Water–Food–Energy Nexus Tradeoffs in the São Marcos River Basin
, Guilherme Fernandes Marques 1, Amaury Tilmant 2, Ana Paula Dalcin 1 and Marcelo Olivares 3,4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The author evaluated WEF trade-offs between Hydropower and irrigated agriculture. They borrowed a method proposed by Tilmant to find the optimal operational path of water storage and release.
1-Lack of scientific originality/novelty. The originality of the paper needs to be further clarified. In the related literature, many technical publications have already dealt with this subject. Technically, the authors must clearly mention the main difference of the current approach with other publications, not only from mathematical model viewpoint, but also from other technical and practical viewpoint. The author mentions a problem that is general and there are so many researchers who have done research in this field. The authors provided results for a repetitive problem, they neither proposed a new methods nor significant and original results.
2-What is the research gap (compared to previous studies) that leads to conduct this research?
3-A proof reading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality. The draft defiantly needs major English correction, there is no appropriate correlation between sentences.
Some examples of the line that is hard to clearly understand:
Line 44-47 (I didn’t understand the meaning of this sentence at all), line 48, line54-56.
Tradeoff in some lines is written in this form: trade-offs (19, 27, 210, 214, 500,… ), in some line in other form: tradeoffs (line 66, 68, 72,82,84 …..).
Line18, connected has repeated in a sentence.
Line37, two space before hydropower.
Line78, what is – before including.
It is very clear and interesting that they mentioned three questions and dedicated their research to find the answer (I like that), but what is the originality and novelty of this paper? It Is better to mention.
Line 111, figure title ( – before figure title).
Line 113-116 grammar correction, this sentence needs to be rewritten for better understanding.
I cannot understand why they considered 5 years period for their model, and neglected the first and the last year in order to minimize the effect of boundary condition!!!! In line 165-167, the purpose of this sentence is vague.
Line 206, 221.
In line 261, ? is not maximization operator. It is an expectation operator. This method is exactly borrowed from an ASCE paper(https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000335).
Lines 549-551: what is this? Do we need this? Discussion section should be revised.
Overall, the figures resolution should be improved.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review report
Manuscript ID: water-1049918
Title: Water-Food-Energy Nexus Trade-Offs in the Sao Marcos River Basin
Introductory note
The title of this manuscript announces a study on the Water-Food-Energy Nexus trade-offs in the São Marcos River Basin, in Brazil, in particular by addressing the competitive use of water related to irrigated agriculture and hydroelectric production in this basin. The manuscript identifies as an objective to evaluate the economic trade-offs between energy and irrigated agricultural production in the region, involving the application of a hydro-economic model of explicitly stochastic optimization to determine the economic value of water and its variation in space and time.
General Comments
In my view, this manuscript shows several important weaknesses.
The manuscript does not provide sufficient information regarding the case study (the São Marcos basin) – hydrology, agriculture, energy production, socio-economy -, the relevant data and models used to make meaningful the “results” that are presented. Without the background/foundational information, including assumptions, these results are hardly found relevant to the journal readers. On the one hand, those results cannot be fully understood based on the manuscript and, on the other hand, they cannot be found useful for comparison purposes (e.g. different time periods, other conditions). The quantitative results are expressed in (absolute) terms of the local currency, which is also a limiting factor. Conclusions of the study reflect difficulties in discussing the results, they are very limited in scope.
Overall, this manuscript does not provide a comprehensive understanding of the study, therefore not contributing to the current knowledge on the subject. It is not enough to announce a problem to be studied by applying a hydro-economic model, and not characterize adequately the system to be analysed and the model to be used, which is key to the outcome. Appraisal of the study requires that the manuscript presents relevant information, which is limited in this manuscript.
In addition to this major constraint, the manuscript shows other multiple problems. For example: the manuscript is too long for the outcome; some sentences/parts of the text are repeated; some sentences are confusingly written; there are some formal problems (e.g. exceedance probabilities larger than 100%; confusion between exceedance and non-exceedance probabilities; two nodes are identified with the same number); equations are presented without an adequate definition of the variables involved, and there are some formal problems in their mathematical presentation; some figures have low quality (e.g. axis titles do not match the description in the text; axis scales poorly chosen); some tables have redundant information; captions of tables and figures do not clearly identify the content; figures numbering is repeated (two figures are numbered 9), therefore citation of some figures is incorrect; tables are cited in the text that do not exist (table 3.4, line 390); some references are incomplete.
The manuscript clearly misses a revision by an English native: there are problems regarding sentence construction, grammar and spelling errors.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments
The topic of paper is interesting which correctly conveys the role that water play in defining the challenges to attend the water demand derived mainly from food production and energy in the context of the competitive uses of irrigated agriculture and hydroelectric generation.
Introduction
Line 44-47 It is recommended to support that statement with any previous research.
Line 54-56 In what base authors argue that the first step in the process addressed is to identify and quantify the water-food energy tradeoff?
Line 71-77 Is there any study already published to support that the negotiation process to allocate and manage scarce water when conflict has already initiated also becomes severely hampered, and potentially biased?
Material and Methods
Methodology
Line 130 It is recommend to detail a bit more at this stage of the paper how the Hydroeconomic model explicitly affect the research that is presented to better understand the energy and economic arrangements explained afterwards. A couple of lines will be enough.
Line 150 Could be the results drawn compared to other similar studies?
Result and Discussion
Line 332 It is recommended to explain the cause why economic arrangement with the energy arrangement indicate that the total hydropower benefits are reduced in 5.64 % for the dry scenario and in 4.62% for the 10% exceedance wet scenario.
Line 333 The same with data provided in Table 2.
Line 500 The same with data provided in Table 7.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The 1st and 2nd comments in the previous review were answered well, they also added extra explanation based on these two comments in the manuscript.
The organization and language quality of the manuscript need to be rechecked again. The authors are requested to address the following comments.
Line 18, Adressing ==> Addressing
Line 25, conficts! ==> conflicts
The sentence that starts from lines 20-23 is long and vague and needs to be rewritten to understand better.
Line 71, latter
Line 88, bio-physical ==> biophysical.
Line 107, under estimation ==> underestimation.
Line 132, explanation on (The typical preposition after “explanation” would be “of,” although “about” can often be used. “On” is less natural.)
Line 147,’ 90s ==> 90s.
Line 148, (e.g. Cristalina) ==> (e.g., Cristalina).
Line 150, the proposition after rely is on, not (in).
Line 154, a total of 1,132
Line 171, withrawals ==> withdrawals.
Line 174, afluents ==> affluent.
Line 182, 190 need revision (structure).
Line 189,241,461 hydroeconomic ==> hydro-economic.
Line 201, model ==> models.
Line 201, runs ==> run.
Line 356, put the abbreviation in (), (MPAR)
Line 378, indicate ==> indicates.
Line 408, Node 1 also peaks withdrawals in July! It has to be rewritten in another way.
Line 433, in the following what? Do you mean the following Section?
Line 442, millions ==> million.
Line 514, the marginal water values go up! ==> It doesn’t sound scientifically correct and appropriate verb to use to illustrate the graph
Line 532, were ==> where.
The graphs and tables explanation are adequate and good, but still, lack of an appropriate organization and structure from the viewpoint of language, still make them hard to read and clearly understand. I believe that the draft wasn’t check by a native speaker and the quality of English and organization wasn’t changed that much. Extensive editing of English language and style is required.
Author Response
Author's note:
Track Changes tool was used for the general English revision. Specific comments were reviewed without the tool, but exactly as the reviewer suggested, and are indicated in the answers.
The 1st and 2nd comments in the previous review were answered well, they also added extra explanation based on these two comments in the manuscript.
The organization and language quality of the manuscript need to be rechecked again. The authors are requested to address the following comments.
Response:
We would like to thank the associate editor and reviewers for another opportunity to improve the written English. We must say the manuscript has already passed several rounds of proofreading, including by native speakers, and we expect it should meet the standards after this last one.
Line 18, Adressing ==> Addressing
Response:
Corrected
Line 25, conficts! ==> conflicts
Response:
Corrected
The sentence that starts from lines 20-23 is long and vague and needs to be rewritten to understand better.
Response:
The sentence was rewritten
Line 71, latter
Response:
Corrected
Line 88, bio-physical ==> biophysical.
Response:
Corrected
Line 107, under estimation ==> underestimation.
Response:
Corrected
Line 132, explanation on (The typical preposition after “explanation” would be “of,” although “about” can often be used. “On” is less natural.)
Response:
Corrected
Line 147,’ 90s ==> 90s.
Response:
Corrected
Line 148, (e.g. Cristalina) ==> (e.g., Cristalina).
Response:
Corrected
Line 150, the proposition after rely is on, not (in).
Response:
Corrected
Line 154, a total of 1,132
Response:
Corrected
Line 171, withrawals ==> withdrawals.
Response:
Corrected
Line 174, afluents ==> affluent.
Response:
Corrected to “affluents” because there is more than one.
Line 182, 190 need revision (structure).
Response:
The sentence was rewritten
Line 189,241,461 hydroeconomic ==> hydro-economic.
Response:
All mentions do “hydroeconomic” changed to “hydro-economic”
Line 201, model ==> models.
Response:
“Model runs” changed to “simulations”
Line 201, runs ==> run.
Response:
See above
Line 356, put the abbreviation in (), (MPAR)
Response:
Corrected
Line 378, indicate ==> indicates.
Response:
Corrected
Line 408, Node 1 also peaks withdrawals in July! It has to be rewritten in another way.
Response:
Rewritten as “Node 1 also has the higher water withdrawals in July”
Line 433, in the following what? Do you mean the following Section?
Response:
Changed to “presented in Figure 7”
Line 442, millions ==> million.
Response:
Corrected
Line 514, the marginal water values go up! ==> It doesn’t sound scientifically correct and appropriate verb to use to illustrate the graph
Response:
Changed to “increases”
Line 532, were ==> where.
Response:
Corrected
The graphs and tables explanation are adequate and good, but still, lack of an appropriate organization and structure from the viewpoint of language, still make them hard to read and clearly understand. I believe that the draft wasn’t check by a native speaker and the quality of English and organization wasn’t changed that much. Extensive editing of English language and style is required.
Response:
See response to the first comment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Well done for revision; but still recommended last full proofreading for spelling check.
