Hydrological Implications of Recent Droughts (2004–2022): A SWAT-Based Study in an Ancient Lowland Irrigation Area in Lombardy, Northern Italy
, Rike Becker 2, Odunayo David Adeniyi 1, Giorgio Pilla 1, Seyed Hamidreza Sadeghi 1,3 and Michael Maerker 1,4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This study offers an overview of the hydrological dynamic of the Ticino irrigation cascade by using the SWAT model. An alternative calibration was performed using MOD16 evaporation-dissipation data. The results show increased actual evapotranspiration, influenced by climate and irrigation, causing water deficits, drought, and reduced resources. In particular, changes in SWC affect crop productivity and environmental sustainability. This study demonstrates the impact of adverse climate conditions on soil hydrology and agriculture. Overall, the research focus of this paper is clear, the data analysis and discussion sections are relatively thorough, and contain results worthy of publication. However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Appropriate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.
1. For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.
2. The introduction section lacks a description of the application and latest results of SWAT and other soil water assessment tools or models, and it is recommended that relevant work done by others be added for comparison.
3. Was a sensitivity analysis taken into account when selecting the parameters?
4. Please correct Figures 9 ~ Figure 11 by labeling and explaining clearly what the lines in the figures represent.
5. Please indicate the time series of calibration and validation in the 2.2 section.
6. The conclusion is inadequately portrayed and suggested to be revised and improved. Also, the limitations of this study, suggested improvements of this work, and future directions should be added.
7. The study qualitatively illustrates some hydrological relationships; is there more evidence to expose their deeper correlations?
8. Please add as sentence or two to clearly recap the innovative aspects of your research.
9. Please standardize the font and size of the chart.
10. Some content is detailed, but needs an amount of reorganization, for example, the descriptions of the main crops and its irrigation water.
In summary, the research content is enriched, and the data analysis results have certain reference value. I believe that with major revisions to the above issues, the paper will have a higher quality and readability in the journal of sustainability.
Author Response
Please, see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Sustainability article review
1)The work is interesting, mainly due to the fact that it calibrates SWAT via evapotranspiration, when the usual it is to calibrate via discharge from water courses.
2) At the end of the title of the work, “USING SWAT MODEL” should appear.
3)In the Introduction, the text from lines 47 to 51 is very obvious, and could be improved.
4)There is an extra “space” on line 55.
5) In Material and Methods, in line 149 – Figure 3, it should be explained whether the position of the water table was measured with observation wells or if it is arbitrary.
6) In Table 2, it would be interesting to explain the meaning of the parameters used, as this would improve the understanding of the work by readers who are not familiar with the use of SWAT.
7) In the Results, it would be convenient to apply the Mann-Kendall test to verify ascending and descending trends found in Figures 6, 8, 12, 13 and 14.
8)In line 315, exchange 0.7 km for 0.7 km2.
9) The observation described in lines 458 to 461 appears to be a global trend in management carried out by irrigators and could be accompanied by a citation.
10) For other works, the actual calibrated evapotranspiration could be compared with the reference ETo calculated by Penman-Monteith with data from ground stations to check the correlation.
Author Response
Please, see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The work is good and only a minor reviion is required. The discussion section should be expanded and better reflect the results obtained
Author Response
Please, see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript contains interesting research results. I find it valuable that the Authors indicate directions for future research. What I do not understand is why the period "2017-2022" is given in the title when the Authors discuss the period "2004-2022".
Comments
Materials and Methods
Please clarify whether the term "corn" means maize for grain or for silage.
Figure 4, why does the residues (blue) only refer to rice? What about the other agricultural crop species?
Figures 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, please do not duplicate the information in the caption and figure
References, please remove publications older than 10 years.
Author Response
Please, see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
