Field Study to Evaluate Water Loss in the Irrigation Canals of Middle Egypt: A Case Study of the Al Maanna Canal and Its Branches, Assiut Governorate
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has scholarly importance and it seems very interesting. But the title of this manuscript seems not good.
1) The paper is poorly written. Please improve the paper writing to look the MESE paper style. Abstract is very poorly written. The text of this paper in general needs a thorough review, as there are multiple spelling and grammatical errors.
2) Method is inadequately described; not at all clear where information comes from. Results are not presented clearly or comprehensively. Lay out and texts presentations especially results, discussion and conclusion are not well written. Please put the numeric number for all the equations.
3) Please reduce the self-citations if you have in this manuscript. We will highly discourage to use the self-citation in the manuscript. The citation and references of your manuscript are not match with the style. Please check the citation and inferences if it does not show the proper way in the text of this manuscript. Please put the citation in the texts of your manuscript according to journal styles otherwise the paper will not be consider for further processes. Please add some latest citations and references in your manuscript but strictly avoid your self-citations. Texts where you change must be indicated by a different color.
good
Author Response
Thank you very much for the vital comments.
We found the comments of the editor and the reviewers are constructive and helpful in revising our manuscript, and therefore we made earnest efforts to incorporate their suggestions for change as much as possible. The details of our changes as well as their explanations are described below. We sincerely hope that these actions will be considered satisfactory by you. However, if you have any additional questions about any those, or anything else, please let us know. We would like to thank you for helping us to improve this manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the water losses of the Al Maanna Canal in Assiut governorate was studied, the seepage, evaporation and Evapotranspiration losses were calculated using empirical formulas, and the seepage losses was compared in field experiments, and the Evapotranspiration losses was estimated using CROPWATER software, and the economic benefits of water losses and canal rehabilitation were evaluated in 6 steps. The research design of this paper is rigorous and the conclusions are convincing. However, there are several issues that require minor modifications:
1. The format of formula is inconsistent and the references are not marked in the article.
2. In section 3.2 of the text, what is the principal for sample selection each 5 km along the main canal? Is the choice representative?
3. In part 3.4.3 of the paper, the CROPWATER software is used to estimate the evaporation of weeds based on the Penman-Monteith method, and it is recommended to clarify the Penman-Monteith method and describe the simulation process in detail.
4. In section 3.4.3 of the text, it is proposed to compare and analyze the evapotranspiration amount of weeds estimated by CROPWATER software and the transpiration calculated by the empirical formula to prove the statement that "the Penman-Monteith method is the most accurate" in part 2.3 of the text.
5. Equation 3 is used to calculate crops. What is the principal for calculating the area of irregularly growing weeds using Equation 3 in part of the text? Is the selection promotional?
6. In section 3.5.1, the third section of the canal has more tributaries than the fourth section of the canal, but the seepage loss has not increased significantly, and it is recommended that special analysis be carried out in the text.
7. In section 3.5.3, only the Evapotranspiration rate of weeds is analyzed, and the total amount of Evapotranspiration is not calculated using formula (5), please indicate the reason.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you very much for the vital comments.
We found the comments of the editor and the reviewers are constructive and helpful in revising our manuscript, and therefore we made earnest efforts to incorporate their suggestions for change as much as possible. The details of our changes as well as their explanations are described below. We sincerely hope that these actions will be considered satisfactory by you. However, if you have any additional questions about any those, or anything else, please let us know. We would like to thank you for helping us to improve this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Field Study for the Assessment of the Water Losses Through the Open Irrigation Network Canals in Middle Egypt to the East Side of the River Nil
Manuscript ID: limnolrev-2533943
Comments Comments and Suggestions for Authors
A brief summary
The article describes the study of water losses in drainage canals. The research was carried out on a field stand and in the field of analyses using empirical formulas. The field site was a 14 km long section of the canal, on which water level gauges were installed. Water losses were presented for existing conditions and after carrying out maintenance works: mowing vegetation and clearing the channel. The article lacks a description of works protecting the canal bed against excessive water losses. In the Reviewer's opinion, the analyses used empirical formulas for very diverse conditions, which do not include the specificity of the tested channels and the climatic conditions in which they operate. These formulas, by definition, give different values of losses, which the Authors pointed out in the article. The Reviewer expected the Authors to propose a way to protect the canals against water loss. The presented methods are ad hoc maintenance and restoration works and do not constitute a permanent reduction of water losses from the channels. The Authors did not explain whether the analyses concern the planned changes in cross-sections or whether the reconstruction of the channels was carried out in the field and how it was performed.
Broad comments
Comment
The article submitted for review does not have continuous pages and line numbering. Thus, the Reviewer uses a reference to the reviewed text giving (P. page number, R. line number, line numbering direction, Up from the top, Down from the bottom).
It should be corrected.
Please write SI units throughout the article. For non-metric formulas, please provide definitions and units of all parameters. Please use the equal sign only in equations and when specifying values of variables or parameters. In descriptions of variables and parameters, please use a dash. Please add the numbering of the equations the same throughout the article. Please use a colon and a semicolon when counting. In descriptions of variables and parameters, please use a dash. Descriptions of variables and parameters after a dash, please start with a lowercase letter. Equations used in analyses must have definitions and units of all variables. Please specify the type of soil for individual sewer sections. Please specify the constant coefficients for the type of soil in the channel bed. The Reviewer hopes that the Authors will take these comments into account in the publication.
Specific comments
(P. 1, R. 7, Down) 1. Introduction
(P. 2, R. 2-4, Up). It must be corrected.
Please cite the exact source “….National Great Project for Lining and Rehabilitation of All Open Canals of the Irrigation Network all over the Egyptian Countryside….”.
(P. 2, R. 17, Up) 2. Literature Review
(P.1, R. 18-21, Up). It must be removed.
Please edit the text and move it to 1. Introduction, or delete it.
(P. 2, R. 22, Up) 2.1. Seepage Losses
(P. 1, R. 22-26, Up). It must be corrected.
The basic parameter is the length of the channel. Therefore, most of the formulas give unit losses per 1 km of the channel length (see Table 1).
It should be.
Seepage losses from unit length of 1 km earthen irrigation canals,………….
or
….several factors, such as length of canal, soil……
Table 1. Examples of previous studies on measuring of seepage losses from earthen canals.
It must be corrected.
Please write SI units throughout the article. Seepage losses S has the dimension (m3s-1km-1).
It should be.
(m3/s/km) or (m3s-1km-1)
(m3/s) or (m3s-1)
Please use the equal sign only in equations and when specifying values of variables or parameters. In descriptions of variables and parameters, please use a dash. Please use a colon when counting.
It should be.
Where: S – seepage losses (m3s-1km-1); Q – discharge (m3s-1); d – water depth (m); P – wetted perimeter (m).
Where: S – seepage losses (m3s-1km-1); Q – discharge (m3s-1).
(P. 3, R. 2-3, Up). It must be removed.
Please delete the text.
......... A summary of these approaches is given below.
(P. 3, R. 4, Up). 2.1.1. Experimental formulas for measuring seepage losses
It should be.
(P. 3, R. 4, Up). 2.1.1. Experimental Formulas for Measuring Seepage Losses
It must be corrected.
Please remove numbering 2.1.1. Please do not enter third row heading numbers.
(P. 3, R. 4-6, Up). It should be.
Experimental formulas for measuring seepage losses. The table (2) introduces a variety of experimental formulas that were used to quantify seepage losses from earthen canals.
Table 2. Experimental formulas for estimating seepage losses.
It must be corrected.
For non-metric formulas, please provide definitions and units of all parameters, and provide the coefficient for converting the result into SI units. Please note that Figure 6 and Figure 7 have the unit (m3/month). Such a unit cannot be obtained from the formulas in Table 2 without conversion. Please add the numbering of the equations. In Table 1, seepage losses S has the dimension (m3s-1km-1). In Table 2, please add the dimension seepage loses S for each equation (in SI unit system and in non-metric unit system). The formulas give the values of S seepage losses in (m3s-1).
It must be corrected.
? – dash, definition, unit in non-metric system or unit in SI system
C – dash, definition
C is different for each equation and cannot be taken for any equation. C for each equation should be marked with the index of the equation, for example, the Author's initials.
Clay: C = 0.34. Sand: C = 2.2
Clay: C = 0.0015. Sand: C = 0.003
C – a range sign, not a division sign
C = (1.1: 1.8).
a – dash, lowercase first letter
a = Area of wetted perimeter (million ft2 )
C – a range sign, not a division sign. Please provide exact values for the soil type.
C = (1: 70) depends on bed material
C – a range sign, not a division sign. Please provide exact values for the soil type.
C = (1.5: 5.5)
Alpha – dash, definition, unit in SI system.
Beta – dash/pause, definition, unit in SI system.
? = 10 ∗ α ∗ ? (1−?)
The formula gives the values of Alpha and Beta, not the difference of these values.
Alpha – values or ranges for type of soil.
Beta – values or ranges for type of soil.
(α-β) = (0.7-0.3), (1.9-0.4) and (3.4- 0.5) for low, medium, and high permeable soil, respectively
(P. 3, R. 8-7, Down). Notes in the above table:
Please add missing parameters and units for all individual parameters.
It should be.
Notes in the above table: Q – discharge (UNIT); V – water velocity (UNIT); L – canal length (UNIT); R – hydraulic radius (UNIT); d – water depth (UNIT); P – wetted perimeter (UNIT); C – …………..definition; SI – System International of units
(P. 3, R. 6, Down). 2.1.2. The field ponding method for measuring of seepage losses
It should be.
(P. 3, R. 6, Down). 2.1.2. The Field Ponding Method for Measuring of Seepage Losses
It must be corrected.
Please remove numbering 2.1.2. Please do not enter third row heading numbers.
(P. 3, R. 6-2, Down).
It should be.
The field ponding method for measuring of seepage losses. The method represents a direct method for measuring seepage losses from a considerable length of a canal, is based on restricting water in a certain reach of the canal and then measuring the water level twice: once after the restriction process and again after 24 hours.
(P. 4, R. 1, Up and Figure 1). It must be corrected.
L is the length of the water table, it does not include the partition.
W is the average value for d1 and d2. W cannot be greater than the width for d2.
(P. 4, R. 2-9, Up). Eq. (1) and description.
Please use a colon and a semicolon when counting. Please use a dash in descriptions of variables and parameters. S-field (ft3 /ft2 /day) is related to m2 of wetted perimeter. In Table 1, the same value of S-length (m3s-1km-1) is related to the length of 1 km of the channel. In Table 2 seepage losses S has the flow dimension (m3s-1) through the surface determined by parameters. Please mark these three variables with indexes, for example SL (m3s-1km-1), SQ (m3s-1) and SF (ft3 /ft2 /day). Please briefly describe how evaporation from the free surface of the canal was measured.
It should be.
Where: SF – average seepage losses from the ponded reach (ft3 /ft2 /day); W – average width of water surface in the ponded reach (ft); d1 – water depth at the beginning of measurement in the ponded reach (ft); d2 – water depth in the ponded reach after 24 hours (ft); P – average wetted perimeter in the ponded reach (ft); L – length of canal ponded reach (ft).
(P. 4, R. 26, Down). 2.2. Evaporation Losses
(P. 4, R. 15-11, Down). Eq. (2) and description. It must be corrected.
Please use a colon and a semicolon when counting. In descriptions of variables and parameters, please use a dash. Descriptions of variables and parameters after a dash, please start with a lowercase letter. Please enter the value of the Kp coefficient for constant calculation conditions or the range of Kp coefficient values if the conditions were variable for different channels.
(P. 4, R. 10, Up). 2.3. Evapotranspiration Losses
(P. 4, R. 6-1, Down). Eq. (3) and description. It must be corrected.
ETo, ETc - these are dimensional parameters. Please specify units. In the Reviewer's opinion, it is (mm·day-1). K? is a daily dimensionless coefficient.
(P. 5, R. 1-4, Up). Eq. (4) and description. It must be corrected.
Please use a colon and a semicolon when counting. In descriptions of variables and parameters, please use a dash. Descriptions of variables and parameters after a dash, please start with a lowercase letter. Please enter the values or range of the equation parameters (Ka, Kcb, Kw, Ks) Eq. (4) for site conditions.
(P. 5, R. 11-15, Up). Eq. (5) and description. It must be corrected.
Please use a colon and a semicolon when counting. In descriptions of variables and parameters, please use a dash. Descriptions of variables and parameters after a dash, please start with a lowercase letter. Please specify units. Why submitted that Wc is for a during the month period. The Reviewer does not find the number of days in the month in equation (5).
(P. 5, R. 18, Down). 3. Research Methodology
(P. 5, R. 17-9, Down). It must be removed.
The text repeats the titles of the following parts of the article. The text does not add anything new to the article. The text should definitely be deleted.
(P.5, R. 8, Down). 3.1. Selection and Description of the Study Area
(P. 6, R. 8, Down). 3.2. Surveying of Soil Types in the Study Area
(P. 6, R. 7-1, Down). It must be supplemented.
Please add a table of soil parameters to estimate the value of the Ci coefficient. Please enter the values of the Ci factor used to calculate seepage losses S according to the equations given in Table 2.
(P. 7, R. 1, Up). Table 3. Characteristics of Al Maanna Canal and its branches (Abu-Zaid and Sabery, 2021).
It must be corrected.
Please remove the colors from Table and edit the table on one vertical page.
(P. 1new, R. 1, Up). 3.3. Meteorological Data
(P. 1new, R. 8, Up). Table 4. Meteorological data of the study area (AAWS, 2020).
No. is of type INTEGER. The ratio values in the SH/Day column are type REAL. Please remove No.
(P. 1new, R. 9, Up). 3.4. Field Data
(P. 1new, R. 13, Up). 3.4.1. Field parameters of seepage losses
It must be corrected.
Please remove numbering 3.4.1. Please do not enter third row heading numbers.
(P. 1new, R. 13-14, Up). It should be.
Field parameters of seepage losses. In order to measure seepage losses, water …………
The Authors did not explain whether the analyses concern the planned changes in cross-sections or whether the reconstruction of the channels was carried out in the field and how it was performed.
It must be corrected.
Photo (1) Ponding method for measuring of seepage losses.
The presented photograph does not confirm the research carried out. Photo 1 is of poor quality, please attach a good quality photo showing your own field research.
Photo (2) Measuring device of ponding method
The presented photograph does not confirm the research carried out. Photo 2 does not contain elements of the conducted field research. It is a typical water gauge, of which there are many. Please attach a photo showing elements of your own field research.
(P.1new, R. 19, Up). 3.4.2. Field parameters of evaporation losses
It must be corrected.
Please remove numbering 3.4.2. Please do not enter third row heading numbers.
(P. 1new, R. 19-20, Up). It should be.
Field parameters of evaporation losses. Evaporation losses occur from both the designed (rehabilitated) and distorted cross…..
(P. 1new, R. 33, Up). 3.4.3. Field parameters of evapotranspiration losses
It must be corrected.
Please remove numbering 3.4.2. Please do not enter third row heading numbers.
(P. 1new, R. 33-34, Up). It should be.
Field parameters of evapotranspiration losses. Most irrigation canals have extensive weed growth along their sides as well as …………………
(P. 2new, R. 42, Up). Table 5. Measured areas of weeds along Al Maanna canal and its branches.
It must be corrected.
Please remove the colors from Table and edit the table on one vertical page. Please add 2 columns with fieldwork results of seepage (m3/month). In Figure 6 and Figure 7, this information is hard to read.
(P. 3new, R. 49, Up). 3.5. Analyses and Discussions
(P. 3new, R. 50-54, Up).
It must be removed.
The text repeats the titles of the following parts of the article. The text does not add anything new to the article. The text should definitely be deleted.
(P. 3new, R. 55, Up). 3.5.1. Seepage losses
It must be corrected.
Please remove numbering 3.5.1. Please do not enter third row heading numbers.
(P. 3new, R. 55-56, Up). It should be.
Seepage losses. As shown in the figures (6 and 7), seepage losses from the distorted cross sections of…..
Figure 6 and Figure 7 are of poor quality.
(P. 4new, R. 1, Up).Figure 6. Seepage losses from the distorted sections of Al Maanna canal.
It must be corrected.
Please increase drawing area and legend markers. Please combine the Figure 6 graphic with the title Figure 6 on one page. On the OY axis, please enter the unit in thousands (m3/month). Please arrange the graphics and the legend in sequence according to Table 2 and the numbers of the formulas in Table 2, and at the end provide your own results from field research.
(P. 4new, R. 59, Up).Figure 7. Seepage losses from the distorted sections of branches of Al Maanna canal.
It must be corrected.
Please increase drawing area and legend markers. On the OY axis, please enter the unit in thousands (m3/month). Please arrange the graphics and the legend in sequence according to Table 2 and the numbers of the formulas in Table 2, and at the end provide your own results from field research.
(P. 4new, R. 82-84, Up).
It must be corrected.
The text needs formatting.
(P. 5new, R. 85, Up). 3.5.2. Evaporation losses
It must be corrected.
Please remove numbering 3.5.2. Please do not enter third row heading numbers.
(P. 5new, R. 85-86, Up). It should be.
Evaporation losses. Evaporation losses from Al Maanna canal and its branches obtained from …….
(P. 6new, R. 99, Up). 3.5.3. Evapotranspiration losses
It must be corrected.
Please remove numbering 3.5.3. Please do not enter third row heading numbers.
(P. 6new, R. 99 - P. 7new, R. 1, Up). It should be.
Evapotranspiration losses. The first reach of the Al Maanna canal had the highest ……………..
(P. 7new, R. 106, Up). 3.6. An Economic Study of the Lining Process in the Study Area
(P. 8new, R. 115, Up). Table 6. Costs of bed dredging and weeds' removal from Al Maanna canal cross sections.
It must be corrected.
Please remove the colours from Table 6.
(P. 8new, R. 117, Up). Table 7. Costs of bed dredging and weeds' removal from branches of Al Maanna canal.
It must be corrected.
Please remove the colours from Table 7.
(P. 9new, R. 126, Up). 4. Conclusions
(P. 9new, R. 127-129, Up).
It must be corrected.
The first is not a conclusion.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for the vital comments.
We found the comments of the editor and the reviewers are constructive and helpful in revising our manuscript, and therefore we made earnest efforts to incorporate their suggestions for change as much as possible. The details of our changes as well as their explanations are described below. We sincerely hope that these actions will be considered satisfactory by you. However, if you have any additional questions about any those, or anything else, please let us know. We would like to thank you for helping us to improve this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
General:
This paper is nicely drafted and easy to read.
Abstract:
Please clearly mention the hypothesis, objective, and end abstract with future implications of this study.
Introduction:
Please have a detailed introduction and cite the latest references. The introduction should end with future implications after the objectives.
Results:
Statistical analysis is missing. This is alarming. The results section is nicely written. Please check references carefully. Figures quality can be improved.
Discussion:
I would suggest the authors have a more supported discussion with references considering the main point: The limitations of the method and considerations when to apply the studied methodology and then the potential next steps or further investigation to address these limitations.
References: Please double-check the style of references and if missing one
Extensive English revision is required
Author Response
Thank you very much for the vital comments.
We found the comments of the editor and the reviewers are constructive and helpful in revising our manuscript, and therefore we made earnest efforts to incorporate their suggestions for change as much as possible. The details of our changes as well as their explanations are described below. We sincerely hope that these actions will be considered satisfactory by you. However, if you have any additional questions about any those, or anything else, please let us know. We would like to thank you for helping us to improve this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
I read this interesting paper on the assessment of water losses in the case of Egypt and its Nile. It is a well written, well structured, and novel research.
My main suggestion, however, would be to also include the social aspect of how water and local communities in rural areas - farmers - experience such resources. Therei s a key work that would be useful in guiding the authors in this endeavour: El Nour, S., Elaydi, H., (2021). Thirst revolution: practices of contestation and mobilisation in rural Egypt. Contemporary Levant, 6(2), 169-184.
In addition, I would also suggest to reinforce unsubstantiated claims and broad statements such as "Egyptians face a significant challenge in meeting the growing population's water needs for agriculture and food production." My suggestion would be to add a background section right after the introduction, spelling out and unpacking all these instances. For instance, you could explain why and how Egyps is suffering from this crisis of natural resources, its relations and changes in the demographic over time - with the help of a graph - and how is water and food security ensured in the country. The aspect of contestation is also key, and here the article of Saker El Nour is important."
I hope this is helpful in contextualising your work.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the vital comments.
We found the comments of the editor and the reviewers are constructive and helpful in revising our manuscript, and therefore we made earnest efforts to incorporate their suggestions for change as much as possible. The details of our changes as well as their explanations are described below. We sincerely hope that these actions will be considered satisfactory by you. However, if you have any additional questions about any those, or anything else, please let us know. We would like to thank you for helping us to improve this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Looks fine
