Agriculture Resilient at Three Irrigation Modules of Zacatecas, Mexico: Water Scarcity and Climate Variability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The paper overall is quite lengthy. The methodology and results sections should be shortened. For the methodology, there is no need to provide extensive details about the Mann-Kendall test as readers can refer to external sources.

• Line 357: Please clarify why water needs decrease even though temperature is increasing.

• Figure 1: The labels are not readable and should be improved for better clarity.

• Regarding the handling of missing data, you used the IDW method. Could you explain why this method was chosen as the most accurate? It is essential to test and validate its accuracy.

• Line 183: What do you mean by "net water table"? This term needs to be clarified.

• Table 1: Replace the p-values with symbols (e.g., * or **) instead of showing the exact values for better readability.

• You mentioned strategies to conserve water in the three case studies, but it’s unclear if you used any models to support these claims. Consider adding evidence or modeling results to validate the proposed strategies.

• In the results section, where you discuss water needs, it would be better to present the information using a combination of tables and charts instead of mentioning in the text. This will make the data easier to understand and improve readability for general readers.

• I recommend reorganizing and rewriting the paper to ensure that the content is more focused on the context you aim to explore. This will make the paper more concise and reader-friendly.

Author Response

The relevant corrections were made to the article. We remain at your disposal for any comments regarding it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the paper titled “Resilience small-scale irrigation agriculture addressing water scarcity and climate variability,” the authors aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of specific water management strategies for irrigation in small-scale agricultural systems. Overall, the manuscript is well-written; however, there are inconsistencies between the study's objectives and the article’s structure. Additionally, the manuscript presents a relevant topic and contributes to the discussion on water management in small-scale irrigation. However, revisions are necessary to enhance the coherence between the objectives and the manuscript structure and improve the precision in presenting the methods and results. I also recommend adjusting the organization of content to maintain the traditional division between Results and Discussion and reinforce the Conclusions' foundation.

MAJOR ISSUES

- The title and objective do not specify which irrigation systems were evaluated or provide details on the management practices considered. It is recommended to make these aspects more precise so that readers can better understand the study’s scope;

- The mention of “innovative technologies” and “traditional practices” is vague and does not provide concrete details about the analyzed management practices. Including more specific descriptions in the Introduction and Methodology sections is suggested;

- The Methodology section focuses almost exclusively on climatic aspects while neglecting fundamental water management elements. Expanding the description of the irrigation techniques adopted is recommended;

- In the Results section, some discussions are inappropriately included. Moving these to the Discussion section is suggested, keeping the presentation of the results more objective;

- In the Conclusions section, inferences are made about increased resilience to climate variability, improved soil quality, and socioeconomic impacts (“improved rural living conditions”). However, no supporting data are provided for these claims. Reviewing this section to ensure that conclusions are based on concrete evidence is recommended.

 

SPECIFIC POINTS (MINOR ISSUES)

Abstract:

- Including the study’s main findings is recommended to give the reader a more informative overview of the article.

Introduction:

- Lines 80-85: This passage is more appropriate for the Conclusions section, as it reinforces the study’s relevance and implications.

Materials and Methods:

- Specify which irrigation systems were evaluated and

- Detail the water replenishment strategies adopted and compared ("innovative technology" vs. "traditional practices").

Results:

- Lines 198-200: "Which findings???" could be revised to: "Specify which findings are being referred to for greater clarity."; 

- Line 218: Indicate whether the correlation mentioned is direct or inverse and, if possible, provide the correlation coefficient;

- Lines 227-229: This passage is more appropriate for the Conclusions section, especially when addressing recommendations;

- Lines 235-237: Interpretations should be moved to the Discussion section;

- Data inconsistency: The manuscript mentions 14 weather stations in line 115, but Table 1 refers to 16. It is recommended to review and standardize this information;

- Lines 353-356: If climate projections were conducted, they should be described in the Materials and Methods section. Otherwise, indicate which sources support the provided information;

- Line 374: Standardize the pressure unit according to the International System of Units (Pa);

- Lines 391-394: The description of the systems should be included in the Materials and Methods section rather than in Results and

- Reiteration: The Results section is not the appropriate place for discussions. It would be best to move interpretative analyses to the Discussion section.

Author Response

Comments to reviewer 2 in attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of work titled: Resilience small-scale irrigation agriculture addressing water scarcity and climate variability

The work analyzes the effectiveness of irrigation strategies for small-scale agriculture in semi-arid regions, with a focus on Zacatecas, Mexico. Through an analysis of climate trends, water management, and modern and traditional irrigation practices, the study assesses the impact on agricultural resilience and sustainability. The results highlight how the integration of advanced technologies with traditional methods can improve water use efficiency and agricultural productivity, providing recommendations for more effective policies.

The manuscript addresses a topic of great relevance for sustainable agriculture in semi-arid regions. However, some critical points that need improvement have been identified, particularly in the clarity of the exposition.

In general the introduction appears somewhat too general and not perfectly aligned with the objectives of the study. A more detailed discussion of water management, climate change, and innovative technologies should be included.

Some parts of the presentation of the results seems somewhat confusing and should be improved, particularly when discussing the findings reported in Table 1.

In Section 3.2, there is an inconsistency in writing style, and some parts belong to the Materials and Methods section rather than in the Results section. Additionally, some findings are discussed before being presented within the section.

In light of the proposed revisions, I recommend accepting the article with major revisions before publication. A proper implementation of the suggestions would significantly improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

Specific comments:

Line 4: Two corresponding authors are indicated with an asterisk (*). A paper should have only one corresponding author;

Lines 13-23: The abstract should include quantitative results and some conclusions;

Line 21: The phrase “By addressing key gaps in the literature” could be made clearer by specifying which gaps are being addressed;

Lines 48-49: Regarding water use efficiency and economic evaluations of irrigation, I recommend citing: Autovino D., Provenzano G., Monserrat J., Cots L., Barragán J. (2016). Determining Optimal Seasonal Irrigation Depth Based on Field Irrigation Uniformity and Economic Evaluations: Application for Onion Crop. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering;

Line 167: Replace “Uniform” with “Constant”;

Lines 174-178: More details could be provided about these methodologies;

Lines 183-184: The term “water table” is not appropriate. I suggest using “water depth”;

Lines 201-203: The “-1” should be formatted as a superscript;

Lines 231-246: Verify the values reported because their calculation appear wrong;

Line 240: The reference to “Table 2” is incorrect, as it is still discussing the results from “Table 1”;

Line 241: How was the “15 mm” per decade value calculated? It is unclear if this is related to what is reported in Line 314;

Line 257: Improve the text description of the results reported in table 2 presenting in orderly way the statistics of precipitation an temperature obtained of the three irrigation modules..

Lines 348-351: For me this part belongs to the methodology, not to the results;

Line 351: The reference to Equations “1-4” is not correct;

Lines 351-356: This part seems more like a discussion, but the results are presented in the following lines;

Line 368: The Clement method is the only reported result, even though two other methods are mentioned in the Materials and Methods section (Line 177);

Lines 395-401: It is unclear how these results were obtained. The authors claim to use Equation 12 to calculate CU. The EPANET software is used to simulate hydraulic behavior in distribution networks. How did the authors obtain the data for the CU calculation?

Line 412: There is a reference (Lopez et al., 2023) that should be formatted according to the journal’s author guidelines;

Line: 433: The Discussion section seems like an alternative presentation of the results. It lacks of an interpretation of the result in perspective of other studies, (with only three references cited in this section). Check whether it is possible to comment on the results obtained with reference to what has been obtained by other authors.

Lines 509-510: Add a reference at the example provided?

Lines 567-574: Complete the Author Contributions section.

Author Response

Comments to reviewer in attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

For this comment "Regarding the handling of missing data, you used the IDW method. Could you explain why this method was chosen as the most accurate? It is essential to test and validate its accuracy. "

For the accurate method, you need to consider some testing data that is not used in the interpolation process and then compare their number with the interpolated map to see which method is more accurate. It should be checked. For more information please read this  paper https://doi.org/10.3390/make6030092

The below comment hasn't been addressed. 

"You mentioned strategies to conserve water in the three case studies, but it’s unclear if
you used any models to support these claims. Consider adding evidence or modeling
results to validate the proposed strategies."

It is hard to read the paper while all changes is in it. I recommend to highlight the change in keep the track change on. 

Author Response

Response included in attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the changes made.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for providing invaluable comments on this work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is in a better shape with all the revision. The authors presented an improved version and integrated the reviewers' comments in their paper except for the insertion of the suggested article. Apart the suggested reference I have no other comments and the work can be published

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for providing invaluable comments on this work.