Colorado River (Argentina) Water Crisis Scenarios and Influence on Irrigation Water Quality Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, surface water samples were collected at 4 sampling sites over a specific period, and multiple analyses were performed to estimate their impact on VBRC crop productivity and agricultural sustainability.
1. It is very strange that there is no nitrogen concentration, which is useful to assess the agricultural impact.
2. The title and keywords of the paper should be concise and clear, and the water crisis in the title of this article appears only twice in the main body without a specific explanation. Therefore, it is recommended to introduce the water crisis in the topic of this paper first after a brief statement of background.
3. The abstract section showed more background. Only two sentences mentioned the major results.
4. It should be added the new advantage of previous studies.
5. In the results and discussion section, the conclusions are clearly stated, but there is no in-depth analysis. It was suggested that the analysis of the conclusions should be strengthened.
Overall, the present version of the text has more data description. There is no mechanism discussion.
Other comments:
1) One table showed the site’s information may be better than the sentences.
2) It may be better to use different shapes to show each site.
3) What’s the meaning of red line in Fig 3？ EC? By monthly?
Author Response
Manuscript Title: “Colorado river (Argentina) water crisis scenarios and influence over irrigation water quality conditions”. sustainability-2270147
We appreciate reviewer comment and positive evaluation of our work. All suggestions and changes addressed in this revision were answered and included in the manuscript, as described below.
Reviewer #1:
In this paper, surface water samples were collected at 4 sampling sites over a specific period, and multiple analyses were performed to estimate their impact on VBRC crop productivity and agricultural sustainability.
1. It is very strange that there is no nitrogen concentration, which is useful to assess the agricultural impact.
Reply: Nitrogen is one of the main nutrients, and their sources and supplies vary considerably with geology, soil, climate and vegetation.
Based on the historical results obtained from the concentration of nutrients in the Colorado river by the time of water shortage, the decreased rainfall might cause a decrease in the concentration of nutrients in the river. The concentrations of nitrates in the waters of the Colorado river were ranged between 0,68 - 1,28 mg/L. The concentrations found along the riverbed were lower than the maximum levels recommended for protection of the aquatic life (13 mg/L according to CEQG 2012). [Ref 1]
The low concentrations of nutrients in VBRC (lower basin) is due to possible sedimentation of these nutrients in the Casa de Piedra reservoir (middle basin).
There are previous reports (COIRCO 2000, Subprogram Evaluation of the Trophic State of the Casa de Piedra Dam), that suggest a direct relationship between the nutrients concentration and the total suspended solids, and how both levels decrease towards the reservoir.
[Ref1] https://inta.gob.ar/sites/default/files/script-tmp-inta-coirco_monitoreo_agroqumicos_ro_colorado_2011-20.pdf
[Ref2] https://www.coirco.gov.ar/download/calidad-aguas/estudio-de-estado-trofico/Estado%20Tr%C3%B3fico%20[2000].pdf
2. The title and keywords of the paper should be concise and clear, and the water crisis in the title of this article appears only twice in the main body without a specific explanation. Therefore, it is recommended to introduce the water crisis in the topic of this paper first after a brief statement of background.
Reply: According to the Reviewer suggestions, the introduction was modified
3. The abstract section showed more background. Only two sentences mentioned the major results.
Reply: According to the Reviewer suggestions, the abstract has been modified.
4. It should be added the new advantage of previous studies.
Reply: Based on the existing problem of the water crisis in the study area since 2012, in 2015 an interdisciplinary framework agreement was created between Universidad Nacional del Sur, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas de Buenos Aires (CIC) and Corporación de Fomento del Valle Bonaerense del Río Colorado (CORFO), with the objective of promoting the development of research and carrying out studies aimed at improving the efficiency of water use and preservation of water resources in Valle Bonaerense del Río Colorado (VBRC). This work is part of this agreement and is the first study carried out in the region.
5. In the results and discussion section, the conclusions are clearly stated, but there is no in-depth analysis. It was suggested that the analysis of the conclusions should be strengthened.
Reply: According to the Reviewer comment, the analysis of the results and the conclusions have been modified and strengthened.
Overall, the present version of the text has more data description. There is no mechanism discussion.
Other comments:
1) One table showed the site’s information may be better than the sentences.
Reply: According to the Reviewer suggestions, the sentence was modified
2) It may be better to use different shapes to show each site.
Reply: According to the Reviewer suggestions, the sentence was modified
3) What’s the meaning of red line in Fig 3？ EC? By monthly?
Reply: Red line: Means the variation of electrical conductivity during the study period. Following Reviewer recommendation, Figure 6 was corrected.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, Mariano Trillini et al have presented their examination of the water crisis scenarios and influence on irrigation water quality conditions in the Colorado River in Argentina. The paper contains strong and significant scientific values, and provides important data. I would like to suggest some modifications before publishing the paper.
Major Suggestions: (1) As a researcher working on water quality, I have some doubts regarding the chloride and nitrate concentrations presented in Table 5. The authors have reported concentrations of chloride ranging from 171 to 4255 mg/L and sulfate ranging from 83 to 3212 mg/L. However, my own study conducted in a different country showed much lower concentrations ranging around 5 to 70 mg/L for both chloride and sulfate. Therefore, I suggest that the authors should review their methodology and double-check the data presented in Table 5.
(2) Please avoid using any languages other than English in the paper. For example, in Figure 2 Line 314, please use "CATIONS" and "ANIONS".
(3) I recommend that some figures be modified to improve their quality and help readers better understand the presented data.
Minor Suggestions:
(1) Figure 1 Line 181: The font size of the bar and words in the right-side image is too small, making it difficult to read. Please increase the font size and improve the image clarity.
(2) Table 5 Line 280: Please make capitalization more consistent for "min" and "Max".
(3) Figure 3 Line 339: The time plan for months without irrigation appears to be a bit unusual. For 2015, there is no data, and for 2016, it is from April to September. For 2017, it is from May to July, and for 2018, it is from May to August. Please review and confirm the accuracy of this data.
(4) Figure 5 Line 405: The meaning of the colors used is unclear. If they represent different cations, please assign different colors to each cation.
(5) Table 6 Line 418: Please review the grammar in the table. For example, C3 "It can only be used in well-drained soils." This is a sentence. S1 "Can be used in almost all soils with little risk of forming detrimental levels of exchangeable sodium." This is not a sentence.
(6) Figure 6 Line 420: Please use a larger font size and make the drawing clear for easier reading.
(7) Table 7 Line 463: Some boxes are empty, and some are filled with "-". Please provide an explanation in the caption regarding any differences.
(8) Figure 8 Line 505: The 3D figure is difficult to read. If possible, please change to a 2D figure with only "Component 1" and "Component 2". If this is not possible, please improve the image clarity by increasing the font size.
Author Response
Manuscript Title: “Colorado river (Argentina) water crisis scenarios and influence over irrigation water quality conditions”. sustainability-2270147
We appreciate reviewer comment and positive evaluation of our work. All suggestions and changes addressed in this revision were answered and included in the manuscript, as described below.
Reviewer #2:
In this paper, Mariano Trillini et al have presented their examination of the water crisis scenarios and influence on irrigation water quality conditions in the Colorado River in Argentina. The paper contains strong and significant scientific values, and provides important data. I would like to suggest some modifications before publishing the paper.
Major Suggestions:
(1) As a researcher working on water quality, I have some doubts regarding the chloride and nitrate concentrations presented in Table 5. The authors have reported concentrations of chloride ranging from 171 to 4255 mg/L and sulfate ranging from 83 to 3212 mg/L. However, my own study conducted in a different country showed much lower concentrations ranging around 5 to 70 mg/L for both chloride and sulfate. Therefore, I suggest that the authors should review their methodology and double-check the data presented in Table 5.
Reply: The data results presented in Table 5 are correct. In S1, which has water from the Colorado River itself, the values for Cl- are between 171 and 325 mg/L. The value that Reviewer refer (4255 mg/L) is the maximum measured in S3. It is important to note that in our paper we analyzed samples water from the Colorado river and three collectors or drainage channels. The ions concentration values between the both (Colorado river and collectors) are very different. The Colorado river basin cover around 920 km in length, with different types of soil characteristics of each region, in addition to the diverse anthropogenic activity present, but don’t forget that we analyze the lower basin of the Colorado river. Therefore, it is normal to expect these high concentration values in them as we observe in table 5. The same happens with SO4-2.
In reference N° 14 of the manuscript you can find reports with concentration values of these ions in the Colorado River.
Alcalde, R. Programa integral de calidad de aguas del río Colorado. Subprograma calidad del medio acuático. Comité Interjurisdiccional del río Colorado. Secretaría de Gobierno de Energía de la Nación, 2019. https://www.coirco.gov.ar/download/calidad-aguas/calidad-medio-acuatico/PCA%202019.pdf. Last Access: 4/4/2023.
(2) Please avoid using any languages other than English in the paper. For example, in Figure 2 Line 314, please use "CATIONS" and "ANIONS".
Reply: According to the Reviewer suggestions, Figure 2 was corrected
(3) I recommend that some figures be modified to improve their quality and help readers better understand the presented data.
Reply: According to the Reviewer suggestions, the figures have been modified
Minor Suggestions:
(1) Figure 1 Line 181: The font size of the bar and words in the right-side image is too small, making it difficult to read. Please increase the font size and improve the image clarity.
Reply: Following Reviewer recommendation, Figure 1 was corrected
(2) Table 5 Line 280: Please make capitalization more consistent for "min" and "Max".
Reply: According to the Reviewer comment, Table 5 was improved.
(3) Figure 3 Line 339: The time plan for months without irrigation appears to be a bit unusual. For 2015, there is no data, and for 2016, it is from April to September. For 2017, it is from May to July, and for 2018, it is from May to August. Please review and confirm the accuracy of this data.
Reply: It is important to note that the Colorado River is a Regulated river and downstream flows depend exclusively on the water released by the Casa de Piedra Dam. This situation has affected the availability and quality of irrigation water used for the development of productive systems. Every year, the months without irrigation are variable, since they depend on factors such as the flow released by the Casa de Piedra Dam, the reservoir level, snowfall in the mountain range, and rainfall in the basin.
(4) Figure 5 Line 405: The meaning of the colors used is unclear. If they represent different cations, please assign different colors to each cation.
Reply: Following Reviewer recommendation, Figure 5 was modified
(5) Table 6 Line 418: Please review the grammar in the table. For example, C3 "It can only be used in well-drained soils." This is a sentence. S1 "Can be used in almost all soils with little risk of forming detrimental levels of exchangeable sodium." This is not a sentence.
Reply: According to the Reviewer comment, the grammar in the Table 6 was improved. This table is obtained from the following site: https://repo.unlpam.edu.ar/bitstream/handle/unlpam/1376/a_acoeva602.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(6) Figure 6 Line 420: Please use a larger font size and make the drawing clear for easier reading.
Reply: Following Reviewer recommendation, Figure 6 was corrected
(7) Table 7 Line 463: Some boxes are empty, and some are filled with "-". Please provide an explanation in the caption regarding any differences.
Reply: According to the Reviewer comment, Table 7 was improved.
(8) Figure 8 Line 505: The 3D figure is difficult to read. If possible, please change to a 2D figure with only "Component 1" and "Component 2". If this is not possible, please improve the image clarity by increasing the font size.
Reply: Following Reviewer recommendation, Figure 8 was corrected
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The work addresses the very important problem of water shortages in the world, and at the same time draws attention to the growing problem of water quality. Overall, your plan was good. However, the work has a lot of shortcomings related to, for example, the selection of research sites and their number. There is also insufficient information on the irrigation canals themselves. In your work, you discuss the results in a selective way. This means presenting the test results of only two channels without mentioning the others. Finally, there was no quantitative assessment of the pollutants recorded for these locations. Also, the discussion here is too limited. This is probably why the two chapters were merged. Also, the summary is too general. There was also no factual summary of the research results. In my opinion, this work requires serious alterations and additions
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Manuscript Title: “Colorado river (Argentina) water crisis scenarios and influence over irrigation water quality conditions”. sustainability-2270147
We appreciate reviewer comment and positive evaluation of our work. All suggestions and changes addressed in this revision were answered and included in the manuscript, as described below.
Reviewer #3:
Dear authors,
The work addresses the very important problem of water shortages in the world, and at the same time draws attention to the growing problem of water quality. Overall, your plan was good. However, the work has a lot of shortcomings related to, for example, the selection of research sites and their number. There is also insufficient information on the irrigation canals themselves. In your work, you discuss the results in a selective way. This means presenting the test results of only two channels without mentioning the others. Finally, there was no quantitative assessment of the pollutants recorded for these locations. Also, the discussion here is too limited. This is probably why the two chapters were merged. Also, the summary is too general. There was also no factual summary of the research results. In my opinion, this work requires serious alterations and additions.
Reply: According to the Reviewer suggestions, We attach a PDF file with the responses to the comments made on our manuscript.
Selection of sampling points:
In this work, the monitoring points already established by the government agencies of the basin are presented, which include CIC, CORFO and INTA:
Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas (CIC) one of the first science and technology agencies in Argentina: https://www.cic.gba.gob.ar/
Corporación de Fomento del Valle Bonaerense del Río Colorado (CORFO), through the Ministry of Agroindustry of the Buenos Aires Province, is the main administration of the water system and is responsible for the distribution of irrigation water in the VBRC: https://corfo.gob.ar/
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Hilario Ascasubi (INTA): Contributes to the sustainable development of the agricultural, agrifood, and agroindustrial sector through research in Argentina. INTA participates in the monitoring of the Colorado River basin: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/inta
Due to the water crisis since 2012, as of 2015, an interdisciplinary framework agreement was created between the Universidad Nacional del Sur, INTA, CIC-Buenos Aires and CORFO, with the aim of promoting the development of research and carrying out studies aimed at improving the efficiency of water use and preservation of water resources in Valle Bonaerense del Río Colorado (VBRC). This work is framed within this agreement.
Our work team follows the monitoring points established by the institutions of the framework agreement. For example, sampling is carried out with members of CORFO, who carry out the study of flows on a monthly basis at the monitoring points mentioned in our work.
As several monitoring points are difficult to access, CORFO provides transportation with vehicles to the sampling points.
Additional information:
In the study conducted, the possibility of reusing water from the three drainage canals has been evaluated. However, it has been found that only one of them (S2) presents adequate levels of ion concentration that could be considered for reuse.
Therefore, it is justified that the efforts of the study be directed to the drainage channel in which water reuse is potentially feasible, since it would represent an important opportunity to improve the quality of the available water and the use of the water resource.
Based on the results obtained in our paper, INTA is currently conducting studies on the use of S2 in some crop areas.
As for the other two drainage channels (S3 and S4), their ion concentration levels will continue to be monitored to evaluate the possibility of implementing measures to reduce their values in the future".
With these arguments, it is clearly explained why the study efforts will focus on the viable drainage channel (S2) and additional information is provided on the monitoring of the other drainage channels (S3 and S4).
Photos and additional information on the collector channels are shown below:
The collectors are artificial channels of consolidated soil, here we mention some characteristics of them:
Station 2: Colector II
Width 3,57 m (width taken from the bridge)
Average height: last ten years 1,19 m
Station 3: Cuenca 10
Width 2,25 m (width taken from the bridge)
Average height: last ten years 0,76 m
Station 4: Colector P
Width 3,64 m (width taken from the bridge)
Average height: last ten years 1,09 m
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This study presents findings related to the water quality of the Colorado River basin and its potential for use in irrigation. we believe that this study has the potential to make an contribution to the field of agricultural water management. However, there are several areas where the manuscript can be improved to increase its scientific rigor and impact. Thus, we recommend that the manuscript be major revised. Below are some specific comments and recommendations:
Major points:
(1) The introduction needs to be revised to better contextualize the study and provide a clear rationale for the research questions.
(2) The methods section should be expanded to provide more details about the sampling and analysis procedures, including quality control measures.
(3) The statistical analyses performed should be better explained, and the significance levels of the results should be provided.
(4) The discussion section could benefit from a more detailed interpretation of the results, particularly with respect to the potential impacts on agricultural production and the environment.
(5) The conclusions drawn from the study need to be more cautious, particularly with respect to the potential reuse of drainage water for irrigation purposes.
(6) The limitations of the study should be more clearly stated, particularly with respect to the representativeness of the sampling locations and the short-term nature of the study.
(7) The study would benefit from more extensive literature review and discussion, particularly with respect to other studies of water quality in the Colorado River basin and the potential impacts of irrigation on crop yields.
(8) The language and grammar throughout the manuscript need to be improved.
(9) The figures and tables should be better integrated into the text and more clearly labeled.
(10) The manuscript could benefit from additional analyses to support the conclusions drawn, such as crop yield data for the study area and comparisons with other regions.
(11) The implications of the study for policy and management should be more clearly stated.
(12) The study's limitations should be more clearly stated, particularly with respect to the representativeness of the sampling locations and the short-term nature of the study.
(13) The following papers are helpful for your research and can be referred to in the paper. “Migration mechanism of pollutants in karst groundwater system of tailings impoundment and management control effect analysis，Journal of Cleaner Production，2022”ï¼› “A risk evaluation model for karst groundwater pollution based on geographic information system and artificial neural network applications，Environmental Earth Sciences，2018”.
Furthermore, we have concerns about the validity of the study's conclusions regarding the potential reuse of drainage water for irrigation purposes. While the water quality indices suggest that the water is suitable for unrestricted use, the study did not assess the potential impacts of long-term use of drainage water on soil quality, crop yields, or the environment. Therefore, we recommend that the conclusions regarding the potential reuse of drainage water be revised to reflect these limitations.
Author Response
Manuscript Title: “Colorado river (Argentina) water crisis scenarios and influence over irrigation water quality conditions”. sustainability-2270147
We appreciate reviewer comment and positive evaluation of our work. All suggestions and changes addressed in this revision were answered and included in the manuscript, as described below.
Reviewer #4:
This study presents findings related to the water quality of the Colorado River basin and its potential for use in irrigation. We believe that this study has the potential to make an contribution to the field of agricultural water management. However, there are several areas where the manuscript can be improved to increase its scientific rigor and impact. Thus, we recommend that the manuscript be major revised. Below are some specific comments and recommendations:
Major points:
(1) The introduction needs to be revised to better contextualize the study and provide a clear rationale for the research questions.
Reply: According to the Reviewer suggestions, the introduction was modified
(2) The methods section should be expanded to provide more details about the sampling and analysis procedures, including quality control measures.
Reply: Due to the Reviewer suggestions, the section has been expanded
(3) The statistical analyses performed should be better explained, and the significance levels of the results should be provided.
Reply: According to the Reviewer suggestions, modification has been accepted and changed
(4) The discussion section could benefit from a more detailed interpretation of the results, particularly with respect to the potential impacts on agricultural production and the environment.
Reply: Due to the Reviewer suggestions, the discussion has been modified
(5) The conclusions drawn from the study need to be more cautious, particularly with respect to the potential reuse of drainage water for irrigation purposes.
Reply: Following Reviewer recommendation, modification accepted and changed
(6) The limitations of the study should be more clearly stated, particularly with respect to the representativeness of the sampling locations and the short-term nature of the study.
Reply: The authors took into account the suggestion of the reviewer and improved the manuscript.
(7) The study would benefit from more extensive literature review and discussion, particularly with respect to other studies of water quality in the Colorado River basin and the potential impacts of irrigation on crop yields.
Reply: Following Reviewer recommendation, the bibliographical review was carried out, to date there is no work that considers the water crisis affecting water quality and the loss of crop yields in the VBRC.
(8) The language and grammar throughout the manuscript need to be improved.
Reply: Considering the Reviewers Suggestions, the manuscript was improved, sections and figures were modified and the paper has been carefully revised by a native English speaker.
(9) The figures and tables should be better integrated into the text and more clearly labeled.
Reply: Due to the Reviewer suggestions, modification has been accepted and changed
(10) The manuscript could benefit from additional analyses to support the conclusions drawn, such as crop yield data for the study area and comparisons with other regions.
Reply: The authors took into account the suggestion of the reviewer and improved the manuscript.
(11) The implications of the study for policy and management should be more clearly stated.
Reply: Modification accepted and changed
(12) The study's limitations should be more clearly stated, particularly with respect to the representativeness of the sampling locations and the short-term nature of the study.
Reply: Modification accepted and changed
(13) The following papers are helpful for your research and can be referred to in the paper. “Migration mechanism of pollutants in karst groundwater system of tailings impoundment and management control effect analysis，Journal of Cleaner Production，2022”ï¼› “A risk evaluation model for karst groundwater pollution based on geographic information system and artificial neural network applications，Environmental Earth Sciences，2018”.
Reply: We are very grateful for your suggestion. We have read both articles and came to the following conclusion.
Although both themes are related to water, they focus on different aspects. Both papers focuses on groundwater contamination and risk management in karst areas while our paper focus on water use for agriculture and how physicochemical parameters can affect crop yields.
Furthermore, we have concerns about the validity of the study's conclusions regarding the potential reuse of drainage water for irrigation purposes. While the water quality indices suggest that the water is suitable for unrestricted use, the study did not assess the potential impacts of long-term use of drainage water on soil quality, crop yields, or the environment. Therefore, we recommend that the conclusions regarding the potential reuse of drainage water be revised to reflect these limitations.
Reply: Considering the Reviewers Suggestions, the conclusions was improved
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors should point out how you revise each comment in your response. Although other previous study studied some of results, authors can cite them to improve the study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your time, effort, and dedication in reviewing our research article, "Colorado river (Argentina) water crisis scenarios and influence over irrigation water quality conditions." Your comments and suggestions have been invaluable in significantly improving the quality of our work and have been an important guide in our research process.
Regarding the question about nitrogen, I would like to inform you that a response has already been provided in the author's notes.
Regarding the suggestions received on how to address the issue of the water crisis, I am pleased to inform you that we have modified the main body of the manuscript to include these aspects in more detail.
Furthermore, we have followed the reviewer recommendation and modified the abstract of the article to better reflect the changes we have made in the manuscript.
In addition, we have included an additional reference (Ref 17) following the reviewer's suggestion, which highlights the importance of considering previous studies in this field.
We have also further analyzed the study as suggested by the reviewer, in the results and discussions section. line 413-420; 432-438; 564-571; 590-594; 598-631.
As for other comments received, we have not added a table, but we have improved the clarity of the description of sampling sites in section 2.1. Study area. Additionally, we have modified Figure 3, where the electrical conductivity for the entire study period in S1 can now be better appreciated, indicated by a red line.
Acknowledgement
Your rigorous and constructive comments have helped us identify areas where our work needed greater attention and improvement. Thanks to your review, we were able to make the necessary changes to meet the quality and relevance criteria of the journal.
We hope that our work, along with the changes made in response to your comments, has met your expectations. We are deeply grateful for your time and commitment in helping us improve our research.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, I am not quite satisfied with your revision. There are still many flaws, which weren't explained. I add a file with some new remarks. However, You mention the pdf file, where you claim that you give answers to my questions, but it is not true. I am waiting for a proper explanation.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your time, effort, and dedication in reviewing our research article titled "Colorado river (Argentina) water crisis scenarios and influence over irrigation water quality conditions."
We would like to clarify that we have attached the responses to your questions in the PDF sent in the review report (Round 1), which contains 50 pages. The responses to your questions can be found from page 29 onwards.
To answer your new questions, we have attached a new PDF file with the responses to your comments.
We have made new changes to the manuscript based on your suggestions and have sent an updated version to the Editor.
Your responses and suggestions have been invaluable in significantly improving the quality of our work and have been an important guide in our research process.
Your rigorous and constructive comments have helped us identify areas where our work required greater attention and improvements, and thanks to your review, we were able to make the necessary changes to meet the quality and relevance criteria of the journal.
We hope that our work, along with the changes made in response to your comments, has met your expectations, and we are very grateful for your time and commitment to helping us improve our research.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper has been appropriately revised.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your time, effort, and dedication in reviewing our research article, "Colorado river (Argentina) water crisis scenarios and influence over irrigation water quality conditions". Your comments and suggestions have been invaluable in significantly improving the quality of our work and have been an important guide in our research process.
Your rigorous and constructive comments have helped us identify areas where our work needed greater attention and improvement. Thanks to your review, we were able to make the necessary changes to meet the quality and relevance criteria of the journal.
We hope that our work, along with the changes made in response to your comments, has met your expectations. We are deeply grateful for your time and commitment in helping us improve our research.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Figure 1 have two figures. The right figure can be deleted.
It will be better use different legends to show S2 ,S3 and S4 in Figure 2b.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Reply 1: According to the Reviewer suggestions, Figure 1 was corrected.
Reply 2: According to the Reviewer suggestions, legend of Figure 2 was modified.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
You have introduced a lot of corrections and explanations, which makes the article more accessible to the reader. On the other hand, I feel that this article could be clearer. As I mentioned earlier, the more charts, the better. However, the authors decided to present the results in tables. It is a pity because in long-term analyses certain dependencies are more visible in the charts than in the tables themselves. Nevertheless, I accept the article in this form for publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for accepting our work. We are very grateful for your time and commitment to help us improve our research.
Sincerely,
The Authors
