The Quantitative Inhibition Effects of Meteorological Drought on Sugarcane Growth Using the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer-CANEGRO Model in Lai-bin, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI finished the review on the paper “The Quantitative Inhibition Effects of Meteorological Drought Scenarios on Sugarcane Growth Employed DSSAT-CANEGRO Model in Karst Area of Lai-bin, China”. The paper looks interesting, but before publishing it, authors must take into account the next comments.
General comment.
The context of the research is for Lai-bin, China area, why not using a watershed approach? Nowhere in the introduction is mentioned by how the precipitation depth has increased/decreased by effect of climate change. Is there published evidence that in your study area precipitation has decreased? If so, please use these references.
Specific comments.
Title. Title looks too long.
Introduction section. Lines 39 and 40. I suggest to delete ecosystems and human societies, since your paper is focused just on agriculture.
Introduction section. Lines 43 and 44. You say “…and crop root water stress feedback, and to crop canopy stomatal conductance response”. You can synthetize this text with “physiological disorders” or something similar, and it will sound nicer, more agronomic.
Introduction section. Line 46. You say “is most prominent in southwest China and occurs mainly in spring and winter”. Rewrite, there are many regions in the world with this same problem.
Introduction section. Lines 79-87. This part sounds like definition of the DSSAT model. I suggest this part must be saved for materials and methods section.
Introduction section. Line 92. You say “Singles (Singels et al. 2014)”. Please check the writing of the citation.
Introduction section. Line 96. You say “Murilo (Murilo and Sentelhas 2016)”. Please check the writing of the citation.
Introduction section. Line 96. You say “Jones (Zha et al. 2014)”. Please check the writing of the citation.
Introduction. Lines 88-101. You mention a series of studies with the model you propose to use in your research. However, I see that the text you show is very poor, I mean you should mention what did they find in those studies. Did they use different approaches or criteria about the water-soil-plant relationships?
Introduction. No definitions are given about drought. It is essential to say what the drought is. If necessary, provide with a definition of different kinds of drought.
Introduction. Lines 119- 128. The explanation about the parts in which the research is addressed is not necessary. This can be done in the materials and methods section explaining the way in which each research phase was carried out. Instead of, as I already mentioned it is essential to describe the paper objective carefully.
Introduction. In a single paragraph or in the last one, please write in a highlighted way the objective of the work. This is mentioned at the beginning of the last paragraph but it is important to clarify it well.
Section number 2. I suggest for this section to use another name for example “materials and methods”.
Section 2.1. Lines 153-155. Author must avoid to applaud his/her own work. Or if you have evidence about the necessity of this work in this study area, please provide it (use references).
Section 2.1. Line 150. You say “meteorological agricultural drought”, is this a new type of drought? Please use the drought concepts properly.
Section 2.1. It is missing to talk about how is the temperature in your study area.
Section 2. In nowhere of this section a definition of the model is provided. This can be added in the paragraph 172-178.
It is necessary to add sections such as results and discussion to separate what belongs to materials and methods. This will help your paper to look more organized.
Honestly, given that the paper requires to be organized with all its sections, I reserve the right to provide a comment on the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments for revising the current version of the article:
a. Throughout the article, no space is provided at the end of a sentence when citations are included. For example, see lines 41 (yield accumulation(Gupta et al. 2020; Li et al. 2023).) and 44 (stomatal conductance response(Gupta et al. 2020; Veresoglou et al. …). Shouldn’t each of these examples instead be written as (yield accumulation (Gupta et al. 2020; Li et al. 2023).; stomatal conductance response (Gupta et al. 2020; Veresoglou et al. …)?
b. Are the citations and references compliant with their journal defined format?
c. The entire paragraph (at lines 102-115 in the Introduction) needs to be reworded for improved flow and clarity.
Specific comments for revising the current version of the article:
1. “the” before Guangxi on line 18?
2. Line 48: What is meant by “karst is developed”?
3. Citations are needed for the sentence that ends on line 49.
4. For the sentence that ends on line 51, delete nowadays and put current after systematic?
5. Line 55, put a “,” after China?
6. Line 61 – “account for” rather than “are accounted for”
7. Lines 62-66: Reword “However, the sugarcane of Guangxi has been suffered regional meteorological drought against and exposed huge yield losses over the years, due to the spatio-temporal heterogeneity of rainfall, numerous rocky hills, karst development of underlying surface, poor retention capacity of soil water and inadequate irrigation (Chen et al. 2019b).” to improve clarity. Over what years (recent (e.g., last decade?))?
8. unnecessary space on line 65 after “soil water”
9. line 67: “under” or “at a”?
10. Lines 75-79: Reword “While, relatively, few studies have been con ducted to reveal the elaborate inhibition effect of meteorological and soil drought scenarios on sugarcane throughout its growth periods employed crop growth models, which can be reflected the physical mechanism of interaction between crop growth and integrated environmental conditions(Sun and Shen 2019).” for clarity. Possibly: “Relatively few studies have revealed the inhibition effect(s) of meteorological and soil drought on sugarcane growth and development using crop growth models, which reflect the interaction between crop growth and environmental conditions (Sun and Shen 2019).”?
11. Line 80: reword “CANEGRO module” as “module (CANEGRO)“
12. Line 82: replace the word “used” with “suited”
13. The sentence that ends on line 83 needs 1 or more citations
14. Line 83: Remove “Specifically, the model” and start the sentence with “The model” instead
15. Line 85: replace “whole” with “its”
16. Lines 86-87: Reword “Thus, it can be seen that the DSSAT CANEGRO is very suitable for the objective of this study as mentioned above.” as “The DSSAT CANEGRO is suitable for the objective(s) of this study”?
17. Lines 88-89: Reword “Internationally, the DSSAT-CANEGRO model has been utilized frequently for the simulation and application of the sugarcane growth process.” as “Several studies have utilized the DSSAT-CANEGRO model to simulate sugarcane growth processes (citations here – see next comment).”?
18. The sentence that ends on line 89 requires citations.
19. Line 89: Is “For instance,” needed?
20. Reword “Marin (Marin et al. 2011) evaluated and parameterized the DSSAT-CANEGRO model using two sugarcane varieties and five field trials in Brazil and successfully simulated the sugarcane growth and development processes in southern Brazil.” as “Marin (Marin et al. 2011) evaluated, parameterized, and successfully simulated sugarcane growth and development processes for two varieties in southern Brazil using the DSSAT-CANEGRO model.”?
21. Line 93: replace “changes” with “change”
22. Line 96: Is there an error here: “Jones (Zha et al.” --- different names for first author
23. Line 99: Reword “These above studies show that the DSSAT-CANEGRO model is of great value in the study of sugarcane, but China’s research on sugarcane is relatively few and urgently needs to be strengthened.” as “These studies demonstrated that the DSSAT-CANEGRO model is useful for evaluating sugarcane growth and development. However, the DSSAT-CANEGRO model has limited application in China (citations?).” If the DSSAT-CANEGRO model has been applied in China, then those studies should be cited here, as indicated in the previous recommended reword sentence. Moreover, if so, then this article should mention what is unique about its DSSAT-CANEGRO model application relative to the other small set of applications in China
24. Lines 116-119: Reword “To sum up, the quantitative inhibition effects of the multiple meteorological drought scenarios with intensity and duration in different periods on daily sugarcane growth are lack of research nowadays over the world, which is the main research objective in this study.” as “The main objective of this study was to quantify the inhibition effects of several meteorological drought scenarios, specified at the daily time scale with different intensities and durations, during various stages of sugarcane growth and development.
25. Lines 119-121: Reword “Firstly, the historical and possible meteorological drought scenarios were identified in sugarcane growth periods, which is based on statistical analysis of daily SPEI for the past 40 years in Lai-bin (Section 3).” as “Historical and potential meteorological drought scenarios were defined for the seedling, stem elongation, and maturity sugarcane growth stages based on a statistical analysis of the daily SPEI for the past 40 years in Lai-bin (Section 3).”
26. Line 122: what is meant by localization? Do you mean calibration? The localization was for what period --- historical I presume?
27. Lines 121-124: Reword “Then, sensitivity analysis and localization of DSSAT-CANEGRO model parameters were executed (Section 4.1) and the daily influence effect simulations of meteorological drought scenarios from typical historical years on sugarcane growth were carried out (Section 4.2).” as “Following a sensitivity analysis and calibration of the DSSAT-CANEGRO model parameters using historical data (Section 4.1), the defined meteorological drought scenarios were simulated at a daily time step to quantity their effect on sugarcane growth and development (Section 4.2).”?
28. Line 125: Replace “Furtherly” with “Subsequently”
29. I don’t understand the sentence as it is currently written on lines 128-130
30. Can more specificity be provided in the final sentence of the Introduction, on lines 130-133? In particular, replace “smart management” with more specific related words
31. Can the locations of Lai-bin and Guangxi be shown in Figure 1?
32. Label the four figures that constitute figure 1. Provide a more detailed description in the Figure caption for each of the four figures that constitute figure 1. See item 31
33. Line 139: delete “and still mainly rain-fed”
34. Lines 140-141: reword “but also is the worst damage from the sugarcane yield by a high frequency of meteorological drought events” as “but its sugarcane yields are also most negatively affected due to meteorological drought events”
35. Line 141: change “(Chen et al. 2019a); (Xie et al. 2021).” To “ (Chen et al. 2019a; Xie et al. 2021).”
36. Move the sentence on lines 140-144 to be the second sentence of the Study Area paragraph and rephrase its end “and its light and heat climatic conditions are very compatible with the sugarcane growth demand.” as “and its light and heat climatic conditions are compatible with the requirements for sugarcane growth and maturity.”
37. Line 145: reword “of 1200–1900 mm and mainly concentrated in April-August” as “of 1200–1900 mm that is mainly concentrated during April-August” Delete the rest of the sentence “for approximately 70%”
38. Line 146: what is meant by low coverage?
39. Lines 146-148: reword “However, Karst development leads to Lai-bin with low coverage, shallow soil and weak water-holding capacity, and fragile ecological environment, which is frequently contributed to the occurrences of flash soil drought events (Deng et al., 2020).” as “However, karst features within and surrounding Lai-bin result in low coverage, shallow soils with weak water-holding capacity, and a fragile ecological environment, all which contribute to the occurrence of flash soil drought events (Deng et al., 2020).”
40. Lines 149-150: The noted “extensive sloping farmland (Figure 1)” is not apparent to this reader when examining Figure 1. Please revise Figure 1
41. Lines 148-152: reword “In addition to the spatio-temporal non-uniformity of rainfall and extensive sloping farmland (Figure 1), meteorological agricultural drought events occurred frequently in Laibin City, which had a significant impact on the growth of primarily rain-fed sugarcane, and resulted in a huge loss of sugarcane yield over the years.” as “Frequent meteorological drought events in Lai-bin have resulted in significant losses of sugarcane yield over the years.” And I’d change the last few years to be more specific about what years
42. Lines 152-153: reword “Furthermore, the obvious shortage of the regional irrigation project also aggravated the fact of frequent sugarcane drought.” as “Regionally, inadequate irrigation has exacerbated the sugarcane yield losses due to the frequent drought events.”
43. Lines 153-154: reword “Overall, Lai-bin is an excellent typical study area for this paper topic of quantitative inhibition effect of meteorological drought scenarios on sugarcane growth.” as “Lai-bin is an excellent case study area to quantify the inhibition effect(s) of meteorological drought scenarios on sugarcane growth.”
44. Lines 159 – end of manuscript --- edit the manuscript for improved clarity/readability
45. Line 163, rather than put etc., simply list the parameters
46. Lines 164-167: Regarding this sentence, clarify that it is only for China.
47. Lines 172-178: Include the spatial scale of the soils database that was used in the study? Include citations for the soils database used in the study?
48. More detail needs to be included in the manuscript regarding the two field experiment datasets, possibly include a table that summarizes the data (types, and amount for each) in the field experiment datasets. Right now, the manuscript doesn’t provide any specific details about the two field experiment datasets other than their origins and a general comment that each has been used in other studies (that are not cited)
49. What is P on line 195 – precipitation I presume? Clarify this in the manuscript for the reader
50. Line 197 is --- change to was --- and throughout the manuscript focus on past tense
51. Lines 189-191 – I don’t understand the sentence on these lines.
52. What is the source for the thresholds specified in Table 1? Put that in the text, at the appropriate location, and also in the caption for the table. For the caption for the table, write out rather than use the acronym SPEI
53. In section 2.3 (1), better clarity in the text of the manuscript is needed regarding how the individual SPEI values calculated at each of the 119 grid points are combined/integrated for the study area.
54. Line 217 --- again, clarify your intended meaning of “localization of model parameters” – do you mean model parameter estimation?
55. Section 2.3 (2) – provide a table that lists the noted 20 DSSAT-CANEGRO model parameters – and which were held fixed and which were specified as adjustable. Include a brief description and there typical ranges. For the two that were held fixed, explain why they were held fixed (insensitive?)
56. Related to item 55, Figure 3 only shows 14 parameters. What about the 4 others that were specified as adjustable and evaluated in the sensitivity analysis?
57. Lines 243 – 249, use an equation to define the objective function(s) used for parameter estimation. Was the parameter estimation performed manually or using automated methods?
58. The article does not include any explanation/description specification of the meteorological (and other) inputs that were prepared/used for the mechanistic crop growth model simulations – please include
59. Figure 2 --- units for drought (a) durations and (c) frequencies shown;
60. Table 2 caption needs to be more thorough and descriptive
61. DSSAT-CANEGRO model parameter sensitivities are discussed prior to being defined
62. All figure and table captions need to be more thorough and descriptive
Comments on the Quality of English Languageextensive editing of English language is required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease address the following items:
Throughout the article, there are still places where no space is provided at the end of a sentence when citations are included.
Figures 2, 4, 5, 6, & 8 must be improved (they are blurry and/or it is difficult to read the text in the current versions for each of the Figures)
Line 59 – delete “currently” – it is not needed
Lines 71/72 – reword sentence for improved clarity
Lines 632-640 – the noted temporal component(s) of the soils data is unclear. Also, can the spatial component be put in units of distance rather than scale?
Line 645 – “in situ” rather than insitu?
The field experiment datasets could/should be summarized in a table for improved understanding of these data (data type and quantity at each field experiment location)
Lines 721-723 – please rephrase sentence for improved clarity
Line 724 – replace are with was; put “using a” before sliding
Line 725 - space after 90d; replace above with the; delete series
Line 726 – put a before Log
Line 727 – replace the 30d with a 30d; replace over the above sliding calculation with for the water deficit time series calculation; replace taken with took
Lines 738-741 – rephrase for improved clarity
Line 915 – were rather than was?
Line 916 – data rather than data1/data2?
Methods for sensitivity analysis were described, but not for calibration. Was the model calibration performed manually, leveraging the sensitivity analysis results, or using automated methods (if using automated means, please describe)?
The text in Figure 2 is blurry (I can’t read the names of the cities depicted) (same condition for Figures 4,5, 6, & 8)
Line 1000 – observe rather than know?
Lines 1002-1004 – please rewrite sentence for improved clarity
Line 1010 – that before lasted?
Line 1072 – Further rather than Furtherly?
Line 1066 references specific model parameters. Should a reference be made there to Table 3, which defines the model parameters.
Caption for Figure 3, which summarizes SA results --- in the caption, reference to Table 3 is made, including the optimal fitted values, obtained by iteration leveraging the SA results. Please rewrite “. Its best values in the table are obtained by sensitivity 1078 analysis and multiple adjustments (Table 3).” to better communicate the process and results.
Line 1092 – was the typical historical drought year 2015-2016? Please clarify for reader.
Line 1108 - 3.1 or 4.1?
Line 1127 – further rather than furtherly?
Line 1203/1210 – quantitate/quantitative, or quantify?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
none
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
