Evapotranspiration and Crop Coefficient of Ratoon Rice Crop Determined by Water Depth Observation and Bayesian Inference

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting contribution where Evapotranspiration (ET) and crop coefficient (Kc) of ratoon rice were determined from manual observation of water depth in concrete paddy tanks combined with ET model estimation using Bayesian parameter inference.

The paper is well written, and the subject is of great interest to compute rice ET with simple experimentation and limited data. Nevertheless a few points need to be explained or addressed by the authors:

 Introduction section

- L. 59-64, I would suggest moving this paragraph before the description of the objectives in this section.

2. Material and methods

- As there were 8 tanks, I assume there were 2 replications of each treatment. The authors must indicate the number of replications in this section.

3. Results

- The title of 3.3 is the same than that of 3.3.2, it is convenient to change this title as it is confusing.

- Table 1 in line 283 should be Table 2

Author Response

We thank reviewers for their valuable comments to improve this manuscript. The comments have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript as possible as we can. Following are the replies for specific comments.

Point 1: - Introduction section: L. 59-64, I would suggest moving this paragraph before the description of the objectives in this section.

Response 1: We have done it accordingly.

Point 2: - Material and methods: As there were 8 tanks, I assume there were 2 replications of each treatment. The authors must indicate the number of replications in this section.

Response 2: We have added the number of replications and explanation for experiment tanks. We used 10 tanks, 4 tanks for conventional transplanting, and 4 tanks for ratoon rice cropping (4 replications), and 2 tanks for evaporation (2 replication).

Point 3: - The title of 3.3 is the same than that of 3.3.2, it is convenient to change this title as it is confusing.

Response 3: we have modified the title of 3.3  “E_tank and ET_tank combined with the observation and model estimates”

Point 4: - - Table 1 in line 283 should be Table 2

Response 4: Thank you for the notice, we have done it.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the objective of the authors was the determination of evapotranspiration and Kc values of ratoon using a simple method. At the end of the manuscript, the authors questioned the correctness of their data. The Material and methods chapter should be improved significantly because much necessary information is missing. The interpretation of the results is wrong in several cases and sometimes not complete numbering of the tables is wrong, the caption of the figures are tables should be formatted according to the journal’s criteria. The presentation of the data and results are not consequent. 

1. In the abstract, the authors wrote ’It remains difficult to determine ET’ but this task is not complicated at all.
2. In the Introduction chapter, it is written: ’Furthermore, accurate estimation of ET and Kc require complex and expensive observation systems such as weighing lysimeter and the eddy covariance system’ but the purpose of the authors and aim of this manuscript was exactly the opposite of this statement. Do the authors declare with this sentence, that their method is not suitable for the accurate measurement of ET and Kc?
3. The scientific name of rice should be mentioned in the manuscript.
4. Please clarify, whether the water depth in every concrete tank was determined daily?
5. The authors should specify the exact date and year of the experiment, the transplanting and harvesting time of the examined plants in the Material and methods chapter as well.
6. Was the transplanted rice (TC) also cultivated in the same tanks as ratoons?
7. The authors should determine the exact developmental stage (planting, flowering or harvesting) of the plants by using a scale like BBCH or Zadoks.
8. The units of Figure 2 (Day of the year from 2019/1/1 (DOY)) is not appropriate, please mark the exact date of the transplanting and harvesting time on the unit.
9. According to Figure 2, by ‘ratoon1’ and ‘transplanted rice1’ trials the solar radiation and air temperature values differed to such a huge extent compared to the other trials that the results of the ‘RC1-RC2’ and ‘TC1-TC2’ are not comparable.
10. The relative humidity is important by the determination of the evapotranspiration, please add this parameter to Figure 2 as well.
11. According to L124-125 the determination period of E_tank and ET_tank was stopped 14 days before harvesting, please explain why.
12. Please explain ‘resolution measurement 0.01 mm’ (L130).
13. The authors should format the equations according to the journal’s criteria.
14. It is written: ‘Moreover, when it rains, monitoring the amount of rainfall pouring into a tank is difficult, so that observed data with 5 mm daily precipitation or more were not used. On the other hand, precipitation less than 5 mm was regarded as negligible’ (L137-139). According to these sentences, the amount of precipitation was not taken into account at all.
15. The authors claimed that the generalized water balance was determined as in Equation 1 but the evaporation was determined only by the differences between the daily pond water depth.
16. The authors claimed that the soil heat flux was neglected in Equation 2 because of the daily analysis; please clarify the method of the measure of the soil heat flux in the Materials and methods chapter as well.
17. It is written ‘Many missing and error data were generated due to inconsistencies in observation’ (L155), please specify these inconsistencies.
18. In Equations 7 and 9, the h_c means the crop height (m) please clarify in which developmental stage the plant height had been measured.
19. In L179-180 it is written: ‘? _[?][?] indicates the observed E_tank and ET_tank at day t in each group-level c (four groups for Etank and three groups for ETtank) (mm)’, please clarify the four groups of the E_tank-s.
20. ‘For estimating the posterior distribution, we used RStat version 2.19.3 developed by the’ (L190) this sentence is not complete.
21. According to Figure 3a, the highest plant heights were not observed at the end of the plant’s development, please explain this.
22. Hence the optimal temperature for rice cultivation is between approximately 25°C and 35°C the results of this manuscript, namely the plants were higher in the monsoon season (smaller temperature fluctuation) than in the cool and dry season (bigger temperature fluctuation) are not new or scientifically important.
23. It is written: ‘In contrast, that for the number of tillers between TC and RC was significantly different’ (L204), the authors should clarify which statistical analysis was used to make such a statement.
24. The standard deviation of the number of the tillers by ‘TC2’ in Figure 3b seems too big.
25. In the caption of the figures and tables, please clarify the meaning of the abbreviations of the figures or tables.
26. Please specify this sentence: ’Orange and blue bands indicate a day with the maximum temperature ≧ 38℃ and the minimum temperature ≧ 15℃’ (L213-213). Furthermore, in Figure 3 the bands with maximum temperature ≧ 38℃ seem rather red.
27. According to the caption of Figure 4, the number of transplanted rice (n=29) was much higher than of ratoon’s (n=17). This big difference makes the results not comparable, please use identical n numbers and re-edit this figure with n=17.
28. The used statistical analysis method must be mentioned in the Materials and methods chapter as well.
29. The results of Table 1 are not interpreted properly. Please mention all of the significant differences in the text.
30. The authors should take into consideration to do the statistical analysis again and determine the statistical differences between MC1-MC2, RC1-RC2 and TC1-2 (Table 1) as well.
31. In Table 1 the grain yield of RC2 is significantly lower, more than three than TC2’s and the filled grains also half as in TC2 but the 1000-grain weight of RC2 does not differ from TC2 significantly.
32. The authors wrote ‘The grain yield of RC1 was 80% of that for MC1 and identical with that for TC1 cultivated in parallel with RC1’ but according to Table 1, there were no significant differences between them.
33. According to Table 2 this sentence: ‘However, the yield of RC2 was 28% of that for MC2, exhibiting a substantial decrease’ is not true.
34. The authors claimed: ‘The filled grains rate as well as the biological and grain yields of RC2 were considerably lower than those of the others. This was caused by the effect of low temperature in the reproductive stage of RCs’ but the plants of TC2 were developed under similar temperature conditions.
35. In Table 1 the standard deviation of RC2 in filled grains data seems rather too big.
36. The authors wrote ‘Both mean values were almost identical, but variation in the dataset was slightly different between the estimates and the observation, as shown in Figure 5a’ but according to Figure 5a the difference between the observed and estimated E_tank during the monsoon season hardly can be called ‘slightly diffrent’.

 

37. According to Figure 2, the TC2 plant growing started after RC2 but this does not coincide with the notation in Figure 5b.
38. There are two Table 1 in this manuscript.
39. The n (observed days/total days) in Figure 5 are not identical with the second Table 1 n numbers or in the Materials and methods chapter claimed observation days.
40. The authors claimed that ‘Summary of the E_tank and ET_tank combined with the observation, and the model estimates are shown in Table 2’ but on the one hand there is no Table 2 in this manuscript, on the other hand, the model estimated values are not shown in any table.
41. In the caption of the second Table 1 (in the actual Table 2) there is written: ‘WT_ET represents water productivity with respect to ET_tank’ but in this table, WT_ET was not mentioned at all.
42. In Figure 7, the authors mentioned ‘ratoon rice’, ‘transplanted rice’ and ‘ratoon double cropping rice’ but this marking has not consistent with the other figures or tables.
43. In the Results chapter, the authors should not compare their results with other studies findings if there is a Discussion chapter as well.
44. The authors stated that ‘We assumed that the regression formula of the LAI could not meet the actual plant growth of RC because the tillering trait of RC was significantly different from that of the TC’ but LAI values have an important role in the calculating of surface resistance, which is an important part the calculation of the ET_tank. So with this statement, the authors questioned the correctness of their work?
45. The authors claimed: ‘However, the model performance on ratoon was not good compared to that of transplanted rice because the complex regeneration traits of ratoon affected the prediction of LAI and ET. Thus, the observed LAI under ratoon cropping conditions should be used for the model estimation’ and with this, they also questioned the correctness of their work.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We thank reviewers for their valuable comments to improve this manuscript. The comments have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript as possible as we can. Following are the replies for specific comments.

Point 1: - In the abstract, the authors wrote ’It remains difficult to determine ET’ but this task is not complicated at all.

Response 1: We have added sentences as follow:

ET can be directly measured by lysimeter and eddy covariance but expensively so that it remains difficult to determine ET, especially in developing countries.

Point 2: - In the Introduction chapter, it is written: ’Furthermore, accurate estimation of ET and Kc require complex and expensive observation systems such as weighing lysimeter and the eddy covariance system’ but the purpose of the authors and aim of this manuscript was exactly the opposite of this statement. Do the authors declare with this sentence, that their method is not suitable for the accurate measurement of ET and Kc?

Response 2: We have modified that sentence as follow:

Furthermore, complex and expensive systems such as weighing lysimeter and the eddy covariance system are commonly used for estimation of ET and Kc.

Point 3: - The scientific name of rice should be mentioned in the manuscript.

Response 3: We don’t think its necessity to add “Oryza sativa L. ssp. Indica”. “Theehtetyin” is the name of variety which developed in Myanmar.

Point 4: - Please clarify, whether the water depth in every concrete tank was determined daily?

Response 4: We have added some words to clarify that we have done daily measurement in all tanks.

Point 5: - The authors should specify the exact date and year of the experiment, the transplanting and harvesting time of the examined plants in the Material and methods chapter as well.

Response 5: We have added new Table 1 for specifying the cultivation scheduling of experiment.

Point 6: - Was the transplanted rice (TC) also cultivated in the same tanks as ratoons?

Response 6: No, it wasn’t. Each plant (MC, RC and TC) was planted in a tank separately and independently.

Point 7: - The authors should determine the exact developmental stage (planting, flowering or harvesting) of the plants by using a scale like BBCH or Zadoks.

Response 7: Thank you for giving advice. We will consider it from now on.

Point 8: - The units of Figure 2 (Day of the year from 2019/1/1 (DOY)) is not appropriate, please mark the exact date of the transplanting and harvesting time on the unit.

Response 8: We have revised the unit of Figure 2 and added the date of transplanting and harvesting in the Figure.

Point 9: - According to Figure 2, by ‘ratoon1’ and ‘transplanted rice1’ trials the solar radiation and air temperature values differed to such a huge extent compared to the other trials that the results of the ‘RC1-RC2’ and ‘TC1-TC2’ are not comparable.

Response 9: Different season crops are not comparable as reviewer pointed out.

Point 10: - The relative humidity is important by the determination of the evapotranspiration, please add this parameter to Figure 2 as well.

Response 10: We have added the relative humidity in Figure. 2.

Point 11: - According to L124-125 the determination period of Etank and ETtank was stopped 14 days before harvesting, please explain why.

Response 11: Because the drainage period for harvesting. This method can determine ET only under flooded condition (during irrigated period).

Point 12: - Please explain ‘resolution measurement 0.01 mm’ (L130).

Response 12: Translation may be inappropriate. It means that we can read up to the number of decimal digits 0.01. But we have deleted it to avoid misreading.

Point 13: - The authors should format the equations according to the journal’s criteria.

Response 13: We have followed the journal’s criteria. If not correct, we will ask editor how to edit.

Point 14: - It is written: ‘Moreover, when it rains, monitoring the amount of rainfall pouring into a tank is difficult, so that observed data with 5 mm daily precipitation or more were not used. On the other hand, precipitation less than 5 mm was regarded as negligible’ (L137-139). According to these sentences, the amount of precipitation was not taken into account at all.

Response 14: Because it is not possible to measure the amount of precipitation filled in a tank, and it is necessary to avoid large calculation error on water balance in a tank.

Point 15: - The authors claimed that the generalized water balance was determined as in Equation 1 but the evaporation was determined only by the differences between the daily pond water depth.

Response 15: As described, we need to explain the determination method from a generalized water valance formula.

Point 16: - The authors claimed that the soil heat flux was neglected in Equation 2 because of the daily analysis; please clarify the method of the measure of the soil heat flux in the Materials and methods chapter as well.

Response 16: We did not measure the soil heat flux in a tank. We had modified as “was not used” instead of “was neglected”.

Point 17- It is written ‘Many missing and error data were generated due to inconsistencies in observation’ (L155), please specify these inconsistencies.

Response 17: we have added “misreading or absence of reading”.

Point 18- In Equations 7 and 9, the hc means the crop height (m) please clarify in which developmental stage the plant height had been measured.

Response 18: Same as other variables (e.g., Rn, Ta, LAI and u), hc indicates a height at ET calculation date.

Point 19- In L179-180 it is written: ‘? [?][?] indicates the observed Etank and ETtank at day t in each group-level c (four groups for Etank and three groups for ETtank) (mm)’, please clarify the four groups of the Etank-s.

Response 19: Group-level differences indicate the different climate conditions or crop growth stages in a dataset. We have revised it accordingly.

Point 20- For estimating the posterior distribution, we used RStat version 2.19.3 developed by the’ (L190) this sentence is not complete.

Response 20: We have done it accordingly.

Point 21- According to Figure 3a, the highest plant heights were not observed at the end of the plant’s development, please explain this.

Response 21: final observation has done at a day before harvesting or a day of harvesting. It means the end of plant’s development.

Point 22- Hence the optimal temperature for rice cultivation is between approximately 25°C and 35°C the results of this manuscript, namely the plants were higher in the monsoon season (smaller temperature fluctuation) than in the cool and dry season (bigger temperature fluctuation) are not new or scientifically important.

Response 22: We agree with review’s comment.

Point 23- It is written: ‘In contrast, that for the number of tillers between TC and RC was significantly different’ (L204), the authors should clarify which statistical analysis was used to make such a statement.

Response 23: We have changed to “substantially” from “significantly”.

Point 24- The standard deviation of the number of the tillers by ‘TC2’ in Figure 3b seems too big.

Response 24: Compared to RC2, the standard deviation of no. of tiller by TC2 is not big.

Point 25- In the caption of the figures and tables, please clarify the meaning of the abbreviations of the figures or tables.

Response 25: We have done it accordingly.

Point 26- Please specify this sentence: ’Orange and blue bands indicate a day with the maximum temperature ≧ 38℃ and the minimum temperature ≧ 15℃’ (L213-213). Furthermore, in Figure 3 the bands with maximum temperature ≧ 38℃ seem rather red.

Response 26: We have changed to “vertical strips” from “bands”, and revised “red” instead of “orange”.

Point 27- According to the caption of Figure 4, the number of transplanted rice (n=29) was much higher than of ratoon’s (n=17). This big difference makes the results not comparable, please use identical n numbers and re-edit this figure with n=17.

Response 26: The transplanted rice includes the main crop (MC1 and MC2) and transplanted crop (TC1 and TC2), and growth period of MC (TC) and RC are different (it means the different observation time). Therefore, the sample size are different. We can’t intentionally adjust the sample size of transplanted rice.

Point 28- The used statistical analysis method must be mentioned in the Materials and methods chapter as well.

Response 28: We have done it accordingly.

Point 29- The results of Table 1 are not interpreted properly. Please mention all of the significant differences in the text.

Response 29: We have done it accordingly.

Point 30- The authors should take into consideration to do the statistical analysis again and determine the statistical differences between MC1-MC2, RC1-RC2 and TC1-2 (Table 1) as well.

Response 30: the same as point 9, different season crops are not comparable. Thus, we did not compare statistically between MC1 and MC2 (or RC1 and RC2 or TC1 and TC2).

Point 31- In Table 1 the grain yield of RC2 is significantly lower, more than three than TC2’s and the filled grains also half as in TC2 but the 1000-grain weight of RC2 does not differ from TC2 significantly.

Response 31: As mentioned in this manuscript, grain yield of RC2 was caused by the effect of low temperature in the reproductive stage.

Point 32- The authors wrote ‘The grain yield of RC1 was 80% of that for MC1 and identical with that for TC1 cultivated in parallel with RC1’ but according to Table 1, there were no significant differences between them.

Response 32: Because MC1 had a large variation (SD ±133).

Point 33- According to Table 2 this sentence: ‘However, the yield of RC2 was 28% of that for MC2, exhibiting a substantial decrease’ is not true.

Response 33: We had modified “39%” from “28%”.

Point 34- The authors claimed: ‘The filled grains rate as well as the biological and grain yields of RC2 were considerably lower than those of the others. This was caused by the effect of low temperature in the reproductive stage of RCs’ but the plants of TC2 were developed under similar temperature conditions.

Response 34: TC2 was still in vegetative stage (before maximum tillering stage), not in the reproductive stage according to the changes in the number of tillers.

Point 35- In Table 1 the standard deviation of RC2 in filled grains data seems rather too big.

Response 35: We have checked it again, but it is correct.

Point 36- The authors wrote ‘Both mean values were almost identical, but variation in the dataset was slightly different between the estimates and the observation, as shown in Figure 5a’ but according to Figure 5a the difference between the observed and estimated Etank during the monsoon season hardly can be called ‘slightly diffrent’.

 Response 36: We have deleted “slightly” word.

Point 37- According to Figure 2, the TC2 plant growing started after RC2 but this does not coincide with the notation in Figure 5b.

Response 37: In the caption of Figure 5 is not correct “period from transplanting or cutting the stem to harvesting”. Period should be “irrigated period in a tank for the observation of water depth”. We have revised it. Thank you very much.

Point 38- There are two Table 1 in this manuscript.

Response 38: We have revised it accordingly.

Point 39- The n (observed days/total days) in Figure 5 are not identical with the second Table 1 n numbers or in the Materials and methods chapter claimed observation days.

Response 39: We have revised it accordingly. Thank you for the notice

Point 40- The authors claimed that ‘Summary of the Etank and ETtank combined with the observation, and the model estimates are shown in Table 2’ but on the one hand there is no Table 2 in this manuscript, on the other hand, the model estimated values are not shown in any table.

Response 40: We have revised the number of Table. Etank and ETtank values are combined with the observation and the model estimates. Only the observed or the estimated values are not shown.

Point 41- In the caption of the second Table 1 (in the actual Table 2) there is written: ‘WTET represents water productivity with respect to ETtank’ but in this table, WTET was not mentioned at all.

Response 41: We have deleted it accordingly. Thank you for the notice.

Point 42- In Figure 7, the authors mentioned ‘ratoon rice’, ‘transplanted rice’ and ‘ratoon double cropping rice’ but this marking has not consistent with the other figures or tables.

Response 42: We checked it, but grain yield and ET data for each crops has consistent with other figures and tables.

Point 43- In the Results chapter, the authors should not compare their results with other studies findings if there is a Discussion chapter as well.

Response 43: We have rejected a part of sentence with citations.

Point 44- The authors stated that ‘We assumed that the regression formula of the LAI could not meet the actual plant growth of RC because the tillering trait of RC was significantly different from that of the TC’ but LAI values have an important role in the calculating of surface resistance, which is an important part the calculation of the ETtank. So with this statement, the authors questioned the correctness of their work?

Point 45- The authors claimed: ‘However, the model performance on ratoon was not good compared to that of transplanted rice because the complex regeneration traits of ratoon affected the prediction of LAI and ET. Thus, the observed LAI under ratoon cropping conditions should be used for the model estimation’ and with this, they also questioned the correctness of their work.

Response 44-45: We have revised the description.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your replies to my comments.

Point 1: - In the abstract, the authors wrote ’It remains difficult to determine ET’ but this task is not complicated at all.

Response 1: We have added sentences as follow:

ET can be directly measured by lysimeter and eddy covariance but expensively so that it remains difficult to determine ET, especially in developing countries.  Accepted

 

Point 2: - In the Introduction chapter, it is written: ’Furthermore, accurate estimation of ET and Kc require complex and expensive observation systems such as weighing lysimeter and the eddy covariance system’ but the purpose of the authors and aim of this manuscript was exactly the opposite of this statement. Do the authors declare with this sentence, that their method is not suitable for the accurate measurement of ET and Kc?

Response 2: We have modified that sentence as follow:

Furthermore, complex and expensive systems such as the weighing lysimeter and the eddy covariance system are commonly used for the estimation of ET and Kc.  Accepted

Point 3: - The scientific name of rice should be mentioned in the manuscript.

Response 3: We don’t think it's necessary to add “Oryza sativa L. ssp. Indica”. “Theehtetyin” is the name of variety that developed in Myanmar.  Hence this is a scientific journal, please mention the scientific name of the examined plant at least once in the Material and Methods chapter.

Point 4: - Please clarify, whether the water depth in every concrete tank was determined daily?

Response 4: We have added some words to clarify that we have done daily measurements in all tanks.  I did not find it

Point 5: - The authors should specify the exact date and year of the experiment, the transplanting and harvesting time of the examined plants in the Material and methods chapter as well.

Response 5: We have added new Table 1 for specifying the cultivation scheduling of the experiment.  Accepted

Point 6: - Was the transplanted rice (TC) also cultivated in the same tanks as ratoons?

Response 6: No, it wasn’t. Each plant (MC, RC and TC) was planted in a tank separately and independently.  Please clarify also in the manuscript the number of the tanks in which the ‘MC’ ‘RC’ and ‘TC’ plants were planted.

Point 7: - The authors should determine the exact developmental stage (planting, flowering or harvesting) of the plants by using a scale like BBCH or Zadok.

Response 7: Thank you for giving advice. We will consider it from now on.  Please use one of the mentioned scales (BBCH or Zadoks) in the manuscript.

Point 8: - The units of Figure 2 (Day of the year from 2019/1/1 (DOY)) is not appropriate, please mark the exact date of the transplanting and harvesting time on the unit.

Response 8: We have revised the unit of Figure 2 and added the date of transplanting and harvesting in the Figure. Accepted

Point 9: - According to Figure 2, by ‘ratoon1’ and ‘transplanted rice1’ trials the solar radiation and air temperature values differed to such a huge extent compared to the other trials that the results of the ‘RC1-RC2’ and ‘TC1-TC2’ are not comparable.

Response 9: Different season crops are not comparable as the reviewer pointed out.  Accepted

Point 10: - The relative humidity is important by the determination of the evapotranspiration, please add this parameter to Figure 2 as well.

Response 10: We have added the relative humidity in Figure. 2.  Accepted

Point 11: - According to L124-125 the determination period of Etank and ETtank was stopped 14 days before harvesting, please explain why.

Response 11: Because of the drainage period for harvesting. This method can determine ET only under flooded conditions (during the irrigated period).  Accepted

Point 12: - Please explain ‘resolution measurement 0.01 mm’ (L130).

Response 12: Translation may be inappropriate. It means that we can read up to the number of decimal digits 0.01. But we have deleted it to avoid misreading.  Accepted

Point 13: - The authors should format the equations according to the journal’s criteria.

Response 13: We have followed the journal’s criteria. If not correct, we will ask the editor how to edit.  Accepted

Point 14: - It is written: ‘Moreover, when it rains, monitoring the amount of rainfall pouring into a tank is difficult, so that observed data with 5 mm daily precipitation or more were not used. On the other hand, precipitation less than 5 mm was regarded as negligible’ (L137-139). According to these sentences, the amount of precipitation was not taken into account at all.

Response 14: Because it is not possible to measure the amount of precipitation filled in a tank, and it is necessary to avoid large calculation errors on water balance in a tank.  The amount of precipitation can be measured in other ways (e.g. canopy interception).

Point 15: - The authors should claim that the generalized water balance was determined as in Equation 1 but the evaporation was determined only by the differences between the daily pond water depth.

Response 15: As described, we need to explain the determination method from a generalized water balance formula.  Please write the actually used formula

Point 16: - The authors claimed that the soil heat flux was neglected in Equation 2 because of the daily analysis; please clarify the method of the measure of the soil heat flux in the Materials and methods chapter as well.

Response 16: We did not measure the soil heat flux in a tank. We had modified it as “was not used” instead of “was neglected”.  Please deleted soil heat flux from Equation 2 if it ‘was not used.

Point 17- It is written ‘Many missing and error data were generated due to inconsistencies in observation’ (L155), please specify these inconsistencies.

Response 17: we have added “misreading or absence of reading”.  What is the real meaning of ‘misreading or absence of reading’? Does it mean, for example, that, there were days when the water depth was not measured at all or just not in every tank?

Point 18- In Equations 7 and 9, the hc means the crop height (m) please clarify in which developmental stage the plant height had been measured.

Response 18: Same as other variables (e.g., Rn, Ta, LAI and u), hc indicates a height at ET calculation date.  Please clary this also in the manuscript

Point 19- In L179-180 it is written: ‘? [?][?] indicates the observed Etank and ETtank at day t in each group-level c (four groups for Etank and three groups for ETtank) (mm)’, please clarify the four groups of the Etank-s.

Response 19: Group-level differences indicate the different climate conditions or crop growth stages in a dataset. We have revised it accordingly.  Partly accepted, but please clarify in the manuscript the meaning of these climate conditions or crop growth stages.

Point 20- For estimating the posterior distribution, we used RStat version 2.19.3 developed by the’ (L190) this sentence is not complete.

Response 20: We have done it accordingly.  Accepted

Point 21- According to Figure 3a, the highest plant heights were not observed at the end of the plant’s development, please explain this.

Response 21: final observation has done at a day before harvesting or a day of harvesting. It means the end of the plant’s development. Does it mean that the plants have shrunk by the end of their development (compared to another developmental stage)?

Point 22- Hence the optimal temperature for rice cultivation is between approximately 25°C and 35°C the results of this manuscript, namely the plants were higher in the monsoon season (smaller temperature fluctuation) than in the cool and dry season (bigger temperature fluctuation) are not new or scientifically important.

Response 22: We agree with the review’s comment.  Then please highlight the significant results in the different seasons.

Point 23- It is written: ‘In contrast, that for the number of tillers between TC and RC was significantly different’ (L204), the authors should clarify which statistical analysis was used to make such a statement.

Response 23: We have changed to “substantially” from “significantly”.  The number of the measurements of plant height and number of the tillers (n=x) are not consistent in Figure 3, please use the same number of sampling.

Point 24- The standard deviation of the number of tillers by ‘TC2’ in Figure 3b seems too big.

Response 24: Compared to RC2, the standard deviation of no. of tiller by TC2 is not big.  Yes, it is, compared to MC2 or RC2.

Point 25- In the caption of the figures and tables, please clarify the meaning of the abbreviations of the figures or tables.

Response 25: We have done it accordingly.  There were no alterations compared to the first uploaded manuscript.

Point 26- Please specify this sentence: ’Orange and blue bands indicate a day with the maximum temperature ≧ 38℃ and the minimum temperature ≧ 15℃’ (L213-213). Furthermore, in Figure 3 the bands with maximum temperature ≧ 38℃ seem rather red.

Response 26: We have changed to “vertical strips” from “bands”, and revised “red” instead of “orange”.  Accepted

Point 27- According to the caption of Figure 4, the number of transplanted rice (n=29) was much higher than of ratoon’s (n=17). This big difference makes the results not comparable, please use identical n numbers and re-edit this figure with n=17.

Response 27: The transplanted rice includes the main crop (MC1 and MC2) and transplanted crop (TC1 and TC2), and the growth period of MC (TC) and RC are different (it means the different observation times). Therefore, the sample sizes are different. We can’t intentionally adjust the sample size of transplanted rice.  According to this answer, the authors treated as a unit the main crop and transplanted crop in both of the two seasons as ‘the transplanted rice’ but according to Figure 2 the air temperature and solar radiation values have differed so much during MC1, TC1, MC2, TC2 that Figure 4 shows false results. Please re-edit this figure or delete it.

Point 28- The used statistical analysis method must be mentioned in the Materials and methods chapter as well.

Response 28: We have done it accordingly. The level of significance should be mentioned as well.

Point 29- The results of Table 1 are not interpreted properly. Please mention all of the significant differences in the text.

Response 29: We have done it accordingly.  Not accepted. Please do a proper interpretation. All of the tables mentioned components’ significant results should be interpreted in the text.

Point 30: -The authors should take into consideration to do the statistical analysis again and determine the statistical differences between MC1-MC2, RC1-RC2 and TC1-2 (Table 1) as well.

Response 30: the same as point 9, different seasons are not comparable. Thus, we did not compare statistically between MC1 and MC2 (or RC1 and RC2 or TC1 and TC2).  In this case please write this sentence into the Results chapter. Or if the authors claim that the two different seasons have a significant impact on the yield component then please highlight those significant differences in the Results chapter and compare these results with other authors’ results in the Discussion chapter.

Point 31- In Table 1 the grain yield of RC2 is significantly lower, more than three than TC2’s and the filled grains are also half as in TC2 but the 1000-grain weight of RC2 does not differ from TC2 significantly.

Response 31: As mentioned in this manuscript, the grain yield of RC2 was caused by the effect of low temperature in the reproductive stage.  Does this answer mean that the low temperature affected only the grain yield of RC2 and not the 1000-grain weight of RC2?

Point 32- The authors wrote ‘The grain yield of RC1 was 80% of that for MC1 and identical with that for TC1 cultivated in parallel with RC1’ but according to Table 1, there were no significant differences between them.

Response 32: Because MC1 had a large variation (SD ±133).  Please re-edit the sentence, e.g. ‘The grain yield of RC1 was 20% lower than MC1 and identical with TC1 cultivated in parallel with RC1’.

Point 33- According to Table 2 this sentence: ‘However, the yield of RC2 was 28% of that for MC2, exhibiting a substantial decrease’ is not true.

Response 33: We had modified “39%” from “28%”.  Accepted

Point 34- The authors claimed: ‘The filled grains rate, as well as the biological and grain yields of RC2, were considerably lower than those of the others. This was caused by the effect of low temperature in the reproductive stage of RCs’ but the plants of TC2 were developed under similar temperature conditions.

Response 34: TC2 was still in the vegetative stage (before maximum tillering stage), not in the reproductive stage according to the changes in the number of tillers. The authors should clarify the different important developmental stages.

Point 35- In Table 1 the standard deviation of RC2 in filled grains data seems rather too big.

Response 35: We have checked it again, but it is correct.  Accepted

Point 36- The authors wrote ‘Both mean values were almost identical, but variation in the dataset was slightly different between the estimates and the observation, as shown in Figure 5a’ but according to Figure 5a the difference between the observed and estimated Etank during the monsoon season hardly can be called ‘slightly different.

Response 36: We have deleted the “slightly” word.  Accepted

Point 37: -According to Figure 2, the TC2 plant growing started after RC2 but this does not coincide with the notation in Figure 5b.

Response 37: In the caption of Figure 5 is not correct “period from transplanting or cutting the stem to harvesting”. The period should be an “irrigated period in a tank for the observation of water depth”. We have revised it. Thank you very much.  Accepted

Point 38- There are two Table 1 in this manuscript.

Response 38: We have revised it accordingly.  Accepted

Point 39- The n (observed days/total days) in Figure 5 are not identical with the second Table 1 n numbers or in the Materials and methods chapter claimed observation days.

Response 39: We have revised it accordingly. Thank you for the notice  I observed no alterations compared to the first uploaded manuscript.

Point 40- The authors claimed that ‘Summary of the Etank and ETtank combined with the observation, and the model estimates are shown in Table 2’ but on the one hand there is no Table 2 in this manuscript, on the other hand, the model estimated values are not shown in any table.

Response 40: We have revised the number of Tables. Etank and ETtank values are combined with the observation and the model estimates. Only the observed or the estimated values are not shown.  In this case Table 3 makes no sense. In this table, the observed and estimated values should be compared with each other and not combined.

Point 41- In the caption of the second Table 1 (in the actual Table 2) there is written: ‘WTET represents water productivity with respect to ETtank’ but in this table, WTET was not mentioned at all.

Response 41: We have deleted it accordingly. Thank you for the notice.  Accepted

Point 42- In Figure 7, the authors mentioned ‘ratoon rice’, ‘transplanted rice’ and ‘ratoon double cropping rice’ but this marking has not consistent with the other figures or tables.

Response 42: We checked it, but grain yield and ET data for each crop has consistent with other figures and tables.  Only in Figure 7 is shown the ‘ratoon double-cropping(MC1+RC1, MC2+RC2) results.

Point 43- In the Results chapter, the authors should not compare their results with other studies findings if there is a Discussion chapter as well.

Response 43: We have rejected a part of the sentence with citations.  Not accepted. The results chapter should contain the results of this manuscript.

Point 44- The authors stated that ‘We assumed that the regression formula of the LAI could not meet the actual plant growth of RC because the tillering trait of RC was significantly different from that of the TC’ but LAI values have an important role in the calculating of surface resistance, which is an important part of the calculation of the ETtank. So with this statement, the authors questioned the correctness of their work?

Point 45- The authors claimed: ‘However, the model performance on ratoon was not good compared to that of transplanted rice because the complex regeneration traits of ratoon affected the prediction of LAI and ET. Thus, the observed LAI under ratoon cropping conditions should be used for the model estimation’ and with this, they also questioned the correctness of their work.

Response 44-45: We have revised the description.  Although the authors deleted those sentences, the problem remained.

Author Response

Thank you for giving comments.

Point 1: - In the abstract, the authors wrote ’It remains difficult to determine ET’ but this task is not complicated at all.

Response 1: We have added sentences as follow:

ET can be directly measured by lysimeter and eddy covariance but expensively so that it remains difficult to determine ET, especially in developing countries.  Accepted

Point 2: - In the Introduction chapter, it is written: ’Furthermore, accurate estimation of ET and Kc require complex and expensive observation systems such as weighing lysimeter and the eddy covariance system’ but the purpose of the authors and aim of this manuscript was exactly the opposite of this statement. Do the authors declare with this sentence, that their method is not suitable for the accurate measurement of ET and Kc?

Response 2: We have modified that sentence as follow:

Furthermore, complex and expensive systems such as the weighing lysimeter and the eddy covariance system are commonly used for the estimation of ET and Kc.  Accepted

Point 3: - The scientific name of rice should be mentioned in the manuscript.

Response 3: We don’t think it's necessary to add “Oryza sativa L. ssp. Indica”. “Theehtetyin” is the name of variety that developed in Myanmar.  Hence this is a scientific journal, please mention the scientific name of the examined plant at least once in the Material and Methods chapter.

Response 3-2: We have added it in L.84.

Point 4: - Please clarify, whether the water depth in every concrete tank was determined daily?

Response 4: We have added some words to clarify that we have done daily measurements in all tanks.  I did not find it

Response 4-2: Please see L.122, and L.130.

Point 5: - The authors should specify the exact date and year of the experiment, the transplanting and harvesting time of the examined plants in the Material and methods chapter as well.

Response 5: We have added new Table 1 for specifying the cultivation scheduling of the experiment.  Accepted

Point 6: - Was the transplanted rice (TC) also cultivated in the same tanks as ratoons?

Response 6: No, it wasn’t. Each plant (MC, RC and TC) was planted in a tank separately and independently.  Please clarify also in the manuscript the number of the tanks in which the ‘MC’ ‘RC’ and ‘TC’ plants were planted.

Response 6-2: Please see L.71-72, and L.93.

Point 7: - The authors should determine the exact developmental stage (planting, flowering or harvesting) of the plants by using a scale like BBCH or Zadok.

Response 7: Thank you for giving advice. We will consider it from now on.  Please use one of the mentioned scales (BBCH or Zadoks) in the manuscript.

Response 7-2: We have add BBCH scale, please see L. 85, 91, 101-102.

Point 8: - The units of Figure 2 (Day of the year from 2019/1/1 (DOY)) is not appropriate, please mark the exact date of the transplanting and harvesting time on the unit.

Response 8: We have revised the unit of Figure 2 and added the date of transplanting and harvesting in the Figure. Accepted

Point 9: - According to Figure 2, by ‘ratoon1’ and ‘transplanted rice1’ trials the solar radiation and air temperature values differed to such a huge extent compared to the other trials that the results of the ‘RC1-RC2’ and ‘TC1-TC2’ are not comparable.

Response 9: Different season crops are not comparable as the reviewer pointed out.  Accepted

Point 10: - The relative humidity is important by the determination of the evapotranspiration, please add this parameter to Figure 2 as well.

Response 10: We have added the relative humidity in Figure. 2.  Accepted

Point 11: - According to L124-125 the determination period of Etank and ETtank was stopped 14 days before harvesting, please explain why.

Response 11: Because of the drainage period for harvesting. This method can determine ET only under flooded conditions (during the irrigated period).  Accepted

Point 12: - Please explain ‘resolution measurement 0.01 mm’ (L130).

Response 12: Translation may be inappropriate. It means that we can read up to the number of decimal digits 0.01. But we have deleted it to avoid misreading.  Accepted

Point 13: - The authors should format the equations according to the journal’s criteria.

Response 13: We have followed the journal’s criteria. If not correct, we will ask the editor how to edit.  Accepted

Point 14: - It is written: ‘Moreover, when it rains, monitoring the amount of rainfall pouring into a tank is difficult, so that observed data with 5 mm daily precipitation or more were not used. On the other hand, precipitation less than 5 mm was regarded as negligible’ (L137-139). According to these sentences, the amount of precipitation was not taken into account at all.

Response 14: Because it is not possible to measure the amount of precipitation filled in a tank, and it is necessary to avoid large calculation errors on water balance in a tank.  The amount of precipitation can be measured in other ways (e.g. canopy interception).

Response 14-2: But we could not measure the canopy interception. For using incomplete ET observation dataset, in this study, we used the ET model with Bayesian inference for data interpolation.

Point 15: - The authors should claim that the generalized water balance was determined as in Equation 1 but the evaporation was determined only by the differences between the daily pond water depth.

Response 15: As described, we need to explain the determination method from a generalized water balance formula.  Please write the actually used formula

Response 15-2: We have revised it.

Point 16: - The authors claimed that the soil heat flux was neglected in Equation 2 because of the daily analysis; please clarify the method of the measure of the soil heat flux in the Materials and methods chapter as well.

Response 16: We did not measure the soil heat flux in a tank. We had modified it as “was not used” instead of “was neglected”.  Please deleted soil heat flux from Equation 2 if it ‘was not used.

Response 16-2: This equation is the daily reference crop evapotranspiration by FAO 56. We can’t change the formula of FAO 56. Generally, when use daily dataset, soil heat flux set equal to zero without deleting G from FAO56 formula.

Point 17- It is written ‘Many missing and error data were generated due to inconsistencies in observation’ (L155), please specify these inconsistencies.

Response 17: we have added “misreading or absence of reading”.  What is the real meaning of ‘misreading or absence of reading’? Does it mean, for example, that, there were days when the water depth was not measured at all or just not in every tank?

Response 17-2: Yes, it does, there were many missing data in the observation of pond water depth. That’s why, we used the model estimation with Bayesian inference to determine ET.

Point 18- In Equations 7 and 9, the hc means the crop height (m) please clarify in which developmental stage the plant height had been measured.

Response 18: Same as other variables (e.g., Rn, Ta, LAI and u), hc indicates a height at ET calculation date.  Please clary this also in the manuscript

Response 18-2: We have added it. Please see L.165. (Generally, for daily ET calculation, all variables must be daily data (sequence of tense).)

Point 19- In L179-180 it is written: ‘? [?][?] indicates the observed Etank and ETtank at day t in each group-level c (four groups for Etank and three groups for ETtank) (mm)’, please clarify the four groups of the Etank-s.

Response 19: Group-level differences indicate the different climate conditions or crop growth stages in a dataset. We have revised it accordingly.  Partly accepted, but please clarify in the manuscript the meaning of these climate conditions or crop growth stages.

Response 19-2: We have revised and added some sentences to explain. Please see L.174-176.

Point 20- For estimating the posterior distribution, we used RStat version 2.19.3 developed by the’ (L190) this sentence is not complete.

Response 20: We have done it accordingly.  Accepted

Point 21- According to Figure 3a, the highest plant heights were not observed at the end of the plant’s development, please explain this.

Response 21: final observation has done at a day before harvesting or a day of harvesting. It means the end of the plant’s development. Does it mean that the plants have shrunk by the end of their development (compared to another developmental stage)?

Response 21-2: Yes, it does.

Point 22- Hence the optimal temperature for rice cultivation is between approximately 25°C and 35°C the results of this manuscript, namely the plants were higher in the monsoon season (smaller temperature fluctuation) than in the cool and dry season (bigger temperature fluctuation) are not new or scientifically important.

Response 22: We agree with the review’s comment.  Then please highlight the significant results in the different seasons.

Response 22-2: We have added it in L.208-209. If not enough, please point out more specifically.

Point 23- It is written: ‘In contrast, that for the number of tillers between TC and RC was significantly different’ (L204), the authors should clarify which statistical analysis was used to make such a statement.

Response 23: We have changed to “substantially” from “significantly”.  The number of the measurements of plant height and number of the tillers (n=x) are not consistent in Figure 3, please use the same number of sampling.

Response 23-2: What does it mean to use the same number of sampling? The number of samples depends on the plant growth. Figure 3 shows the variation in plant growth during observation period. If review can’t accept, please suggest specifically to revise.

Point 24- The standard deviation of the number of tillers by ‘TC2’ in Figure 3b seems too big.

Response 24: Compared to RC2, the standard deviation of no. of tiller by TC2 is not big.  Yes, it is, compared to MC2 or RC2.

Point 25- In the caption of the figures and tables, please clarify the meaning of the abbreviations of the figures or tables.

Response 25: We have done it accordingly.  There were no alterations compared to the first uploaded manuscript.

Response 25-2: We have added it accordingly. If not enough, please point out more specifically.

Point 26- Please specify this sentence: ’Orange and blue bands indicate a day with the maximum temperature ≧ 38℃ and the minimum temperature ≧ 15℃’ (L213-213). Furthermore, in Figure 3 the bands with maximum temperature ≧ 38℃ seem rather red.

Response 26: We have changed to “vertical strips” from “bands”, and revised “red” instead of “orange”.  Accepted

Point 27- According to the caption of Figure 4, the number of transplanted rice (n=29) was much higher than of ratoon’s (n=17). This big difference makes the results not comparable, please use identical n numbers and re-edit this figure with n=17.

Response 27: The transplanted rice includes the main crop (MC1 and MC2) and transplanted crop (TC1 and TC2), and the growth period of MC (TC) and RC are different (it means the different observation times). Therefore, the sample sizes are different. We can’t intentionally adjust the sample size of transplanted rice.  According to this answer, the authors treated as a unit the main crop and transplanted crop in both of the two seasons as ‘the transplanted rice’ but according to Figure 2 the air temperature and solar radiation values have differed so much during MC1, TC1, MC2, TC2 that Figure 4 shows false results. Please re-edit this figure or delete it.

Response 27-2: What does it mean the false results? Air temperature and solar radiation values have differed so much during MC1, TC1, MC2, TC2. This figure shows the effect of seasonal differences on plant heigh and tillering characteristics of transplanted and ratoon crop. As reader can see in Fig 4(b), the number of tillers for transplanted rice is less affected by different seasons compared to ratoon rice. If review can’t accept without suggestion on how to edit, we have no choice but to delete Figure 4.

Point 28- The used statistical analysis method must be mentioned in the Materials and methods chapter as well.

Response 28: We have done it accordingly. The level of significance should be mentioned as well.

Response 28-2: Thank you for giving clearly suggestion. We have added it. Please see L.204.

Point 29- The results of Table 1 are not interpreted properly. Please mention all of the significant differences in the text.

Response 29: We have done it accordingly.  Not accepted. Please do a proper interpretation. All of the tables mentioned components’ significant results should be interpreted in the text.

Response 29-2: We have added it some sentences. If not enough, please point out more specifically.

Point 30: -The authors should take into consideration to do the statistical analysis again and determine the statistical differences between MC1-MC2, RC1-RC2 and TC1-2 (Table 1) as well.

Response 30: the same as point 9, different seasons are not comparable. Thus, we did not compare statistically between MC1 and MC2 (or RC1 and RC2 or TC1 and TC2).  In this case please write this sentence into the Results chapter. Or if the authors claim that the two different seasons have a significant impact on the yield component then please highlight those significant differences in the Results chapter and compare these results with other authors’ results in the Discussion chapter.

Response 30-2: We have added a sentence in the Results chapter reviewer pointed out in L.240-241.

Point 31- In Table 1 the grain yield of RC2 is significantly lower, more than three than TC2’s and the filled grains are also half as in TC2 but the 1000-grain weight of RC2 does not differ from TC2 significantly.

Response 31: As mentioned in this manuscript, the grain yield of RC2 was caused by the effect of low temperature in the reproductive stage.  Does this answer mean that the low temperature affected only the grain yield of RC2 and not the 1000-grain weight of RC2?

Response 31-2: There was no significant difference, but it is probably that 1000-grain weight was also affected by the low temperature.

Point 32- The authors wrote ‘The grain yield of RC1 was 80% of that for MC1 and identical with that for TC1 cultivated in parallel with RC1’ but according to Table 1, there were no significant differences between them.

Response 32: Because MC1 had a large variation (SD ±133).  Please re-edit the sentence, e.g. ‘The grain yield of RC1 was 20% lower than MC1 and identical with TC1 cultivated in parallel with RC1’.

Response 32-1: Thank you for giving an example to write. We have done it.

Point 33- According to Table 2 this sentence: ‘However, the yield of RC2 was 28% of that for MC2, exhibiting a substantial decrease’ is not true.

Response 33: We had modified “39%” from “28%”.  Accepted

Point 34- The authors claimed: ‘The filled grains rate, as well as the biological and grain yields of RC2, were considerably lower than those of the others. This was caused by the effect of low temperature in the reproductive stage of RCs’ but the plants of TC2 were developed under similar temperature conditions.

Response 34: TC2 was still in the vegetative stage (before maximum tillering stage), not in the reproductive stage according to the changes in the number of tillers. The authors should clarify the different important developmental stages.

Response 34-2: We added BBCH scale (code 51-69) in L.246.

Point 35- In Table 1 the standard deviation of RC2 in filled grains data seems rather too big.

Response 35: We have checked it again, but it is correct.  Accepted

Point 36- The authors wrote ‘Both mean values were almost identical, but variation in the dataset was slightly different between the estimates and the observation, as shown in Figure 5a’ but according to Figure 5a the difference between the observed and estimated Etank during the monsoon season hardly can be called ‘slightly different.

Response 36: We have deleted the “slightly” word.  Accepted

Point 37: -According to Figure 2, the TC2 plant growing started after RC2 but this does not coincide with the notation in Figure 5b.

Response 37: In the caption of Figure 5 is not correct “period from transplanting or cutting the stem to harvesting”. The period should be an “irrigated period in a tank for the observation of water depth”. We have revised it. Thank you very much.  Accepted

Point 38- There are two Table 1 in this manuscript.

Response 38: We have revised it accordingly.  Accepted

Point 39- The n (observed days/total days) in Figure 5 are not identical with the second Table 1 n numbers or in the Materials and methods chapter claimed observation days.

Response 39: We have revised it accordingly. Thank you for the notice.  I observed no alterations compared to the first uploaded manuscript.

Response 39-2: we have revised it. If not enough, please suggest specifically.

Point 40- The authors claimed that ‘Summary of the Etank and ETtank combined with the observation, and the model estimates are shown in Table 2’ but on the one hand there is no Table 2 in this manuscript, on the other hand, the model estimated values are not shown in any table.

Response 40: We have revised the number of Tables. Etank and ETtank values are combined with the observation and the model estimates. Only the observed or the estimated values are not shown.  In this case Table 3 makes no sense. In this table, the observed and estimated values should be compared with each other and not combined.

Response 40-2: What does it mean? It is impossible to compare with each other because there were many defects in the observation data as described in our manuscript. Thus, we used the model estimation with Bayesian inference using incomplete observation dataset. Considering review’s comment, we have revised Table 3, comparing the model estimates and corrected observations, which is the observed data with missing data interpolated by the model estimation. If not enough, please suggest specifically for revision.

Point 41- In the caption of the second Table 1 (in the actual Table 2) there is written: ‘WTET represents water productivity with respect to ETtank’ but in this table, WTET was not mentioned at all.

Response 41: We have deleted it accordingly. Thank you for the notice.  Accepted

Point 42- In Figure 7, the authors mentioned ‘ratoon rice’, ‘transplanted rice’ and ‘ratoon double cropping rice’ but this marking has not consistent with the other figures or tables.

Response 42: We checked it, but grain yield and ET data for each crop has consistent with other figures and tables.  Only in Figure 7 is shown the ‘ratoon double-cropping (MC1+RC1, MC2+RC2) results.

Response 42-2: We have deleted “MC1 +RC1” and “MC2 + RC2” in Figure 7 and have revised some sentence.

Point 43- In the Results chapter, the authors should not compare their results with other studies findings if there is a Discussion chapter as well.

Response 43: We have rejected a part of the sentence with citations.  Not accepted. The results chapter should contain the results of this manuscript.

Response 43-2: We deleted only citations (we don’t compare our result with other study in the results chapter) and described our result, such as “The WP_ET in this study ranged from 0.55 to 1.06.”

Point 44- The authors stated that ‘We assumed that the regression formula of the LAI could not meet the actual plant growth of RC because the tillering trait of RC was significantly different from that of the TC’ but LAI values have an important role in the calculating of surface resistance, which is an important part of the calculation of the ETtank. So with this statement, the authors questioned the correctness of their work?

Point 45- The authors claimed: ‘However, the model performance on ratoon was not good compared to that of transplanted rice because the complex regeneration traits of ratoon affected the prediction of LAI and ET. Thus, the observed LAI under ratoon cropping conditions should be used for the model estimation’ and with this, they also questioned the correctness of their work.

Response 44-45: We have revised the description.  Although the authors deleted those sentences, the problem remained.

Response 44-45: We have deleted some sentences. If review cannot accept, please suggest more specifically for revision.