A Bio-Economic Model for Improving Irrigated Durum Wheat Performance and Regional Profits under Mediterranean Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is an exceptionally well-performed and informative study on durum wheat production in Tunisia. My congratulations to the author on accomplishing valuable research and contributing to the literature.

Some minor improvements, however, could be done.

First, I would recommend the author detail the selection of respondents and the approach to conducting the survey. It is not clear how exactly these 698 farmers are selected (explain the selection procedure) and how the representativeness of the sample is ensured (breakdown of respondents by parameters, the degree to which the sample represents the overall array). Also, please specify the questions that have been used and explain how the answers have been measured and compared.

Second, in the conclusion, more thoroughly detail potential implications of the findings in theoretical and practical spheres. The approach can be used in elaborating policies, that is fine. Are there any more specific practical implications for the durum wheat sector in Tunisia, in neighboring countries, and in other countries? Outline potential areas for future research in the area. Also, emphasize limitations and possible challenges future researchers may face when applying Cropsyst and other models.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of the authors I would like to thank you for valuable and relevant evaluation.

Hereby, I submitted the revised manuscript and our responses to your comments and suggestions, hoping that meet your expectations.

Kind regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aims to develop a bio-economic model for improving irrigated durum wheat performance and regional profits under Mediterranean conditions. Despite on how the study is presented, I regretfully must reject the MS. It lack the proper structure, a more focused review, and a more detailed description of field data.

Comments:

General comment: The MS is strongly based on previous studies. Many of the assumptions are made based on conclusions drawn by other authors. This need to be revised.

Introduction:
This section needs to be reviewed. There is the need to provide a proper review on the effectiveness of using CROPSYST and MORBIT to provide for accurate results, in particular for wheat. Also, and across the MS, all variables should be presented in SI units (why q instead of kilograms or tons?).

Methods:
A better description of the climate and soil data must be included.

The authors refer that CROPSYST was calibrated for several Tunisian regions, recalling a previous study. But are those regions the same as of this study? Data on this calibration must be included in the MS. The same for MORBIT.

 

Results:
Are the data presented in Section 3.1 results of the study? Are these surveyed data? It seems more like input data rather than simulation results. This needs to be reviewed. I have the same doubts for section 3.2…

Section 3.4 does not make much sense… A scenario is not a result…

Specific comment: mm-1 should be converted to m-3

Was water productivity observed for each field? Or was it estimated based on average irrigation water depths?

Section 4 needs to be reviewed since instead of discussing the main finding of the study, the authors add new information that previously weren’t presented (or at least it seems so).

 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of the authors I would like to thank you for valuable and relevant evaluation.

Hereby, I submitted the revised manuscript and our responses to your comments and suggestions, hoping that meet your expectations.

Kind regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the revised MS. The MS was significantly improved with the revisions, and the approach is clearly presented.

However I still have to point out that "Section 3.4 does not make much sense… A scenario is not a result…". I would suggest to move this section to Section 2. 

Also, there are many typos across the MS; this should be addressed.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of the authors I would like to thank you for valuable and relevant evaluation.

Hereby, I submitted the revised manuscript and our responses to your comments and suggestions, hoping that meet your expectations.

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx