Evaluating Ecosystem Services for the Expansion of Irrigation on Agricultural Land
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached sheet.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 1
As my impression, it is written in a very orderly flow. The relationship between irrigation and ES has been measured and discussed, but as the authors have stated, it is very difficult to pick up only these two factors out of the various factors. Nevertheless, I think that the focus on ES rather than just agricultural productivity is commendable.
Response: Thanks for the comment, we think ES are very important and much more study is need on the topic.
good point ：
The first half of 3.2 and 4 are convincing.
Response: Thanks for the positive comment!
to add if possible:
(1) 1 shows four types of ES.
In 3, if the Result can be analyzed for each of these four ES Values, it will be more persuasive. The (+/-) trends of these four ES in each dry and wet year are acceptable. Please show us if possible.
Response: This is an interesting idea, however, our methods do not allow us to distinguish benefits among the 4 types of ecosystem services. The ecosystem service benefit from reduced nutrient and sediment loads into streams and rivers is improved water quality, which we believe most relates to regulating and supporting ecosystem services (noted in last paragraph of Introduction). Improved water quality also may contribute to enhanced cultural and provisioning services too, however, such an analysis is outside the scope and capability of our methods designed to focus on the effects of expanding irrigation on existing agricultural land (noted in the last paragraph of section 1). In the discussion, a paragraph has been added describing the issue of parsing benefits among the 4 types of ecosystem services.
(2) There is a comparison with California in the second half of 4, but it seems that the difference from California is not only in the irrigation development rate. I would like you to add a little more explanation of each land use.
Response: Additional details on the overall land cover land use environment in the Upper Dry watershed in California have been added in the discussion section.
(3) Is this the way to describe the URL of Reference 5.21.32? (Add Available at:)
Response: This is an oversight. The edit “Available at” has been added to reference # 32.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate the invitation to review the manuscript entitled “Evaluating ecosystem services for the expansion of irrigation on agricultural land”. The work itself presents good organization, with an introduction and rescue of related research, in addition to the definition of the research site and methods. However, I do have a few points:
1. Some acronyms are mentioned without being defined, SLO, LDR, MUSLE, SSURGO, among others, check. It is important to indicate the acronyms as not every reader is familiar with them.
3. On line 57, check the phrase “ecosystem services and to demonstrate methods that quantify Is the benefit”.
4. Line 121 deals with “hydrologic soil groups”, however, explanations about the classification appear in a later section, indicate the section and/or some reference to guide the reader.
5. The equations are not formatted according to the journal guidelines (suggestion: use the “Equation” feature in Word to improve formatting).
6. Equation variables can be indicated in sequential sentences.
7. On line 248 is “Al” a weather station identification?
8. Annual average precipitation seems to vary throughout the manuscript, check.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I appreciate the invitation to review the manuscript entitled “Evaluating ecosystem services for the expansion of irrigation on agricultural land”. The work itself presents good organization, with an introduction and rescue of related research, in addition to the definition of the research site and methods. However, I do have a few points:
- Some acronyms are mentioned without being defined, SLO, LDR, MUSLE, SSURGO, among others, check. It is important to indicate the acronyms as not every reader is familiar with them.
Response: All acronyms have been checked and defined at first use.
- On line 57, check the phrase “ecosystem services and to demonstrate methods that quantify Is the benefit”.
Response: “Is” is an extraneous word. The sentence now reads “The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of irrigation on regulating and supporting ecosystem services and to demonstrate methods that quantify the benefit or cost of expanded irrigation on existing agricultural land”.
- Line 121 deals with “hydrologic soil groups”, however, explanations about the classification appear in a later section, indicate the section and/or some reference to guide the reader.
Response: In lines 121-129 a reference has been added to Figure 3 “Soil Groups” and to Table 1 for additional information on “hydrologic soil groups”.
- The equations are not formatted according to the journal guidelines (suggestion: use the “Equation” feature in Word to improve formatting).
Response: All equations have been formatted to journal guidelines.
- Equation variables can be indicated in sequential sentences.
Response: Per your suggestion, edits have been made to indicate variable in sequential sentences for sections 2.1.1 Soil, Erosion and the Universal Soil Loss Equation and 2.2.1 Sediment Method. These changes are from line 177 to line 283.
- On line 248 is “Al” a weather station identification?
Response: The Al is an “Alabama”, not a weather station ID. “Al” has been replaced with Alabama.
- Annual average precipitation seems to vary throughout the manuscript, check.
Response: Average annual precipitation for Alabama is 1400 mm and edits have been made to clarify in the Introduction and Discussion sections.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
