is that the groundwater flow model is not used to simulate the groundwater recharge which is very important for drive the SWAT model to simulate the interactions between surface and groundwater, therefore, this model can be used in the future study.
Reviewer 2 Report
Fig 1 should be improved , to let the letter seems better, and latitudes and longitudes should be in the fig.
SWAT model has many parameters, some significant parameters should be shown in a table or in text. and the logic to calibrate and validate, if possible, to use some indicators of goodness of fit.
Climate data also should be shown in the paper, at least the precipation, Tmax, Tmin, Relative humidity.
Fig 2 is needed to be improved, Fig 5 is too unclear to see the details.
Advise to divid conclusion into 2 or 3 paragraph to express more clear.
Overall, introduction provide sufficient background, methods could be described better, most results were presented, conclusions could be supported by the results.
Author Response
Fig 1 should be improved , to let the letter seems better, and latitudes and longitudes should be in the fig.
Response: latitudes and longitudes are in the figure 1
SWAT model has many parameters, some significant parameters should be shown in a table or in text. and the logic to calibrate and validate, if possible, to use some indicators of goodness of fit.
Response: This have already done in the previous study. See
Dakhlalla, A. O., Parajuli, P. B., Ouyang, Y., & Schmitz, D. W. (2016). Evaluating the impacts of crop rotations on groundwater storage and recharge in an agricultural watershed. Agricultural Water Management, 163, 332-343.
Gao, F., Feng, G., Han, M., Dash, P., Jenkins, J., & Liu, C. (2019). Assessment of Surface Water Resources in the Big Sunflower River Watershed Using Coupled SWAT–MODFLOW Model. Water, 11(3), 528.
Climate data also should be shown in the paper, at least the precipation, Tmax, Tmin, Relative humidity.
Response: (Line 113)Climate data were included
Fig 2 is needed to be improved, Fig 5 is too unclear to see the details.
Response: Figure 2 and figure 5 are improved
Advise to divid conclusion into 2 or 3 paragraph to express more clear.
Response: We devided it into 2paragraph
Overall, introduction provide sufficient background, methods could be described better, most results were presented, conclusions could be supported by the results.
Reviewer 3 Report
Congratulations! You've done a very sound research with best presentation!
You have to unify the numerical representation of the data - for instance: either 700000 km2 (ha, km) or 700,000 km2....Both forms are met in the text.
Author Response
Congratulations! You've done a very sound research with best presentation!
You have to unify the numerical representation of the data - for instance: either 700000 km2 (ha, km) or 700,000 km2....Both forms are met in the text.
Response: (Line 40)Revised as 7000 km2
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised manuscript has been significantly improved. Thanks for the revision!
