Sustainability of Duero Water Systems for Crop Production in Spain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer’s Comment
General Comments
It is good to know about your study on the “Sustainability of irrigated crops in the Duero river network, Spain.”. However, there are some major corrections to be made. Below are some specific comments.
Title: Your title “Sustainability of irrigated crops in the Duero River network, Spain.” is confusing. First, what are irrigated crops? After reading your introduction section, I think the best title for your manuscript should be “Sustainability of Duero River Network for Crop Production in Spain” OR “Sustainability of Duero Water Systems for Crop Production in Spain” OR any other title that will help your readers to easily comprehend what your manuscript is about. Also, do not include a comma or a full stop to your title.
Abstract: In my opinion, your abstract is very confusing. First, your abstract has an aim/objective at the beginning and the ending of your abstract. This is not supposed to be so. Your aim/objective is supposed to be together to avoid confusion.
For example;
Pg. 1, Lines 14-19;
Number 1 aim/objective: The development of a novel method for assessing the sustainability of irrigated crops. Is there anything like the sustainability of irrigated crops? Please explain. OR do you mean the development of a novel method for sustainable irrigation?
Number 2 aim/objective: To identify possible non-sustainable reach. In the context of your study, what is reach?
Number 3 aim/objective: To suggest measures to improve the overall management of river systems, thereby ensuring the sustainability of irrigations for crop production.
I suggest you organize your aims/objectives.
Also, your abstract is in 3 paragraphs which is not supposed to be so. Abstracts are usually 1 paragraph. I also noticed that your abstract is more than 200 words and so, I suggest that you reduce the length of your abstract. Please, reduce it to a maximum of 200 words. I suggest you read the guide for authors once again. I would also suggest you be precise and clear in your flow for easy comprehension. You can use the following flow.
1. Introduction- what is the topic?
2. The problem statement(s)
3. Briefly include why other studies/researchers have not tackled this problem.
4. How has the problem been tackled/Methodology?
5. The major impact of the research study/review.
Keywords: Remove the full stop at the end of the last keyword.
In my opinion, your introduction section is somewhat clear and understandable.
Pg. 3, Lines 131-132
Objective: “The present study focuses on understanding the effect of reservoir storage capacity on the short-term sustainability of its surface irrigation demands”
The objectives in your abstract and introduction section seem different. I suggest you use the same objective to avoid ambiguity.
Conclusion: The first and second paragraph in your concluding part is not necessary.
I suggest you do a major revision to your manuscript. Help your prospective readers to have a clear understanding of the novelty of your research work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors+The title conveys the importance and relevance of the research topic to readers interested in sustainable agriculture, environmental conservation, and regional studies. It sets clear expectations for the scope and focus of the study, making it a highly significant title for potential readers.
+The abstract provides a comprehensive overview of the research, outlining a novel methodology for assessing the sustainability of irrigation crops within the Spanish Duero basin. The focus on high-resolution analysis of the river network, while maintaining environmental and hydrological standards, is clearly articulated.
+The introduction provides a robust foundation by outlining the regulatory context and discussing key sustainability concepts related to water resource management. Comparative studies with other regions facing similar water management challenges, such as California, provide valuable insights and comparisons that enrich the discussion. The detailed description of legal regulations, such as the Spanish guidelines of water planning (IPH), and the incorporation of sustainability indicators into the California Water Plan, adds depth to the discussion on water management practices.
- It lacks direct mentions or discussions of specific findings or outcomes from prior studies or research initiatives in the Duero basin.
+ The Materials and Methods section offers a meticulous methodology, utilizing the WAAPA model and guidelines from Spanish water planning (IPH), ensuring a methodically sound analysis. The comparison between PWA and SID at each node and reach aids in evaluating sustainability, providing a granular understanding of potential deficits. The incorporation of indices like IP, IS, and IU provides a quantitative assessment of sustainability, enhancing the depth of the analysis.
+The utilization of Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 1 enriches the explanation by presenting crucial data visually and tabularly, aiding in understanding the geographic and hydrological aspects of the study area.
+Figures 4 to 8 are invaluable, offering graphical representations that aid in visualizing deficits, potential improvements, and the level of resource use, enriching the reader's understanding.
-While justifiable due to its relatively low fraction compared to irrigation demand, a brief explanation for not considering urban supply could further reinforce the methodology's robustness. While the methodology identifies Lower and Upper Duero as areas with deficits, more explicit elucidation on why these areas are prone to deficits or the factors contributing to these deficits could add depth to the analysis.
-While the study extensively examines regulation and deficit issues, a brief mention of other potential factors impacting sustainability, like demand fluctuations or management inefficiencies, could augment the analysis.
In general, in scientific works, the text is not personalized (Lines 135 - 173).
Results and discussion
+The utilization of the WAAPA model with high spatial resolution ensures accuracy in the assessment of accumulated variables, enhancing the reliability of the results.
+The numerical data provided in Table 3 summarize the sustainability of different basins, allowing for a comparative analysis and identifying areas with potential vulnerabilities.
+Tables 4 and Figure 9 highlight specific sections where issues related to sustainability might arise, adding granularity to the analysis.
-The text might benefit from a more straightforward explanation of the complex indices and their significance, as the figures and tables might be challenging for some readers to interpret without detailed guidance.
+The Conclusions defines short-term sustainability in the context of irrigation demands, considering factors such as current water amounts, reservoir levels, and environmental flows, aligning with established standards like the Spanish IPH. The description of the WAAPA model and its role in the quantitative distributed analysis of hydraulic infrastructure adds depth to the assessment, ensuring the reliability of the obtained results. The introduction and utilization of the Performance Index (IP), Improvement in Sustainability of Demands (IS), and Usage Index (IU) as universal tools provide a structured approach to assess sustainability across different nodes.
-A deeper exploration or discussion regarding the potential impact of certain management strategies or environmental considerations could enhance the completeness of the conclusions.
+The references list presents a comprehensive array of sources spanning a diverse range of topics related to water policy, sustainability, hydrological modeling, and regional case studies. The inclusion of well-established journals, directives, reports, and studies ensures the credibility and reliability of the paper's cited sources.
-The references exhibit a rich collection of resources; however, enhancing the clarity in citing specific page numbers or sections within these resources could further bolster the precision and accessibility of the information for readers (see the
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors and editors. I received a manuscript of a scientific article "Sustainability of irrigated crops in the Duero river network, Spain" for review. I have carefully studied the manuscript of the scientific article provided by the authors. The manuscript is devoted to a topical topic. Suitable for the subject of a scientific journal.
As a result, I can say the following.
1. The spatial localization of your research object is unclear to me - river network or river basin.
2. Select the 2.1. Study area subsection separately. Lines 112-124 should refer to this subsection. Provide a map of the research area.
3. Section 1 is written only taking into account the European experience and the analysis of literary data. It is necessary to indicate how this issue is being resolved in other countries (China, Russia, USA, India, etc.). At the moment, section 1 is purely regional in nature.
4. In Figure 1, use degree coordinate systems. Specify the coordinates and scale on the map of the Iberian Peninsula.
5. Figure 2. Use degree coordinate systems. Specify superscripts in units of volume and area (km2)
6. The research methodology is not clear. After reading your article, I cannot reproduce the methodology in my region.
7. What programs did you use in the study?
8. Lines 227-240. Figures 2-7. It is unclear whether this is the result of the study or the initial data for the study. I have a feeling that these are intermediate results of the study.
9. I recommend that the authors clearly distinguish between the research methodology and the results of the study.
10. Perhaps the authors should provide a graphical diagram of the research methodology. Specify in it the research methodology step by step.
11. There is no discussion section in the article. Give a comparison of the data you received with other regions of the world. Why is your indicator much better than the existing ones? What indicators are already available? A deeper critical analysis is needed, as in section 1. The list of references should be increased.
12. Specify the limitations of the study
13. Indicate the prospects for future research.
14. In general, the article is quite interesting, but requires significant corrections. I look forward to reviewing the revised version of your manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPeper gives insight to sustainability of irrigated crops in the Duero river basin, Spain. To evaluate the sustainability of current surface water irrigation demands in the river basin, the study estimates the maximum potential availability of surface water for irrigation.
General remark:
Results and discussion section needs to be improved. In Results and discussion section I would suggest to mention/cite proper references/literature when authors write why the research results are important and/or describeing them, and then to cite where they fit in the current literature...
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
You have done a major revision to your manuscript.
Weldone.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPeper gives insight to sustainability of irrigated crops in the Duero river basin, Spain. To evaluate the sustainability of current surface water irrigation demands in the river basin, the study estimates the maximum potential availability of surface water for irrigation.
In revised version of the manuscript, the authors have responded in a greater extent and acknowledged the reviewers' comments, so I suggest that paper can be acceptet in present form. There are only some minor mistakes in text.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language is required.
