Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Center Pivot Irrigation Systems in the Brazilian Tropical Savanna (1985–2020)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.        In your manuscript, you reference an estimated total area for center pivot irrigation systems within the Cerrado biome. I have noticed a significant discrepancy between the figures provided by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (731,098 ha) and those provided by the MapBiomas Irriga project (964,452 ha) for the same period. Could you please clarify the methods used to obtain your estimates? Additionally, the provision of the precision level of your center pivot area estimation would be beneficial for a comprehensive understanding of your research findings.

2.        Upon examining section 3.2 on the Cerrado's Irrigation Poles, it appears that the results discussed within this section are not reflected in either the abstract or the conclusion of the paper. For coherence and to adequately represent the scope of your research, I recommend that the key findings from this section be summarized in the abstract and also be incorporated into the concluding remarks, thereby ensuring that readers can grasp the full implications of your work without having to delve into the specifics of the main text.

3.        In your manuscript, you refer to "abandoned pivot" and "rainfed cropland." Could you please clarify the connection between these terms, as it is not inherently clear whether all "abandoned pivot" lands are subsequently managed as "rainfed cropland"?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Analysis of the paper "Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Center Pivot Irrigation System in the Brazilian Tropical Savanna (1985−2020)" shows limitations and indicates that it should be rejected.

The article does not present a discussion. What scientific advances can this characterization bring to the area? What are the considerations regarding the impact on public policies, management, gaps, and potential areas for expansion? What are the associations with surface and underground water availability? Are there potential regional conflicts over water use? This type of character

 

Other comments/suggestions are presented below:

- Figure 4 should be deleted (the internal table is more interesting); maintain the table and incorporate the information from Figure 5 into it (which is also unnecessary);

Figures 6 and 7 can be substantially improved. Keep only one Figure 6A, for example, and place the values for each year for each state in the same Figure, creating a color legend per year of assessment. After that, Figures 6 and 7 can also be grouped.

- Does Figure 8, as it is presented, seem to be speculative, without quantitative data? What total areas and number of pivots are used for coffee, fruit and vegetable crops?

Regarding the average area of each pivot, the radius of a pivot is influenced by the relief. The flatter it is, the greater the possibilities of larger pivots. Show this relationship for the states or for the Cerrado. This is evident in the list in Table 2. Explore this discussion.

- In Figures 9 and 10, what does the color red represent? There is no caption

  There is no information that allows us to understand how the “water availability” was obtained and for what period it was carried out (daily, monthly, annual). Is it related to the climatological water balance? CAD reference? Specialized evapotranspiration – countless information that needs to be presented to contextualize a result, and not just adapt from another author, without context with the rest of the results presented.

- Tables 4 and 5 can be grouped together.

- the conclusions need to be rewritten, aiming to respond to the objectives presented in the paper; they must be concise, direct and short

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 93. Figure 1, maybe the values of the scale, instead of being 490 and 980 km, should be 500 and 1000 km?

Line 148. Figure 2 are analysed in diferent scales. Consider show the images in the same scale (either 800 or 950 m).

Line 165. Figure 3, same as above, although the areas A-B and C-D represent different zones, maybe they could be represented in same sclaes.

Line 191. Figure 4, consider shorten the values of the axis (1,4 . 10⁶ instead of 1400000). Appllicable in the rest of figures (from 4 to 7). In my opnion, if you use abrebiations, should read Area (Ha), as you do in next figures. Notice that this figure and the next ones (Figure 5, 6 and 7) do not follow the same design, with different divisoire lines. Maybe the figures should be uniformized.

Line 210. In figure 5, legend could be more understandable outside the graph.

Line 258. Table 1, maybe could be interesting to add the standard deviation to the average size, to give more comprehensibility to the data and variation. Same comment in table 2, standard deviation could be added in last column (average size (ha)).

Discussion should be complemented and compared with previous studies, in order to give consistency to the results. In this sense, discussion (data comparison and references) could be imporved. 

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Analysis of the paper "Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Center Pivot Irrigation System in the Brazilian Tropical Savanna (1985−2020)" indicates that the authors have significantly improved the article. This version already has publication potential. However, some recommendations are still relevant:

- The data in Figure 4 can be presented in tables, as the numerical values will allow for greater citations than the graphical trends. This historical record of the growth of central pivot irrigation in this biome is very important and can be retrieved numerically in the future (if you do not wish to insert tables in the text of the article, a supplementary document with the values ​​must be included).

- As a supplementary document, the regulatory documents that created the 13 irrigation poles can also be included, as this article takes this retrospective approach;

- in the item “Water Availability”, it must be informed which type of abstraction this equipment uses - surface or underground, to assist in the discussion of current and potential hydrological impacts; there is a lot of international news about the problems in this region, so this is a good opportunity for the authors to discuss the sustainability of irrigated agriculture;

- Figure 8, the frequency of equipment must be in percentage; and this figure can be better structured by irrigation pole, enabling discussion

- Regarding the discussion: What scientific advances can this characterization bring to the area? As it stands, does it look like a technical report? What are the considerations regarding the impact on public policies, management, gaps, and potential areas for expansion? What are the associations with surface and underground water availability? Are there potential regional conflicts over water use? This type of character

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf