Functional Evaluation of Digital Soil Hydraulic Property Maps through Comparison of Simulated and Remotely Sensed Maize Canopy Cover

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled "Functional evaluation of digital soil hydraulic property maps through comparison of simulated and remotely sensed maize canopy cover" discusses a functional evaluation of digital maps of soil hydraulic properties of the Zambezi River Basin using a crop growth model AquaCrop. The topic is topical and fits the scope of the journal; however, there are a few questions/points that should be answered/clarified before the work is accepted for publication. Therefore, I recommend a major revision. 

1. I would recommend revisiting the acronyms that you have used in the manuscript and trying to use better ones. For example, Tr in line 64. Single letter acronyms such as B for biomass produced are also a little strange.
2. Line 70: This is an awkward sentence. Using informal language such as “like” is not recommended. Maybe: Alternatively, remote sensing can be used for field surveys providing reference data such as CC. Similarly, revisit line 86.
3. The introduction should improve dramatically. The gap in the literature that the current manuscript is trying to fill should be clearly articulated and its necessity should be clarified through referencing to related sources. The current format of the introduction is like a technical report and not suitable for publication in scientific journals. Studies that have used the random forest for similar studies should also be cited
4. Reference Error: Check lines 114, 118, 138, etc.
5. Section 2.1: Under the study area, you have discussed anything except the study area itself. Please discuss the basin you have chosen, soil properties, weather, and any other factor important for your analysis. Discussion of software such as ArcGIS is not suitable for the study area section!
6. The dataset should also be discussed in a separate subsection!
7. What is e in equation 1? exp?
8. The manuscript uses random forest while there is no trace of how random forest algorithm works in the methodology.
9. For all figures, please extend the caption. The caption should include all the necessary information including axis info, etc.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

I think this is a potentially interesting manuscript in which the authors evaluate soil hydraulic property maps via numerical simulations of crop growth. The results are valuable as they have practical implications for agriculture in a large river basin. 

However, reviewing this manuscript is not easy as its structure and presentation are quite messy. The authors do not abide to the journal guidelines, so there is a mismatch between the reference list (numerical) and the in-text references (text form). Also, many references have broken links and so an error message is written in their place. The authors should have checked the files and the journal guidelines before submissions.

The abstract is generally ok. Though, if I may give some editorial advice, I would avoid many abbreviations and use more plain language. 

The introduction is concise but it could benefit from one-two paragraphs of general introduction to the problem, starting from what these soil maps actually are, before moving to the detail of their generation for the Zambesi river basin. Some review of the existing international literature is needed here.

In the methods, the unfamiliar reader could benefit from some more explanation on what Aquacrop software is and does, before describing what inputs it needs in the specific case. About soil properties data, can the authors provide some information on the uncertainties associated with them? I understand Table 1 provides some representative values used for simulation, but I am sure there is variation across the basin. This variability should be either accounted for or at least discussed, especially for what concerns its implications for the model output.

In the results, the caption of Figs. 3-4 should be richer. The reader needs to be pointed to where to find information on land units (a table?) in order to read the figure. On the other hand, I appreciated very much the content of Table 2 with explanations of the significance levels.

The discussion appears good, whereas the conclusions read more like a summary. A conclusion should mention the main take-home result of the work, its implications, limitations, and future perspectives. It should not be a summary of what has been done.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has improved but still is not a significant contribution to the field. I pass the decision on accepting the paper to the editor. 

Author Response

Thank you very much 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my comments and I believe their manuscript can be published. In my opinion, the work is sound and provides good information that can be used in practice.

Author Response

Thank you very much