Assessing Groundwater Use Efficiency and Productivity across Punjab Agriculture: District and Farm Size Perspectives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is, in general, well-written and well-structured. Some suggestions to improve the manuscript are the following:
- The irrigation methods are critical for assessing the water use efficiency and economic water productivity. However, the analysis does not mention or include the irrigation methods used. Please mention and comment/justify.
- The descriptive statistics of variables (table 3) should include all continuous variables (e.g. depth of tubewells)
- The age of irrigation networks and the type of water conveyance networks (pipes/open channels) are also parameters that can influence water use efficiency. Please comment by providing information on them.
- The expression of the regression model should be explicitly cited (all coefficients) and directly related (with the same symbols) to Table 11 to provide consistency and clarity.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback. As per your valuable suggestions, we have incorporated the changes and revised the manuscript. The response to the detailed comments has been as follows:
Comment 1: The irrigation methods are critical for assessing the water use efficiency and economic water productivity. However, the analysis does not mention or include the irrigation methods used. Please mention and comment/justify.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. All farmers surveyed possess their own tube-wells, as the study unit was farmers irrigating using tubewell to assess groundwater use efficiency and productivity. Farmers primarily use electric with very few instances of diesel tubewell (only 24 farmers and all in Pathankot district). Farmers primary use flood irrigation as the primary method of irrigation and no evidence of water-efficient technique of irrigating such as drip or sprinkler irrigation were found from the sampled farmers.
Comment 2: The descriptive statistics of variables (table 3) should include all continuous variables (e.g. depth of tubewells)
Response: Thank you for your attention to detail. Table 3 on page 9 has been updated to include all continuous variables including depth of tubewell and farm harvest prices of paddy and wheat.
Comment 3: The age of irrigation networks and the type of water conveyance networks (pipes/open channels) are also parameters that can influence water use efficiency. Please comment by providing information on them.
Response: Thank you once again for your constructive feedback. In our study, we focused on Punjab, India, where the predominant irrigation method involves tube-wells especially since the onset of green revolution in 1960s. The irrigation infrastructure in this region typically comprises modern electric tube-wells, which are relatively recent in their establishment. Most of these tube-wells have been installed within the last three to four decades, reflecting ongoing investments (digging deeper due to falling water table) in irrigation infrastructure to support the agricultural demands of the region. Regarding the type of water conveyance networks, water is conveyed directly from tube-wells to the fields using field channels, eliminating the need for extensive conveyance networks such as pipes or open channels. This direct conveyance method significantly reduces potential water losses that might occur through seepage or evaporation in more extensive network systems.
Comment 4: The expression of the regression model should be explicitly cited (all coefficients) and directly related (with the same symbols) to Table 11 to provide consistency and clarity.
Response: We appreciate your attention to detail regarding the expression of the regression model and the importance of consistency and clarity in presenting our results. We have updated the regression model on page 7 to include and match all coefficients and variables in table 10 and 11.
Thank you
Yours sincerely
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer’s comments to the manuscript Agriculture- 3080963
This study examines the water-use efficiency (WUE) and economic water productivity (EWP) of paddy and wheat crops across various farm sizes and districts in Punjab, India, using data from 246 farmers. Results highlight that larger farms generally exhibit higher WUE and EWP, with notable regional disparities. Specific districts, such as Bathinda for paddy and Sangrur for wheat, show exceptional efficiency. The study emphasizes the need for localized interventions and targeted policy measures, such as promoting water-saving technologies and phasing out inefficient crop varieties, to improve agricultural water management and support sustainable practices, especially for marginal farmers.
While the study provides valuable insights, it also suffers from some shortcomings, as listed below:
Line 24: The introduction covers various topics, including global water scarcity, virtual water trade, and various factors influencing WUE and EWP. This broad scope can dilute the main research focus and make the introduction seem unfocused. A more concise introduction focusing directly on the key issues relevant to Punjab’s agriculture could be more effective.
Line 49: While the introduction addresses global water scarcity and its impact on agriculture, it lacks a clear focus on the specific context of the study, which is Punjab, India. This can make it difficult for readers to immediately understand the geographical and situational relevance of the research.
Line 68: While the introduction mentions various factors affecting WUE and EWP, it does not identify specific gaps in the existing literature that the current study aims to address. Highlighting these gaps more explicitly would strengthen the justification for the research and help readers understand its significance.
Line 194: The study uses data from only four districts in Punjab, which may not fully represent the entire state or other regions with different agricultural practices and conditions.
Line 228: While the study uses a regression model, establishing causality between factors like farm size, technology adoption, and WUE/EWP can be challenging due to potential unobserved variables.
Line 299: The model may not include all relevant variables influencing WUE) and EWP. Factors such as soil type, climate conditions, crop rotation practices, and access to extension services can significantly impact WUE and EWP but are not included in the model. The exclusion of these variables could lead to omitted variable bias, where the model’s explanatory power is reduced due to missing key factors.
Line 317: The results might not be generalizable to other regions or countries with different climatic conditions, soil types, or water availability.
Line 682: The study suggests policy interventions but might not account for the potential complexities and unintended consequences of implementing such policies across diverse farming communities.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing is required.
Author Response
Thank you for your critical comments and suggestions. Kindly find the revision made in the manuscript.
Comment 1: The introduction covers various topics, including global water scarcity, virtual water trade, and various factors influencing WUE and EWP. This broad scope can dilute the main research focus and make the introduction seem unfocused. A more concise introduction focusing directly on the key issues relevant to Punjab’s agriculture could be more effective.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. Introduction has been revised with more information specifically about Punjab added in the introduction section on page no. 2 between lines 51 and 66.
Comment 2: While the introduction addresses global water scarcity and its impact on agriculture, it lacks a clear focus on the specific context of the study, which is Punjab, India. This can make it difficult for readers to immediately understand the geographical and situational relevance of the research.
Response: This has been done as above.
Comment 3: While the introduction mentions various factors affecting WUE and EWP, it does not identify specific gaps in the existing literature that the current study aims to address. Highlighting these gaps more explicitly would strengthen the justification for the research and help readers understand its significance.
Response: Thank you for your helpful feedback regarding the research gap of the paper. The same has been added and highlighted on page no. 2 between lines 82 and 91.
Comment 4: The study uses data from only four districts in Punjab, which may not fully represent the entire state or other regions with different agricultural practices and conditions.
Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the representation of sample size of our study. We acknowledge that the sample size represents only four districts. However, we employed a robust sampling strategy to ensure that our sample is representative of the broader region. In selecting our sample, we aimed to capture a diverse range of farming practices and conditions across Sangrur, Jalandhar, Pathankot, and Bathinda. We focused on including farmers from different areas within these districts to reflect the varied agricultural contexts. Still, while the specific conditions in Punjab may limit the direct generalizability of our findings to regions with vastly different climatic conditions, soil types, or water availability, the underlying principles and insights on WUE and EWP are broadly applicable.
Comment 5: While the study uses a regression model, establishing causality between factors like farm size, technology adoption, and WUE/EWP can be challenging due to potential unobserved variables.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our study. We acknowledge that establishing causality between factors and WUE and EWP can be complex. Regression models can suggest associations but may not definitively establish causation due to the presence of unobserved variables that might influence the outcomes. The same has been added as a limitation of the study on page number 20 between lines 790 and 792.
Comment 6: The model may not include all relevant variables influencing WUE and EWP. Factors such as soil type, climate conditions, crop rotation practices, and access to extension services can significantly impact WUE and EWP but are not included in the model. The exclusion of these variables could lead to omitted variable bias, where the model’s explanatory power is reduced due to missing key factors.
Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. Our initial approach focused on the economic aspects of agricultural productivity. In our study, the analysis was conducted at the farm/household level. Omitted variables such as rainfall, temperature, soil type, and government expenditure are district-level variables. Given the granularity and focus of our farm-level data, we believe that the variation induced by these district-level variables is minimal and does not significantly impact our results. This difference in the level of data aggregation may not introduce variation in the regression analysis. Furthermore, our data is cross-sectional, which may limit its application for detailed farm-level analysis over time. We initially also excluded rainfall data due to its inherent uncertainty in the sampled region, which we believed might introduce additional complexity without significantly enhancing the model. Further, crop rotation practices are practically negligible as farmers majorly persist with the mono-culture of planting rice and wheat entire year. Additionally, sampled farmers had no access to technical input related to groundwater exploitation from extension services and they had not attended any trainings/camps related to the same. However, we acknowledge the importance of these factors and have addressed this limitation in our manuscript on page 20 between lines 793 and 797. Specifically, we have included a discussion on page 18 between lines 673 and 697 noting the potential influence of these omitted variables on WUE/EWP based on existing research.
Comment 7: The results might not be generalizable to other regions or countries with different climatic conditions, soil types, or water availability.
Response: We appreciate your attention to this important aspect. Firstly, the study's comparative analysis of groundwater-stressed districts versus safer groundwater districts offers valuable insights into how regional variations affect agricultural water management. Such comparative advantages are critical for policymakers when designing region-specific interventions to enhance sustainability and productivity. Secondly, our findings on the WUE and EWP of wheat and paddy in Punjab are consistent with national studies and few international studies (Philippines, China and Japan) which report similar ranges of productivity. Hence, while the specific conditions in Punjab may limit the direct generalizability of our findings to regions with vastly different climatic conditions, soil types, or water availability, the underlying principles and insights on WUE and EWP are broadly applicable.
Comment 8: The study suggests policy interventions but might not account for the potential complexities and unintended consequences of implementing such policies across diverse farming communities.
Response: Thank you for your helpful comments. Potential complexities and unintended consequences of suggested policies have been added on page 19 between lines 745 and 768.
Thank you
Yours sincerely
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper investigates the water use efficiency (WUE) and economic water productivity (EWP) of paddy and wheat crops across different farm sizes and districts in Punjab, India. The authors collected data through field surveys and used a double-log multiple linear regression model to analyze the factors influencing WUE and EWP. The findings indicate that farm size, technology adoption, and regional variations significantly impact WUE and EWP.
Major Concerns:
The model does not account for potential endogeneity issues and omitted variable bias, which may affect the accuracy of the estimated results.
The definition and measurement of some variables are unclear. For instance, the definition of "frequency of laser land leveling" is ambiguous, and the inclusion of the categorical variable "religion" directly in the regression model is inappropriate.
The representativeness of the sample and the reliability of the data are questionable.
The maps and tables are rudimentary and need to be improved aesthetically. For example, sampling points could be added to the map, along with the country's location and potentially corrected projection system for better visualization.
Introduction:
When introducing the agricultural and water resource conditions in Punjab, please provide more detailed data, such as groundwater extraction volume, planting area, and yield of rice and wheat, to help readers better understand the research background.
As there have been many similar studies, the marginal contribution of this paper needs to be highlighted.
Literature Review:
The conceptual distinction between WUE and EWP needs to be further clarified, including their differences, relationships, and diverse definitions across disciplines. The discussion on the factors influencing WUE and EWP should also be strengthened. Additionally, the paper should address how it integrates and justifies the combined analysis of these two concepts.
The literature review should provide a more comprehensive overview of existing research on the factors influencing WUE and EWP. It should also highlight the gaps in the literature that this study aims to address, providing a stronger theoretical foundation for the research.
Materials and Methods:
Consider using instrumental variable methods or fixed-effects models to address potential endogeneity issues.
Provide a clear definition of variables like "frequency of laser land leveling" and choose appropriate measurement methods. Convert the categorical variable "religion" into dummy variables.
Expand the sample size or clearly state the limitations of the study's generalizability in the conclusion. Make efforts to obtain more objective and accurate data to minimize recall bias.
Results Analysis:
In addition to reporting the significance levels of the coefficients, please provide confidence intervals to give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the reliability of the estimated results.
When interpreting the model results, be cautious about over-interpreting causality. Emphasize that the study has identified correlations between variables but cannot establish causal relationships.
Conclusion and Discussion:
Compare and contrast the findings of this study with those of other studies, analyzing similarities and differences, and exploring potential reasons for discrepancies.
In the policy recommendations section, provide more specific details on how to incentivize water-saving technologies and which technologies to promote. Draw upon successful experiences from other regions to offer more targeted and actionable policy recommendations.
Author Response
Comment 1: The model does not account for potential endogeneity issues and omitted variable bias, which may affect the accuracy of the estimated results.
Response: We appreciate your diligence in highlighting the potential endogeneity issues and omitted variable bias. In our study, the analysis was conducted at the farm/household level. Omitted variables such as rainfall, temperature, soil type, and government expenditure are district-level variables. Given the granularity and focus of our farm-level data, we believe that the variation induced by these district-level variables is minimal and does not significantly impact our results. However, we acknowledge the importance of these factors and have addressed this limitation in our manuscript on page 20 between lines 793 and 797. Specifically, we have included a discussion on page 18 between lines 673 and 697 noting the potential influence of these omitted variables on WUE/EWP based on existing research.
Comment 2: The definition and measurement of some variables are unclear. For instance, the definition of "frequency of laser land leveling" is ambiguous, and the inclusion of the categorical variable "religion" directly in the regression model is inappropriate.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. The "frequency of laser land leveling" refers to the number of times laser land leveling has been performed on a particular plot of land over a period of 6 years. This variable is measured by directly asking farmers how many times they have used laser land leveling on their fields in the past six years. We have improved all the definitions of variables in table 2 on page 8. Further, we acknowledge that including "religion" as a categorical variable directly in the regression model may not be suitable due to its complex socio-cultural implications. However, in the case of a nation like India which is diverse and several religions are practiced, the variable may shed light on the socio-cultural context influencing resource allocation and farming practices. Additionally, as mentioned between lines 287 and 291 on page 7, previous studies establish that water consumption is intertwined with cultural and religious beliefs, making it a significant aspect of societal values.
Comment 3: The representativeness of the sample and the reliability of the data are questionable.
Response: We appreciate your concern regarding the representativeness of the sample and the reliability of the data in our study. This study was conducted in four districts of Punjab: Sangrur and Jalandhar, which represent groundwater exploited districts, and Pathankot and Bathinda, which represent relatively groundwater safe districts. This selection allows for a comparative analysis of agricultural practices across districts with varying groundwater conditions. These districts also cover the north-south extent of Punjab, representing three-fourths of the administrative divisions, ensuring a diverse representation of agricultural practices. We employed a multistage random sampling technique, which strengthens the representativeness of the sample. In the first stage districts were purposely selected. In the second stage, three blocks from each district were randomly selected. In the third stage villages from each block were randomly selected. Finally, farmer households from each village were targeted randomly to ensure a representative sample. This methodological approach allowed for comprehensive and representative coverage of farm sizes and practices within the selected districts. We believe that the methodological rigor employed in the sampling process and data collection ensures both the representativeness and reliability of our study. The diverse representation of districts and the systematic approach to sampling and data verification bolster the robustness of our findings.
Comment 4: The maps and tables are rudimentary and need to be improved aesthetically. For example, sampling points could be added to the map, along with the country's location and potentially corrected projection system for better visualization.
Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion regarding the sampling map. The same has now been improved with country’s location including neighboring states and countries, north-south indicator, and sampling points on page 5.
Comment 5: When introducing the agricultural and water resource conditions in Punjab, please provide more detailed data, such as groundwater extraction volume, planting area, and yield of rice and wheat, to help readers better understand the research background.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. More information specifically about Punjab has been added in the introduction section on page no. 2 between lines 51 and 66.
Comment 6: As there have been many similar studies, the marginal contribution of this paper needs to be highlighted.
Response: Thank you for your helpful feedback regarding the contribution of the paper. The same has been added and highlighted on page no. 2 between lines 82 and 91.
Comment 7: The conceptual distinction between WUE and EWP needs to be further clarified, including their differences, relationships, and diverse definitions across disciplines. The discussion on the factors influencing WUE and EWP should also be strengthened. Additionally, the paper should address how it integrates and justifies the combined analysis of these two concepts.
Response: Thank you for your productive feedback regarding improvement in conceptual distinction between WUE and WP. The same has been improved in the materials and methods section on page 3 with sub-headings clearly explaining historical background and definitions, definitions adopted in the paper, factors affecting WUE and WP, how the two may be integrated together and multi-disciplinary nature of both terms.
Comment 8: The literature review should provide a more comprehensive overview of existing research on the factors influencing WUE and EWP. It should also highlight the gaps in the literature that this study aims to address, providing a stronger theoretical foundation for the research.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comment. This has been done in the study now as per comment 6 and 7.
Comment 9: Consider using instrumental variable methods or fixed-effects models to address potential endogeneity issues.
Response: Thank you for your additional suggestions regarding the potential endogeneity issues. While we recognize the value of these methods, implementing them in our study presents challenges and finding suitable instruments that vary at the farm/household level is difficult. Therefore, applying these models may not be feasible due to the limited within-farm variation in these district-level factors over the study period.
Comment 10: Provide a clear definition of variables like "frequency of laser land leveling" and choose appropriate measurement methods. Convert the categorical variable "religion" into dummy variables.
Response: Thank you for your comments. The first part has been done as per comment no 2. Further, the variable ‘religion’ has already treated and used as a dummy variable in the study.
Comment 11: Expand the sample size or clearly state the limitations of the study's generalizability in the conclusion. Make efforts to obtain more objective and accurate data to minimize recall bias.
Response: Thank you for your comments regarding the sample size of the study. The limitation of the study due to small sample size has been added in the limitations section on page 20 between lines 784 and 786.
Comment 12: In addition to reporting the significance levels of the coefficients, please provide confidence intervals to give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the reliability of the estimated results.
Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. Confidence intervals for both regression models have been added on pages 14 and 16.
Comment 13: When interpreting the model results, be cautious about over-interpreting causality. Emphasize that the study has identified correlations between variables but cannot establish causal relationships.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our study. We acknowledge that establishing causality between factors and WUE and EWP can be complex. Regression models can suggest associations but may not definitively establish causation due to the presence of unobserved variables that might influence the outcomes. The same has been added as a limitation of the study on page number 20 between lines 790 and 792.
Comment 14: Compare and contrast the findings of this study with those of other studies, analyzing similarities and differences, and exploring potential reasons for discrepancies.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. A comparison of our study with other similar studies along with the reasons for discrepancies has been added on page 18 between lines 649 and 658.
Comment 15: In the policy recommendations section, provide more specific details on how to incentivize water-saving technologies and which technologies to promote. Draw upon successful experiences from other regions to offer more targeted and actionable policy recommendations.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to provide more specific details in the policy recommendations section. We have revised the section on page 19 between lines 745-750 and 769-772 to include targeted and actionable recommendations, drawing upon successful experiences from other regions.
Thank you
Yours sincerely
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The introduction is clearly and thoroughly written with references referring to the subject of the research. It is written clearly, in sufficient volume not to burden the text but to show what it is that will be researched. The objectives of the research are clearly set.
2. Material and Methods - please give references for lines 149-156.
3. Please give exchange rate of INR for dollar or euro
4. Results - please present the value results in dollars to make it comparable
5. Discussion - the discussion is correctly performed with properly cited references. The discussion written in this way points out that the problem is current in the scientific community, that other researches have focused on this problem and that this paper contributes to its further understanding.
6. The conclusion is defined in accordance with the initial assumptions.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions and feedback on the manuscript. We have incorporated the changes and revised the manuscript accordingly (revisions are highlighted). Kindly find the following revisions made in the manuscript
Comment 1: The introduction is clearly and thoroughly written with references referring to the subject of the research. It is written clearly, in sufficient volume not to burden the text but to show what it is that will be researched. The objectives of the research are clearly set.
Response: Thank you for your positive feedback on the introduction of our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you found it to be clearly and thoroughly written, with appropriate references to the subject of the research.
Comment 2: Material and Methods - please give references for lines 149-156.
Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. It should be kindly noted that references have been added for lines 149-156 (now 122-129).
Comment 3: Please give exchange rate of INR for dollar or euro
Response: We appreciate the importance of providing the exchange rate of INR to USD to ensure clarity and facilitate the understanding of financial comparisons. In response to your comment, we have included the exchange rate information in the manuscript where relevant. The exchange rates used are based on the average rates during the period of our study to provide a consistent and accurate comparison.
Comment 4: Results - please present the value results in dollars to make it comparable
Response: The same has been done as above
Comment 5: Discussion - the discussion is correctly performed with properly cited references. The discussion written in this way points out that the problem is current in the scientific community, that other researches have focused on this problem and that this paper contributes to its further understanding.
Response: Thank you for your positive feedback on the discussion section of our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you found the discussion to be correctly performed with properly cited references.
Comment 6: The conclusion is defined in accordance with the initial assumptions.
Response: We are pleased to hear that you found the conclusion to be well-defined and in accordance with the initial assumptions presented in the study.
Thank you
Yours sincerely
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer’s comments to the manuscript Agriculture- 3080963
I appreciate the authors’ efforts to improve the manuscript. I still have a few concerns that were left unattended.
Line 82: The authors have included more details on the research questions but did not identify specific gaps in the existing literature that the current study aims to address. What research has been done in this field or in other locations? What are the shortcomings of the existing work? Furthermore, how does this study fill this gap? Highlighting these gaps more explicitly would strengthen the justification for the research and help readers understand its significance.
In response to Comment 6: It is unclear how the authors knew that “farmers had no access to technical input related to groundwater exploitation from extension services and they had not attended any trainings/camps related to the same.” Were these questions included in the survey? What was the response of the farmers?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageImprove the clarity of sentences.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback. As per your valuable suggestions, we have incorporated the changes and revised the manuscript. The response to the detailed comments has been as follows:
Comment 1: Line 82: The authors have included more details on the research questions but did not identify specific gaps in the existing literature that the current study aims to address. What research has been done in this field or in other locations? What are the shortcomings of the existing work? Furthermore, how does this study fill this gap? Highlighting these gaps more explicitly would strengthen the justification for the research and help readers understand its significance.
Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have revised Line 82 (now line 85) and the surrounding text to explicitly highlight the shortcomings of previous research and explain how our study fills these gaps.
Comment 2: In response to Comment 6: It is unclear how the authors knew that “farmers had no access to technical input related to groundwater exploitation from extension services and they had not attended any trainings/camps related to the same.” Were these questions included in the survey? What was the response of the farmers?
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments and for pointing out the need for clarification. We indeed included specific questions in our survey to assess the farmers' access to technical input and their participation in relevant trainings or camps. The survey included the following questions: "Have you received any technical input/guidance related to groundwater management from any extension services such as KVKs (Agriculture Science Centers), State agriculture departments, ICAR (Indian Council of Agriculture Research) organizations and agriculture universities?" and "Have you attended any trainings or camps related to groundwater management or conservation?" The responses by the farmers that they had no access to extensions or had not attended training camps led us to conclude that farmers in the study area had no access to technical input and had not participated in relevant training programs.
Thank you
Yours sincerely
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised most of the previous review comments and provided explanations for those that could not be revised.
It is recommended that the authors revise the format, for example, do they need to add "and" to the author's name, and do they not need to write "equation" for the number of equations, but just write the serial number.
In the first few sentences of the abstract, the discussion of the unique marginal contribution of this paper should still be added.
Figure 1 should also include a scale and a diagram of the region's position in the country. The direct serial numbers of the sample points are not precise enough; they should be labelled with a dot and then a serial number.
Are there too many horizontal lines in Table 1, it is not in the same format as all the other tables.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback. As per your valuable suggestions, we have incorporated the changes and revised the manuscript. The response to the detailed comments has been as follows:
Comment 1: It is recommended that the authors revise the format, for example, do they need to add "and" to the author's name, and do they not need to write "equation" for the number of equations, but just write the serial number.
Response: Thank you for your recommendations regarding the formatting of the manuscript. We have made the necessary revisions to align with your suggestions and the format of the journal.
Comment 2: In the first few sentences of the abstract, the discussion of the unique marginal contribution of this paper should still be added.
Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the abstract. In response, we have revised the beginning of the abstract to explicitly discuss the unique contributions of our study.
Comment 3: Figure 1 should also include a scale and a diagram of the region's position in the country. The direct serial numbers of the sample points are not precise enough; they should be labelled with a dot and then a serial number.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions regarding Figure 1. We have added a scale to Figure 1 to provide a clear reference for distances. We have also included an inset map showing the position of the study region within the country. This will help readers better understand the geographical context. We have also replaced the direct serial numbers with dots followed by serial numbers to precisely indicate the sample points.
Comment 4: Are there too many horizontal lines in Table 1, it is not in the same format as all the other tables.
Response: Thank you for your careful review and for bringing this formatting issue to our attention. We have revised Table 1 to ensure it adheres to the same formatting standards as the other tables in the manuscript.
Thank you
Yours sincerely
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is generally an interesting study that explores the effects of different factors on water use efficiency as well as water productivity, but there are some questions as follows:
1.The paper mentions fertiliser application, labourers, etc., but does not seem to take into account the effect of meteorological factors, and what can be done about this? It is suggested that the authors seriously consider the issue of meteorological factors.
2、If the data are derived from actual surveys, how is the water use efficiency calculated? It is unlikely that farmers will remember how many mm of water they irrigated each time, and how can this problem be solved.
3、It is recommended to adjust the format of the paper carefully according to the publication requirements.
4, conclusion 3.1 part of the data processing method is not too shallow, the data in the table is not enough to support such a text expression, from the table can not show that there is a positive correlation.
5, I did not see the author's description of the year of the data, is only one year of data statistics, or a long time series of data, if only one year, is it representative.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is based on a survey of 246 farmers across four districts of the Indian Punjab. The authors have tried to calculate WUE and WP and the economic returns of wheat and paddy crops, which are largely grown in these districts. It is assumed all irrigations were applied using groundwater (although not exclusively mentioned in the paper). The survey was conducted in July-August 2022 in the selected four districts. All data used in this paper is based on a survey and no real field-level measurements are done to determine the exact yields of crops and total water applied. The following are detailed comments.
· As mentioned by the authors, the sample size is very small compared to the size of the four districts that were selected for this study. This raises serious concerns regarding the true representation of the study area.
· Yield and water application data is also based on the farmer's perceptions and no direct measurements are involved. Most of the calculations are done by authors based on the information received through the survey. Therefore, the quality of data is a major weakness of this paper.
· The survey was done during July-August 2022, which is usually paddy season. Paddy season ends in October. Therefore, it is not clear how authors could get full information about paddy during a two-month survey. Similarly, it is not clear when the data was collected for the wheat crop. If the data for wheat was also collected during this survey and the information was based on farmers’ memory of the last crop, then one needs to understand how the results of this paper can be trusted. This makes the whole study less reliable.
· The results show that WP values were low for small farms compared to large farms. However, no discussion is done to explain these differences. Generally, fertilizer application rates, better pest and weed management, and use of quality seed are considered the major reasons for high yields. Large farmers can afford these inputs compared to small farms. These differences need to be better explained. One should understand that water productivity is largely based on land productivity. Therefore, if land productivity is low, water productivity cannot be high regardless of the amount of water applied.
· Authors should differentiate between water productivity and economic water productivity. In many places, water productivity is mentioned as “INR/m3”. This needs correction. Also, it would be good to present this data in ‘$/m3”.
· It is believed that all irrigations were done with groundwater. However, there is no mention of groundwater quality. The quality of groundwater can affect the crop yield significantly. Similarly, no mention of soil salinization. Usually, in GW-based irrigated fields, the soil is saline.
· The results of this study have not been compared with other local or international studies. Therefore, it is hard to understand if the reported WP values are lower or higher than the regional values. More research needs to be cited for comparison.
· The introduction is very long and lots of irrelevant information is provided. This can be squeezed.
· Methodology lacks the process of conducting the survey, data management, and analysis.
· Authors recommend that tailored approaches for marginal farmers and districts with lower efficiency are crucial for promoting sustainable agricultural practices. However, they did not mention any such approaches for readers.
· The paper underscores the need for targeted policy interventions to enhance water-use efficiency and productivity in Punjab's agriculture sector. This is a general statement. The authors should suggest these policy interventions in the larger interest of the policymakers and researchers.
· Through empirical evidence in Punjab and scholarly insights, this paper contributes valuable knowledge that can inform groundwater management practices and guide future strategies for optimizing agricultural productivity in the face of escalating global water challenges. This is also a vague statement. It would be good if the authors could elaborate on how this paper contributes to this task.
· Lines 334 and 476 need corrections.
I believe that the paper has serious flaws in its methodology, data collection process, and quality of data. The conclusions drawn from this study are very general and do not provide any “out of the box” solution to improve WP, and groundwater management strategies. Therefore, I do not consider it fit for publication in its present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe definitions and equations, indicated in the introduction section, should be in M&M section.
How were defined the variables used in the study in the regression model? Most of them are social related not physical related to irrigation. There are missing many variables related to the irrigation management performance that affect groundwater Use Efficiency and Productivity, such as effective rainfall, Average depth to pumping levels, distance to irrigation turnout
No information about the methodology to estimate the volume of water applied for irrigation in cubic meters per hectare. No information about predominant on-farm irrigation practices, water quality, gross revenue, etc.
The results should be faced and compared with those from other authors relevant to the assessment.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNA
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The reviewer appreciates the genuine effort of Bhatia and Singh (2024), which is very interesting and will potentially have a broader audience because most of the world's groundwater aquifers are declining.
Overall, it is good research. However, the model output should still reflect the impact on the groundwater table, which the authors seemed more concerned about in the beginning. The reviewer did not see any results related to affected groundwater dynamics. So, the authors should revise the work to include groundwater dynamics. After reviewing the paper in detail, the reviewer decided that this work needs some additional work. Therefore, the reviewer recommended minor revisions before final publication.
The reviewer is looking forward to reviewing the improved version of this manuscript.
Good luck
Anonymous Reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has answered my question.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsno
