Next Article in Journal
Improving Alpine Summertime Streamflow Simulations by the Incorporation of Evapotranspiration Data
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of a Smartphone Application for Real-Time Irrigation Scheduling in Mediterranean Environments
Previous Article in Journal
Application of an Integrated SWAT–MODFLOW Model to Evaluate Potential Impacts of Climate Change and Water Withdrawals on Groundwater–Surface Water Interactions in West-Central Alberta
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evapotranspiration of the Brazilian Pampa Biome: Seasonality and Influential Factors
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Five-Year Experimental Study on Effectiveness and Sustainability of a Dry Drainage System for Controlling Soil Salinity

Water 2019, 11(1), 111; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010111
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Water 2019, 11(1), 111; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010111
Received: 5 December 2018 / Revised: 3 January 2019 / Accepted: 4 January 2019 / Published: 10 January 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovation Issues in Water, Agriculture and Food)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review:Manuscript Number: water-411639:

A Five-Year Experimental Study on the Effectiveness and Sustainability of a Dry Drainage System for Controlling Soil Salinity

 

This article concerns the dry drainage system (DDS) as an alternative technique for controlling salinization.  The experiment was carried out in an experimental plot with a size of 2,900 ha in Yonglian Experimental Station (YES), Hetao Irrigation District (HID), China. The results showed that the groundwater EC of fallow areas increased from 5 to 15 dS/m while the GEC below croplands had small fluctuations. Also the analysis of water and salt balance also showed that the excess water that moved to fallow was roughly four times as that by an artificial drainage system (ADS) and 7.7 times the corresponding salts.

 

However, you should consider and need to be clarified the following aspects and concerns.

 

General comments

 

  l.47-51. You need to clarify the main advantages or characteristics of the DDS compare to ADS.  Also provide more information about the percentage of the land which is set aside.

 

l.53. Why can not the opposite happen?. Please explain

 

 l.77. Which irrigation system ( Surface, trickle, springler) is being used for irrigation

 

 l.82. Describe the types of soil in detail as well as the soil profile in depth

 

Figure 3. You have misspelled the word “temperature”. Please revise

 

l.101. Please provide the EC1:5 data in a figure

 

l.110-112. Why can not water balance be used in irrigated areas?

 

Figure 4: As it was shown in figure 4 the four wells have similar fluctuation during the period 2007-2011. Please provide the average value of four wells and also provide the average value of irrigated land. Thus, the reader will have the clear picture of the differences 

 

Figure 5: Why are there differences in behavior between 8.11 and 10.12 wells? More specifically while the level of groundwater is rising (8,10,11,12), does the EC diminish (8 ans 11)? Why is this happening; Do not I see an explanation? This phenomenon was occurred all experimental periods?

 

l.208. Please give units

 

l.283. Above the well 10 is in the fallow area. Please explain

 

l.343. Provide the values of LR for this area


Author Response

Thank you very much for your very helpful comments. Please find our reply in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled ‘A Five-Year Experimental Study on the Effectiveness and Sustainability of a Dry Drainage System for Controlling Soil Salinity’ (No. water-411639) describes a 5-year experimental study of dry drainage system (DDS) in the upper Yellow River basin based on water/salt balance. Their demonstrated the advantages of DDS in controlling soil salt over croplands. Generally, the experimental design and the results are easy to follow. My comments and suggestions are as follows.

 

(1)   Though the writing is generally easy to follow, some paragraphs still need some reworking. The 3rd paragraph seems too long in subsection 3.1, and many grammar mistakes should be checked through the manuscript.

(2)   In Table 1, salt decreases were observed in Well 8 and Well 12. Is it OK to say that ‘the dynamic change of GTD in fallow areas indicated that the process of lateral groundwater migration from the irrigation croplands recharged the fallow area continuously, and increased the salt content simultaneously.’?

(3)   Line 59, relieved

(4)   Line 68, SSC undefined

(5)   Line 78, How did you classify the Landsat TM data for land use land cover mapping?

(6)   Figure 3, aveage?

(7)   Line 84, the application of…were measured?

(8)   Line 94, the dynamics comparison with?

(9)   Line 104, redundant full stop

(10) Line 110, exchange water?

(11) Line 116 and hereinafter, what is the unit of i? mm?

(12) Line 127 – 129, how did you derive these equations?

(13) Line 151 – 153, this sentence belonged to the method section, should not be here

(14) Line 154, was presented?

(15) Line 177, was differ with? difference variations?

(16) Line 203, the detail salt?

(17) Line 204, the croplands was?

(18) Too many such annoying mistakes…


Author Response

Thank you very much for your very helpful comments. Please find our reply in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper deals with a very important topic, of soil salinization and potential method to deal with soil salinization in croplands. The potential for a good quality paper is very high. However, at its current form, the paper requires a thorough English editing and improving of the writing. Key points in the paper are not explained to the reader.... 


Please see specific comments: 


P2, L47-55: I think the DDS is not explained well enough. Since this is the heart of the paper, I think a better explanation is needed. It is not clear what should be the size of the fallow area, compare to the field area.

P5, L116: It is not clear to me what is the ‘drainage depth’.

P5, Equations 3-5: Computation of evaporation from deep water table is very complicated and not trivial. Many papers are still arguing this point and the varied approaches. The authors have used a strange way to compute E with references that are not accessible to me.

Moreover, Ei is defined once (L124) as the total evapotranspiration of the block and later (L131) as the evaporative intensity of the groundwater.

P5, L145: What is it ‘over-irrigation event’? What is the irrigation method (Flood / drip)?.

Figure 4: I think the formats of the two figures should be identical. Moreover, is it possible to put the two graphs on similar x-axis so one could compare / correlate the two?

P6, L164: ‘Figure 5b was’…. Bad English.

P7, L180: Also well 11 had a decreasing trend.

P7, L186: you say: “some differences between the irrigated and fallow lands”. But you present data for only 1 well from the irrigated land…. Isn’t it problematic? No need for repletion?

P7, L187: “decreased in its rising trend” is it correct English?

P7, L192: What is it “groundwater exchange” and “balance state”.

P8, L211: “actual” or computed/ estimated?

 

 


Author Response

Thank you very much for your very helpful comments. Please find our reply in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is fine for me. I suggest to accept this paper

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors addressed most of my comments and I think the paper can be published. I attached a file with minor comments for consideration.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for the very helpful comments. Please find our reply in the attached file.


Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop