The Impact of Climate Change on Crop Production in Uganda—An Integrated Systems Assessment with Water and Energy Implications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very interesting study analysing the effects of climate change on some of the agricultural, energy and water components in Uganda. The paper can be accepted for publication after the following additions and clarifications:
- I am surprised that the term food-energy-water nexus is not mentioned at all in this paper, as this is a currently hot topic under which this type of study would fit. Please revise this concept and some related works in the introduction.
- The conclusions should be more insightful and translate possible conditions that can lead to similar results under similar contexts, or otherwise state why the Uganda case is unique.
- Another angle of the study is to analyse the possibility for supplying the 12% increase in pumping energy demand using the residues form the crops. How about supplying nutrients also from residues by some technological recovery? How these options can be considered in your models?
- Is the dynamics of water stress tracked by your model? Can the model then serve to plan irrigation when the crops need it the most to make it more efficient?
Author Response
Please see the attachment. We have provided a revised document along with a track changed document for your reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I read with interest the manuscript, I think that it is a little bit too long (actually it is like a report) and I would suggest the authors to shorten it or divided into two parts: a first part focused on the model construction and calibration and the second one on the scenarios and forecasts.
In the length of the text, the original and interesting aspects of the work are lost. For instanmce, do the authors believe that the results they found are in line with the hypothesized scenarios or were there surprising results?
Figure’s captions should be improved, especially those of Figures 7,8 and 9. In Figure 4 you missed the y label.
Lines 199-211 check the format.
Lines 304-307 are confused.
I think that the discussion is a little bit long.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx