Using a Triple Sensor Collocation Approach to Evaluate Small-Holder Irrigation Scheme Performances in Northern Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your good presentation. Some comments are as following:

 In the introduction, please summarize them and use more relevant references

In M &M, use a map (Fig 1) at the beginning and show the three location more clearly and present more properties of them either for soil  (for example EC and .... ) or weather and crop and irrigation ...

Use fig 3 and 5 in the same shape and format. 

 

 refere to the attached file, please.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1,

Thanks for your valuable comments and remarks on our manuscript. Your remarks permitted us to improve the manuscript on the points mentioned. We now respond per point to your review remarks. Your comments are found in the document track change with green color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

This is an interesting and meaningful study that I believe will contribute to a deeper understanding of the performance of irrigation systems. However, there are still some issues in the paper that need improvement. The specifics are as follows.

Major point:

1.       Regarding the issues of model parameter tuning and validation, when using the AquaCrop model, if you believe that the yield data reported by farmers contain errors, how do you validate and test the yields simulated by the AquaCrop model? Is it sufficient to simply use the default parameters to complete the model simulation? If that is the case, the results obtained from the AquaCrop model would be unreliable. Please provide more details about the steps taken for model parameter calibration and test.

2.       The discussion section could delve deeper into the practical applications and limitations of the results, especially in terms of their applicability under different climate and soil conditions.

3.       The resolution of the satellite data is 100m. Is this resolution too coarse for the areas of the three irrigation systems? Is it possible to calculate NDVI using Sentinel data and then employ relevant remote sensing models to compute ET, GPP, and NPP, thereby obtaining a CWP with a finer spatial resolution?

Minor point

Line41：  Studies conducted by [1,3,4] corroborate this concern. [1,3,4] should be replace by the specific researcher and time. Many similar questions in this manuscript.

 

Line91: to our knowledge can be deleted. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2,

Thanks for your valuable comments and remarks on our manuscript. Your remarks permitted us to improve the manuscript on the points mentioned. We now respond per point to your review remarks. Your comments are found in the document track change with cyan color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled Using a triple sensor collocation approach to evaluate small-holder irrigation scheme performances in Northern Ethiopia is aimed at evaluating the performance of smallholder irrigation schemes in the Zamra Basin in northern Ethiopia using a three-sensor collocation approach. Overall, the contribution is structured in a standard form.

Crop water productivity (CWP), as an integrator of biomass production and water use, was used to compare the overall efficiencies of three types of irrigation systems, traditional and modern diversions and dam-based irrigation water supply.

They consider it important to have a clear definition of the goal of the work, which in its current form is not unambiguous. Authors should thoroughly review the units used throughout the paper. In a scientific article, it is necessary to use the basic units of the SI system, including their correct labeling. E.g. in the graphs presented in Appendix A - Figure A 1, the marking of the unit expressing degrees Celsius is incorrectly indicated. Similarly, in the header of the table - Table A 1, the mass unit (gr/cm3 ) is incorrectly marked, etc. In the methodology, there is no mention of the statistical evaluation of the obtained data. Despite the fact that the discussion is comprehensive, a relatively small amount of literature is cited in it, I recommend increasing the number of citations. It is also necessary to finish the conclusion of the contribution, make it more concrete and link it with the result part. At the end of the contribution, I would recommend adding a proposal for the implementation of experiments in the next period, or the formulation of recommendations for user practice, even taking into account the complicated political and economic conditions in Ethiopia. After incorporating these comments, the text can be accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #3,

Thanks for your valuable comments and remarks on our manuscript. Your remarks permitted us to improve the manuscript on the points mentioned. We now respond per point to your review remarks. Your comments are found in the document track change with yellow color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The validation part of the AquaCrop model is still very vague, and it is impossible to know whether the validation results are reasonable. Since you mentioned that remote sensing data was used for validation, what the accuracy of the validation? how was it validated and tested? and how many samples were used? It is not enough to just cite one reference, and the calibration and testing accuracy of the model need to be described in the text. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer #2,

Thanks for your valuable comments and remarks on our manuscript. Your remarks permitted us to improve the manuscript on the points mentioned. We now respond per point to your review remarks. Your comments are found in the document with yellow color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

    How do you get the observed WP? Why not show the validation result of yield?  You only show the validation result, but the process is very confusing. Which year is used for calibration and which year is used for test? What the specific calibration parameter?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer #2,

Thanks for your valuable comments and remarks on our manuscript. Your remarks permitted us to improve the manuscript on the points mentioned. We now respond per point to your review remarks. Your comments are found in the document in the appendix.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf