Review Reports
by
- Vieri Tarchiani 1,*,
- Hamidou Coulibaly 2 and
- Jose Camacho 4
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments
- The paper title refers to “Sustainable Agricultural Development”, however, the research only focus in economic variables rather than considering the social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainable agriculture.
- The writing could be improved. Some sentences are too large and too broadly explained. Rephrasing is encouraged.
- In the Introduction Section, already a conclusion statement is given.
- In Materials and Methods, the tables in the sub chapter 2.3 data sets are described as results. The sub chapter 2.4 Statistical methods, should be better explained, is not clear.
- In Results, table 8 and table 9, should include the results of the Control Group to show a clear and better comparison between the Pilot and Control Groups.
- In Discussion, sub chapter 4.5 Limits of the study, the time scope of the study covers only two cropping seasons (2 years) with different weather and climatic condition between each other, the study should cover at least three cropping season to have a better statistical sample.
Specific comments:
Line 19 to 23: The sentence is too large
Line 40: Specify literature reference
Line 61: The acronym NMHS meaning is not specified before
Line 95 to 98: It is a conclusion statement that should not be part of the Introduction section
Line 101 to 103: Sentence is too large and poorly written
Line 110: ‘The relief of the area is generally uneven’ instead of ‘The relief of the area is generally relatively uneven’
Line 113 to 114: Check writing, should be ‘The most produced cereals are sorghum, millet and corn’
Line 121 to 124: not clear, please rephrase the sentence
Line 136: Figure 1, the Outcomes only consider Socio-economic impacts, if we talk about sustainable agriculture development as is stated in the title of the paper, it should consider environmental impacts as well.
Line 173: Typo in Table 2: I guess it should be ’11,680.2’ instead of ’11,6802’
Line 189 to 195: Should be part of the Results and Discussion section.
Line 199: Statistical methods should be explained more in detail.
Line 269: Table 7, consider changing the word ‘Choice’ for a more suitable one
Line 70: ‘outperformed’ instead of ‘outperforms’.
Line 81: It should be ‘to develop or to select’ (I guess)
Line 114: explain here what are these terms: P, Pa and R?
Line 119: The citation ‘(Guo et al.2018)’, it is not clear to which sentence it is referring.
Line 121: ‘curves are’ instead of ‘curves is’
Line 121: please elaborate here how did you simplified P~Pa~R curves?
Line 125: Please explain what do mean be dividing runoff into two lines, what are these two lines?
Line 150: Which eight-parameters, explain!
Line 167: write ‘data scarce’ instead of ‘data insufficient’.
Line 186: ‘easy to apply or implement’ instead of ‘easy to spread’.
Line 202-203: ‘In this study/paper we selected’ instead of ‘this paper selected’
Line 207: Give the units for Rsim and Robs.
Line 211: Units for Qsim and Qobs?
Line 215: Units of Tsim, Tobs?
Line 215: position of word ‘respectively’ should be after observed value of peak.
Line 216: “The simulation for flood peak time is considered qualified”, cite it or it is your own assumption?
Line 220: Units of Qis and Qio. ‘simulated and observed values of runoff’ instead of simulated value and observed runoff’.
Line 226-227: Not giving a clear message! Rephrase it please!
Line 232: what is second and third steps of topography, explain please!
Line 233: Explain here, what do you mean by different runoff zones and temperature zones?
Figure 1: provide a scale bar as well
Line 240: typo”600mm”, “800mm”, space missing should be 600 mm, 800 mm.
Line 241: ‘stations’ instead of ‘station’
Line 243: ‘more than or greater than’ instead of ‘superior to’.
Line 246 Table 1: space missing “Area(km2)”. Looks double spacing “station (km2/precipitation)”.
Table 2: the column ‘Qualified number of peak time’ is not cleasr! Is it (Tsim/Tobs), please clarify!
Line 256: typo “1500mm”
Line 266: typo “flashflood”
Line 282, Figure 2: explain what is Pa=18, Pa=68, Pa=92 in 2a, similarly in 2b and 2c? Aslo, explain in figure caption what 45 degree black line represents?
Line 289: typo “800mm”
Line 294: typo “small-scale”
Line 296: ‘is poor’ instead of ‘is the worst’
Line 299: ‘therefore’ or you can write ‘hence’ instead of ‘the result is that’.
Line 305: typo “100mm”, “120~200mm”
Line 309: typo “95mm”
Line 330: typo “early-warning”
Line 333: ‘among other hydrological models used in this study’ instead of ‘among all the hydrological models’.
Line 347: typo “groundwater” (space missing).
Line 349: ‘humid catchments’ instead of ‘humid catchment’.
Line 353: ‘dry’ instead of ‘droughty’.
Line 356: ‘occurred’ instead of ‘occurs’.
Line 357: typo “1m3/s”.
Line 360: ‘flash flood’ not ‘flash floods’.
Line 372: ‘interception, ground filling and…...’ instead of ‘interception and ground filling and…’
Line 373: typo “catchments’ ”.
Line 380: ‘storage deficit and the constant losses….’ Instead of ‘storage deficit, the constant losses….’
Line 381-383: from ‘Moreover…results.’ not giving a clear message, please rephrase it!
Line 386: ‘2005-08-17’ instead of ‘20050817’.
Line 387: ‘obviously’ instead of ‘obvious’.
Line 399: ‘in the hilly areas of China’ instead of ‘in hilly area in China’.
Line 407: ‘TOPMODEL showed some limitations’ or ‘TOPMODEL has some limitations’ instead of ‘TOPMODEL is limited’.
Line 410: please explain here, which parameters the HEC_HMS model can obtain from the underlying surface data!
Line 417: ‘areas’ not ‘area’.
Line 419: ‘tasks’ not ‘task’
Line 443: Volume number is missing in this reference!
Line 457: page number is missing!
Line 461: volume number is missing!
Line 467: page# is missing
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we appreciate very much your effort to improve our paper. Your appropriate and specific comments have been considered and introduced in the paper. We considered also the notes you added on the pdf file. We suppose that the last parts of the comments refer to another manuscript (when after line 269 you start again with line 70). Therefore we didn’t consider them. please find attached the response point by point.
Vieri Tarchiani
Thank you very much
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has a certain practical significance, but you still need to supplement the article content and adjust the article structure
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are very grateful for your deep revision of our paper and for the effort you did in order to improve it.
We took care of introducing all your comments in the paper and we answered to your concern about the representativity of the control group.
Please find attached the responses point by point
Thank you very much
Vieri Tarchiani
Author Response File: Author Response.docx