Advancing Crop Yield Predictions: AQUACROP Model Application in Poland’s JECAM Fields

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

In this study, the AquaCrop model was utilized to evaluate and forecast crop yields for winter wheat, maize, winter rapeseed, and sugar beets in the Joint Experiment for Crop Assessment and Monitoring (JECAM) test area of Poland from 2018 to 2023.

This is an interesting study. However, many issues should be clarified and resolved before its publication. The major issues (see the attached manuscript for more) include poor use of English in section 4 (Discussion) and conclusions not supported by the results. The manuscript could also be shorter in length.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate editing of English language required. The use of English is particularly poor in section 4 (Discussion).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Major Comments:

Authors conducted a comprehensive study utilizing the AquaCrop model to assess and predict crop yields in the Wielkopolska region of Poland. The study provided in-situ measurements and high-resolution satellite data to provide insights into agricultural management practices for farmers in the region.

1. Authors should evaluate the article for typographical errors e.g. in abstract section, predicting of crop yields," should be replaced with "predicting crop yields.

2. Authors mentioned in abstract section about Root Mean Square Error values but it is unclear about the units used. Authors should ensure consistency in using units.

3 In the Materials and Methods section, authors used different abbreviations without explaining initially e.g.  "in-situ LAI" is mentioned without explaining the abbreviation "LAI."

4. In introduction section, authors claimed that "Wielkopolska has experienced a heightened vulnerability to dry spells in recent years." There should be specific references to support this claim. Authors should provide the justification for the choice of the AquaCrop model over other available models. What specific advantages does AquaCrop offer in the context of the study area and objectives?

5. Authors should clarify the significance of the study's findings and how they contribute to existing knowledge in the field of agricultural management.

6. Authors should provide more critical analyses of the findings and discuss the limitations of the study

7. Authors should add abbreviations list in the manuscript.

Carefully proofread the manuscript for grammatical errors. Authors are suggested to simplify the complex sentences

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The revised manuscript is adequately improved. I recommend its publication once the issues noted in the attached manuscript (in pages 9 and 17) would be resolved.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

Dear editors and authors,

when reading this paper, I feels confused all the time until I finish reading the whole paper, Major revisions must be recommended. 

here are my comments:

abstract:

this part must be rewrited . this part introduced too much backgound and methods, while the results were rarely introduced. therefore, authors must shorten the background and methods, increase the results of the paper. 

keywords:

JECAM must be deleted, for almost no one knows this region as it is only a location name.

introduction:

I didnt see any related results on water scarcity, irrigation water, water use efficiency at the results part. so whats the reason you introduce these information. I guess these introduction were only used to introduce the importance of Aquacrop.

second, whats the important issue you rised in the introduction part? why do you want to study the yield of this reason, why do you also use NDVI as comparision, ? I didnt get it 

materials and methods:

how the yield of these crop were determined in the in situ experiment is missing

when did these crop planted and harvested was missing.

the authors showed the climate change inthe study area as well as the yield, so whats the relationship between climate change and yield is not clearly state.

2.3.5 how the yield is determined by Sentinel-2 is not introduced

result:

238-292, these sentence should be placed in the methods part.

the calibration and validation process is missing, this study last from 2018 to 2023, which year is used for calibration , which year is for validation?

line 302 whats the LAI based yield and whats the NDVI based yield? whats role the aquacrop were playing  in this part ? I didnt get it.

line 295-298 , 329-330, 354-355 these introduction were not necessarily repeat again and again.

discussion:

this part only discuss the limitation of this study. it didnt do any comparison with other studies, so this is a fail discussion. moreover, it didnt answer the issues rised in the introduction part.

conclusion:

a paragraph is enough to summary your findings and results of this study.

in summary , this paper is more like a report, not a scientific paper.  the abstract , introduction and discussion should be re-constructed. more details should be showed in the methods part. 

Author Response

please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Article provides a comprehensive overview of the methodology employed for predictive modeling using the AquaCrop model in the context of agricultural productivity, water resource management, and climate change in the Wielkopolska region of Poland. The integration of in-situ measurements and satellite data enhances the robustness of the analysis. However, there are several technical and scientific aspects which require attention to improve the quality of paper.

Major Comments:

Abstract:

1. Abstract section is incomplete and should be improved. Authors should add significant statistical results of the study. Authors are suggested to specify the time resolution of climatic data obtained from the ERA5-Land Daily Aggregated dataset. It would be helpful to know if daily, monthly, or yearly data were used.

Introduction:

2. The transition between the global water usage discussion and the focus on Poland's agriculture could be smoother. Authors should clarify how the global context leads to the specific challenges faced in Poland. Before making claims about the percentage of global water usage in agriculture, provide specific citations to support these statements.

Materials and Methods:

3. The methodology of this study is somewhat well-explained and comprehensive. However, certain factors should be considered in order to further improve the quality of the study. Authors should elaborate on the specific parameters measured during in-situ campaigns and how these measurements contribute to the Aqua Crop model. Furthermore, clarify the procedure for processing data obtained from in-situ measurements and explain how this data was incorporated into the AquaCrop model.

4. Authors are suggested to provide more details on the calculation of carbon dioxide concentration from the MaunaLoa dataset, including how it impacts the Aqua Crop model.
5. Data analysis section is the repetition of data collection and methodology. Study lacks appropriate statistical analysis. Authors must add appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results:

6. Results are poorly described. Authors should re-consider the appropriate statistical model to represent the results more effectively. Results section can be further improved in terms of write-up and representation of findings of the study.

Discussion:

7. Authors are suggested to re-write the entire discussion and discuss results logically, compared with other studies. Discussion is much shorter and even lesser words than abstract. Discussion lacks references as well.

8. Authors should describe limitations of the study. Furthermore, these limitations should be discussed.

General Comments:

1. Authors should add abbreviation list in the manuscript.

2. Sentence should be modified for better understanding. It is suggested to improve the sentence structures throughout the manuscript and repetition of sentences/words should be minimized.

It is suggested to improve the sentence structures throughout the manuscript and repetition of sentences/words should be minimized.

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study assess the abilities of  AquaCrop simulation model in yield prediction of several crops (winter wheat, maize, winter rapeseed, and sugar beet) in the JECAM fields of Wielkopolska in Poland, using satellite data  for the period 2018 to 2023.

Although, this is an interesting study, its publication is not recommended for many reasons including: the poor structure of the manuscript (not easy to understand what was measured and what was used as default, provided by the crop model (the soils for example)), the manuscript length (it should be considerably decreased as several figures should be moved in the appendix or removed), and the quality of the use of English (extensive editing of English language is required at many points). See the attached files for more issues that authors should improve.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

 Extensive editing of English language is required

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf