Sensitivity Analysis of the WOFOST Crop Model Parameters Using the EFAST Method and Verification of Its Adaptability in the Yellow River Irrigation Area, Northwest China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-organized manuscript, logical and well-written. But the figures and tables need more work to improve. Some examples:

 

Table 2: it’s hard to distinguish the Significance statement between different items as some of them are not capitalized.

 

The resolution of the Figures is not good.

 

Table 4: It’s slightly confusing when the first row is highlighted in bold. Maybe consider placing crop parameters and values in columns.

 

 

There are a number of similar studies on the sensitivity analysis of WOFOST. Please emphasize the novelty and the scientific contribution of this study.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work has been prepared reliably and makes a significant scientific contribution to topics related to crop modeling and the analysis of relevant parameters.

1.       Please compare the obtained results with the literature data - adequate citations in the results report and, if necessary, provide a comment.

2.       The extensive horizontal table is illegible and unsigned. Please correct this issue.

3.       Increase the readability of Figure 2, 3 and 5, please.

4.       What is your proposal for the practical implementation and use of your models? What still needs improvement? - Include the answers to these questions in the last sentences of the discussion.

5.       Check that you have explained all the abbreviations in the first mention, please.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewed manuscript is devoted to the sensitivity analysis of the parameters of the WOFOST crop model.

The authors have done a lot of work on the analysis of parameters, including taking into account the previously obtained results (Discussion section).

However, the manuscript is difficult for readers to understand and needs editing:

1. The presence of empty lines and even whole pages (lines 306, 307-319, 399).

2. The manuscript is overloaded with abbreviations. You can add a list of abbreviations.

3. At the end of the Introduction section, it is necessary to formulate a brief specific purpose of this work.

4. Figures 2, 3, 4 should be enlarged, or divided into 2 or 4 separate figures, since some data is very poorly visible.

5. It is better to put the table (page 13) in the Appendix.

6. An unreasonably large (6-10) number of significant digits in Table 4.

7. The phrase (lines 418-420) is not a discussion. It is better to remove it.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx