Irrigation Scheme Selection Based on Water Footprint Analysis of Winter Wheat Production in Piedmont Plains of Hebei Province under Future Climate Scenarios
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for your exploration of how we can better consider impact of the authors’ future climate prediction to the wheat production in a certain area. Here are some suggestions that should improve the overall quality to your article.
1.) In introduction, line 32, after the first period, a reference is needed for that data.
2.) In Material and Methods, Table 1., it’s needed a reference for all data in Table 1.
3.) In Results and Analysis, the title should be whole in plural: Results and Analyses.
4.) In Results and Analyses, the first two paragraphs, from line 205 through line 226, should be moved to Materials and Methods.
5.) In Results and Analyses, some big parts of the text belong to Materials and Methods and that makes results unclear. I suggest that authors change the name of Chapter 3. from Results and Analyses to Results. The text that belongs to Methods should be moved to methods and the text that belongs to Discussion and Analyses should be moved overthere.
6.) The instrumentation should be completely cleared in Material and Methods, and the findings should be more emphesized in Results.
Author Response
Dear Dr. Mirković,
We would like to submit our revised manuscript（water-1317977）“Irrigation Scheme Selection Based on Water Footprint Analysis of Winter Wheat Production in Piedmont Plains of Hebei Province Under Future Climate Scenarios” to Water. We have revised our manuscript based on the constructive comments from the reviewers. We answered all the questions and critics point by point. Revised portions are marked in red in the manuscript.
We are thankful very much for your constructive and useful suggestions as well as reviewers’ comments. Those suggestions and comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Our manuscript was edited for proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style.
Best regards.
Zheng Shi
Hebei Agricultural University
[email protected] OR [email protected]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper concerns the water footprint of winter wheat production in a China region. Water footprint provides a single metric about freshwater consumption along several dimensions - rain-fed agriculture, irrigation water, and pollutants dilution. The water footprint is an important indicator for managing production processes or evaluating resource consumption thresholds. Therefore, the paper has merit. The scientific work is just based on standard methodologies/tools, the paper is not innovative neither provides a significant scientific advancement. Nevertheless, the paper may be accepted after major revisions, as follows.
- First of all, the English should be revised by a professional proof review team. Several phrases are rather unclear or written in better English.
- The major goal of the paper is virtual water/water footprint, as stated in the title. However, the authors state in goals (lines 79-83) i) The prediction of the characteristics of future climate change in the piedmont plain area in Hebei Province under different scenarios 2) screening of the optimal irrigation scheme for winter wheat based on acceptable yield and only in third place they mention the water footprint assessment. The first two goals are just tools to arrive to the 3rd. In my opinion, the paper is much longer and should refocus around the water footprint. What´s about to split the paper in two, keeping this one just focused on the water footprint and related implications? If not, some figures/tables could move to supplementary material
- The Introduction should be re-written and focused.
- The abstract is not very informative over the conclusions (perhaps the most significant results could be highlighted)
- Table 4, the units are missing (check other tables also)
- There is no sensitivity analysis regarding the mathematical modeling. This is important in models where there are many related variables.
- I think Figure 3 lacks relevance. Table 3 too (maybe moving to supplementary material). Figure 2 also if the authors want to preserve all material in just one paper.
- The paper does not develop a critical view or a perspective over the results that are presented. Maybe because the water footprint index is not so much useful for informing policy strategies? There are no governance recommendations considering the results that are obtained. What´s about integrated water management? The discussion could be better: a more intense discussion about the water footprint results and consequences should be provided.
- There is a lack of reasoning line along with the paper. For instance, it is not obvious how the results presented in Table 4 impact water footprint output.
- It is not clear if the irrigation water is provided by a surface water reservoir or groundwater source. This is important from a water policy perspective. There is no information on the economic and environmental costs of water abstraction. Those will be important to enrich the paper. In addition, greywater use is not forecasted? And if it was?
- Water footprint results are not compared with reference values. Is it a sustainable use? Should the footprint be reduced? What about adaptation measures in this agro production sector? This should be a key output.
Author Response
Dear Dr. Mirković,
We would like to submit our revised manuscript（water-1317977）“Irrigation Scheme Selection Based on Water Footprint Analysis of Winter Wheat Production in Piedmont Plains of Hebei Province Under Future Climate Scenarios” to Water. We have revised our manuscript based on the constructive comments from the reviewers. We answered all the questions and critics point by point. Revised portions are marked in red in the manuscript.
We are thankful very much for your constructive and useful suggestions as well as reviewers’ comments. Those suggestions and comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Our manuscript was edited for proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style.
Best regards.
Zheng Shi
Hebei Agricultural University
[email protected] OR [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No additional comments
