AquaCrop Model Performance in Yield, Biomass, and Water Requirement Simulations of Common Bean Grown under Different Irrigation Treatments and Sowing Periods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well-structured and written. The M&M is well explained and detailed. Results and discussion are coherent. The introduction can be improved by adding some more detailed and recent references.
At Lines 61-64:
AquaCrop can also be used effectively to predict crop water requirements, yield (ADD: Abi Saab, M. T., El Alam, R., Jomaa, I., Skaf, S., Fahed, S., Albrizio, R., & Todorovic, M. (2021). Coupling remote sensing data and Aquacrop model for simulation of winter wheat growth under rainfed and irrigated conditions in a Mediterranean environment. Agronomy, 11(11), 2265) by assimilating the canopy cover and biomass estimated from Sentinel-2 imagery [20, ADD: Han, C.; Zhang, B.; Chen, H.; Liu, Y.; Wei, Z. Novel approach of upscaling the FAO AquaCrop model into regional scale by using distributed crop parameters derived from remote sensing data. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 240, 106288; Jin, X.; Li, Z.; Feng, H.; Ren, Z.; Li, S. Estimation of maize yield by assimilating biomass and canopy cover derived from hyperspectral data into the AquaCrop model. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 227, 105846], and to evaluate the effects of optimized irrigation management on the minimization of percolation losses and maximization of crop yield for different soil types [21].
At line 68 ref [22] looks to be not corrected.
Modify Lines 71-75 with:
AquaCrop has been effectively used to test sowing dates in the case of barley [26, 27], sorghum [28] or sugar beet [29], and to optimize sowing date in the case of sunflower and soybean (Abi Saab, M. T., Albrizio, R., Nangia, V., Karam, F., & Rouphael, Y. (2014). Developing scenarios to assess sunflower and soybean yield under different sowing dates and water regimes in the Bekaa valley (Lebanon): Simulations with Aquacrop. Int. J. Plant Prod, 8(4), 457-482). Additionally, sowing date changes are proposed as a climate change impact mitigation measure. Studies show that spring sowing dates might be advanced or aftercrop sowing dates delayed due to unfavorable temperature conditions for the germination, growth, and development [30].
At line 263 add ref 10 further than 35 and 37.
At line 282 it is written II and II change with II and III.
At line 319: remove the small s from F, R and S irrigation options, they were always given without s along the whole ms.
Author Response
We are very grateful to the Editor and anonymous reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments, which have helped us to improve the paper. We have revised the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments, as outlined below. All changes are tracked so they can be easily seen. We have also deleted some unnecessary text (especially in Table 2) to avoid overlap.
Answers to Reviewer
The manuscript is well-structured and written. The M&M is well explained and detailed. Results and discussion are coherent. The introduction can be improved by adding some more detailed and recent references.
We thank reviewer for the kind words and suggestions.
At Lines 61-64:
AquaCrop can also be used effectively to predict crop water requirements, yield (ADD: Abi Saab, M. T., El Alam, R., Jomaa, I., Skaf, S., Fahed, S., Albrizio, R., & Todorovic, M. (2021). Coupling remote sensing data and Aquacrop model for simulation of winter wheat growth under rainfed and irrigated conditions in a Mediterranean environment. Agronomy, 11(11), 2265) by assimilating the canopy cover and biomass estimated from Sentinel-2 imagery [20, ADD: Han, C.; Zhang, B.; Chen, H.; Liu, Y.; Wei, Z. Novel approach of upscaling the FAO AquaCrop model into regional scale by using distributed crop parameters derived from remote sensing data. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 240, 106288; Jin, X.; Li, Z.; Feng, H.; Ren, Z.; Li, S. Estimation of maize yield by assimilating biomass and canopy cover derived from hyperspectral data into the AquaCrop model. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 227, 105846], and to evaluate the effects of optimized irrigation management on the minimization of percolation losses and maximization of crop yield for different soil types [21].
Thank you, we accepted suggestions.
At line 68 ref [22] looks to be not corrected.
We used different abbreviation. Reference is corrected now.
Modify Lines 71-75 with:
AquaCrop has been effectively used to test sowing dates in the case of barley [26, 27], sorghum [28] or sugar beet [29], and to optimize sowing date in the case of sunflower and soybean (Abi Saab, M. T., Albrizio, R., Nangia, V., Karam, F., & Rouphael, Y. (2014). Developing scenarios to assess sunflower and soybean yield under different sowing dates and water regimes in the Bekaa valley (Lebanon): Simulations with Aquacrop. Int. J. Plant Prod, 8(4), 457-482). Additionally, sowing date changes are proposed as a climate change impact mitigation measure. Studies show that spring sowing dates might be advanced or aftercrop sowing dates delayed due to unfavorable temperature conditions for the germination, growth, and development [30].
Thank you, we accepted suggestion. The paragraph has been modified.
At line 263 add ref 10 further than 35 and 37.
We agree. Reference is added.
At line 282 it is written II and II change with II and III.
Thank you, it is corrected.
At line 319: remove the small s from F, R and S irrigation options, they were always given without s along the whole ms.
In materials and methods (lines 109-117), we add subscription s to distinguish simulations between measured (F, R, S) and model created (Fs, Rs, Ss) irrigation depths. Other reviewers did not commented on this, therefore we kept the subscriptions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
Thanks for sending the manuscript “AquaCrop model performance in yield, biomass, and water requirement simulations of common bean grown under different irrigation treatments and sowing periods”. The work is interesting, however, there are several observations that must be attended to. There are some writing errors, and the authors must standardize some units of measurement. In addition, several acronyms are not cited or are cited differently, which makes it difficult to read the material. Authors should carefully check each observation and acronym.
Below are my suggestions:
Line 11: Is your common bean Phaseolus vulgaris? If so, put the scientific name!
Line 16: After ETc it has to be “ ; " and not " : "
For example, the text should read: (R) at 80% of ETc; and
Line 16-17: I think the abbreviations R and S are a bit confusing, why not use 80% ETc and 60% ETc?
Line 46: Write the names out in the sentence: such as DSSAT, Cropsys, EPIC, APEX, WOFOS, SWAP, AquaCrop
- Observation, when the abbreviation has a name in full, it must be placed. For example: Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT), Soil, Water, Atmosphere, and Plant (SWAP)
Line 51: The name Phaseolus vulgaris should be italicized, and the classifier has a dot, so L.
The correct spelling is (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
Line 79: It is model v.7.0 and not model v7.0
Line 90: The cultivar does not need to be italicized when it is a plant name. I suggest writing Sremac in non-italics, or you can write it like this 'Sremac'
Line 93: Writing suggestion:
including 100% ETc - full irrigation providing 100% of ETc (crop evapotranspiration); 80% ETc - mild deficit irrigation at approximately 80% of EТc, and 60% ETc - moderate deficit irrigation at approximately 60% of EТc.
Despite the suggestion, if you accept it, an important note will be required. When ETc is reduced by 80 and 60%, is the deficit mild and moderate, or is it moderate and severe?
Line 146: Italicize the NRMSE
Line 150: Italicize the d
Line 154: You are using R2 in italics, please keep the spelling pattern.
Also, a writing suggestion: coefficient of determination (R2) is defined as
Line 170: What is CC? You have not previously described. Could it be the Lin’s concordance coefficient?
Line 173: What is a UAV? Would it be an unmanned aerial vehicle?
Line 178: Although it is the same unit, you are using the methodology Mg ha-1, not t ha-1
Line 180: I believe that on the x-axis of Figure 1, the DAS must be days after sowing, is that right? If so, you must describe it somewhere, or in the picture itself.
Line 199: In Table 5, again you are using t ha-1, it should be Mg ha-1
Figures 2 and 3, again, what is DAS?
Lines 299-230: What are the abbreviations GC, B, In and Y?
In Tables 7 and 8 the default abbreviation for standard deviation is SD, change it to that.
Line 236: Now that you describe what the acronyms GC, B, In and Y are. So, cite them in the text.
In irrigation, why is the unit mmm-2? Is this right?
Line 309: The abbreviations of the variables presented in the Conclusion are not the same as in the Methodology. Make the necessary adjustments.
Author Response
We are very grateful to the Editor and anonymous reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments, which have helped us to improve the paper. We have revised the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments, as outlined below. All changes are tracked so they can be easily seen. We have also deleted some unnecessary text (especially in Table 2) to avoid overlap.
Thanks for sending the manuscript “AquaCrop model performance in yield, biomass, and water requirement simulations of common bean grown under different irrigation treatments and sowing periods”. The work is interesting, however, there are several observations that must be attended to. There are some writing errors, and the authors must standardize some units of measurement. In addition, several acronyms are not cited or are cited differently, which makes it difficult to read the material. Authors should carefully check each observation and acronym.
We thank reviewer for kind words and suggestions.
Line 11: Is your common bean Phaseolus vulgaris? If so, put the scientific name!
Scientific name is added.
Line 16: After ETc it has to be “ ; " and not " : "
It is corrected.
For example, the text should read: (R) at 80% of ETc; and
Line 16-17: I think the abbreviations R and S are a bit confusing, why not use 80% ETc and 60% ETc?
Other two reviewers did not have remarks on treatment abbreviation, so we decided to keep as it is.
Line 46: Write the names out in the sentence: such as DSSAT, Cropsys, EPIC, APEX, WOFOS, SWAP, AquaCrop
- Observation, when the abbreviation has a name in full, it must be placed. For example: Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT), Soil, Water, Atmosphere, and Plant (SWAP)
We agree with you, and wanted to add, but editor warned us to reduce common words due to overlapping. That was reason not adding.
Line 51: The name Phaseolus vulgaris should be italicized, and the classifier has a dot, so L.
Thank you. It is corrected.
The correct spelling is (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
It is corrected.
Line 79: It is model v.7.0 and not model v7.0
Corrected.
Line 90: The cultivar does not need to be italicized when it is a plant name. I suggest writing Sremac in non-italics, or you can write it like this 'Sremac'
Thank you, it is corrected.
Line 93: Writing suggestion:
including 100% ETc - full irrigation providing 100% of ETc (crop evapotranspiration); 80% ETc - mild deficit irrigation at approximately 80% of EТc, and 60% ETc - moderate deficit irrigation at approximately 60% of EТc.
Thank you, we accepted suggestions that R treatment is mild deficit irrigation at approximately 80% of EТc, and S treatment - moderate deficit irrigation at approximately 60% of EТc.
Despite the suggestion, if you accept it, an important note will be required. When ETc is reduced by 80 and 60%, is the deficit mild and moderate, or is it moderate and severe?
Thank you. We gave an important note in the manuscript. According to the measurement of Normalize difference vegetation index (NDVI) on this experimental trial, close value were obtained among F, R and S value. For example, the NDVI of the first sowing period in 2019 varied from 0.84 (treatment F) to 0.65 (treatment S), while in the same period of 2020 it ranged from 0.90 (F) to 0.83 (S). The NDVI of the second sowing period in 2019 varied from 0.54 (F) to 0.42 (S). It was much higher in the same period of 2020, from 0.82 (F) to 0.71 (R). [32]. Similar results were obtained according to Crop water stress index (data not published yet).
Line 146: Italicize the NRMSE
Corrected.
Line 150: Italicize the d
Corrected.
Line 154: You are using R2 in italics, please keep the spelling pattern.
Thank you. Now it is corrected.
Also, a writing suggestion: coefficient of determination (R2) is defined as
Suggestion is accepted.
Line 170: What is CC? You have not previously described. Could it be the Lin’s concordance coefficient?
Thank you for keed observation. Canopy cover is mentioned in line 105, but abbreviation (CC) was missing. Now, it is corrected.
Line 173: What is a UAV? Would it be an unmanned aerial vehicle?
It was inadvertent error. We add full name unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
Line 178: Although it is the same unit, you are using the methodology Mg ha-1, not t ha-1
Suggestion is accepted.
Line 180: I believe that on the x-axis of Figure 1, the DAS must be days after sowing, is that right? If so, you must describe it somewhere, or in the picture itself.
Thank you. Yes, DAS means days after sowing. We have corrected it in the picture.
Line 199: In Table 5, again you are using t ha-1, it should be Mg ha-1
Corrected.
Figures 2 and 3, again, what is DAS?
Corrected.
Lines 299-230: What are the abbreviations GC, B, In and Y?
Thank you, abbreviations are explained. Previously it was explained only in the Table 9.
In Tables 7 and 8 the default abbreviation for standard deviation is SD, change it to that.
Thank you. It is changed.
Line 236: Now that you describe what the acronyms GC, B, In and Y are. So, cite them in the text.
In irrigation, why is the unit mmm-2? Is this right?
Yes, it is right. Unit for irrigation could be mm per m2 or Liter per m2 or m3 per hectare. Most common writing is just mm, so we shall use now mm.
Line 309: The abbreviations of the variables presented in the Conclusion are not the same as in the Methodology. Make the necessary adjustments.
We have checked the abbreviation, and find out that the abbreviations are in accordance with those abbreviations mentioned in Materials and methods, Results and Discussion for irrigated strategy.
Reviewer 3 Report
The main objective of this manuscript was to evaluate the AquaCrop model performance under different irrigation strategies and sowing periods in temperate climates. The paper falls within the general scope of the journal. The simulation results are rich and persuasive. The paper was well written. Please see below for specific comments.
-Line 12: Which data was used to validate the model?
-Line 18: Change ‘coomon’ to ‘common’.
-Line 23: check the data.
-Line 24: Line 277, the paper says that the result is poor when in some case, is there a contradiction?
Materials and Methods: It is recommended to add an introduction to the relevant principles of the model.
Materials and Methods:Which data was used to validate the model? Add information here.
Table 1: What are the units in the third column? In 2019, is not irrigation carried out for the first sowing period?
-Line 151: Wrong letters.
-Line 170: Explain CC.
Unit errors are in table 4-6, 8-9.
Table 4: Why only 4 treatments?
Line 191: Table 3?
Table 5: Why fewer trials?
Fig.2: Explain the letters in the figure.
Fig.3: Wrong title.
Line 213: Table 7 shows the average values. Be specific, please.
Line 214: The three treatments have only two data. The data does not match the table.
Line 270: non-irrigated common bean? There are contradiction.
Line 284-293: Try to explain the problem with the model simulating soil moisture.
References: Pay attention to uniform formatting and capitalization.
Author Response
We are very grateful to the Editor and anonymous reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments, which have helped us to improve the paper. We have revised the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments, as outlined below. All changes are tracked so they can be easily seen. We have also deleted some unnecessary text (especially in Table 2) to avoid overlap.
The main objective of this manuscript was to evaluate the AquaCrop model performance under different irrigation strategies and sowing periods in temperate climates. The paper falls within the general scope of the journal. The simulation results are rich and persuasive. The paper was well written. Please see below for specific comments.
We thank reviewer for kind words and suggestions.
-Line 12: Which data was used to validate the model?
We have described the data used for calibration and validation in lines 118-121. Now, we extended explanations.
-Line 18: Change ‘coomon’ to ‘common’.
Corrected.
-Line 23: check the data.
Thank you. We have corrected the data in the abstract and in the manuscript (lines 214). When testing three irrigation strategies, the model accurately predicted irrigation requirements for the full and two deficit irrigation strategies, with only 15, 32 and 34 mm of more water than was applied, respectively.
-Line 24: Line 277, the paper says that the result is poor when in some case, is there a contradiction?
Thank you. We were not precise in translation. It is corrected now.
Materials and Methods: It is recommended to add an introduction to the relevant principles of the model.
We wanted to add relevant principles of the model, but the editor warned us to cut the text, which is often used in such a paper because it overlaps. Instead, we add a sentence that refers readers to the relevant paper when the model is described in detail.
Materials and Methods:Which data was used to validate the model? Add information here.
Thank you. We have extended the explanation given in the lines 118-121.
Table 1: What are the units in the third column? In 2019, is not irrigation carried out for the first sowing period?
Thank you. We added unit (days) in third column.
In 2019 due to abundant precipitation in growing season (430 mm), irrigation was not applied.
-Line 151: Wrong letters.
Thank you. It is corrected.
-Line 170: Explain CC.
Thank you. It is explained in Materials and Methods, now.
Unit errors are in table 4-6, 8-9.
It is corrected.
Table 4: Why only 4 treatments?
With the four treatments we covered non water stress, mild water stress and moderate water stress condition for common bean, and two most productive growing period. More treatments were left for validation data set. Some treatments were excluded because vasion of forest bugs (Pentatoma rufipes) in the reproductive stage, significantly lowered dry bean yields. It was mentioned in the paper[32] Lipovac, A.; Bezdan, A.; Moravčević, D.; Djurović, N.; Ćosić, M.; Benka, P.; Stričević, R. Correlation between Ground 424 Measurements and UAV Sensed Vegetation Indices for Yield Prediction of Common Bean Grown under Different Irrigation Treatments and Sowing Periods. Water (Switzerland) 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/w14223786. We wanted to represent only results of full data set.
Line 191: Table 3?
Thank you. It was inadvertent error. Corrected
Table 5: Why fewer trials?
We have explained in paragraph above.
Fig.2: Explain the letters in the figure.
Thank you. It is explained.
Fig.3: Wrong title.
Corrected.
Line 213: Table 7 shows the average values. Be specific, please.
We have shown average data with standard deviations for non water stress, mild and moderate water stress condition of common bean as a general strategy, not to burden readers with to many details. From given results reader can see standard deviations. For example, deviation from simulated and applied irrigation norms may vary from 0.4 % up to 68%. Such high deviation happened in specific cases, when small amount of water should be applied, i.e. 75 or 84 mm and model simulated 126 and 122 mm. The higher irrigation depth the better results are obtained by model simulation (i.e. it was applied 249 and 228mm and model simulated 221 and 227 mm).
Line 214: The three treatments have only two data. The data does not match the table.
Thank you, it is corrected now.
Line 270: non-irrigated common bean? There are contradiction.
It was stated in the paper of Espandafor et al., 2017 [22] ‘There was generally good fit, although the simulated extreme values (full irrigation and dryland) better fit the measured observations than the intermediate irrigation treatments (fig. 2).’
Line 284-293: Try to explain the problem with the model simulating soil moisture.
Thank you. We explained the problem with soil moisture.
References: Pay attention to uniform formatting and capitalization.
Thank you, we checked and corrected all mistakes.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
Many thanks for providing a revised version of the manuscript. Although the authors have made several adjustments, it is important that in the next steps, the changes are highlighted in the text with some modifications. Below are more observations that were not met.
Line 11: The common bean's scientific name is misspelled. The correct name is Phaseolus vulgaris L.
Important note, L. cannot be written in italics, the names Phaseolus vulgaris which are in italics.
The unit of measurement Mg ha-1 is equivalent to t ha-1. Since the two units mean the same information, standardize the writing as Mg ha-1. Remember, the writing is separate, in your text the unit is written as Mgha-1.
In Table 9 you are still using t ha-1, change it to Mg ha-1.
Author Response
We are very grateful to the editor and anonymous reviewers for their keen observation and insightful comments, which helped us to improve the paper. We have revised the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments, as outlined below.
Ansewer to reviewer
Many thanks for providing a revised version of the manuscript. Although the authors have made several adjustments, it is important that in the next steps, the changes are highlighted in the text with some modifications. Below are more observations that were not met.
Line 11: The common bean's scientific name is misspelled. The correct name is Phaseolus vulgaris L.
Important note, L. cannot be written in italics, the names Phaseolus vulgaris which are in italics.
Thank you. It was inadvertent error. It is corrected.
The unit of measurement Mg ha-1 is equivalent to t ha-1. Since the two units mean the same information, standardize the writing as Mg ha-1. Remember, the writing is separate, in your text the unit is written as Mgha-1.
In Table 9 you are still using t ha-1, change it to Mg ha-1.
Thank you. It is corrected.
Reviewer 3 Report
Good!
Author Response
We are very grateful to the editor and to the anonymous reviewers for their keen observations of inadvertent error, which helped us to improve the paper. The manuscript was also revised also by a professional English translator.
