Effect of Border Width and Micro-Sprinkling Hose Irrigation on Soil Moisture Distribution and Irrigation Quality for Wheat Crops

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to the Reviewers’ Comments

1. First of all, keywords should be different than words into the title, so keywords that are the same, either should be deleted, or changed.

Re: The North China Plain was deleted, and the boundary width and irrigation quality were added.

2. In introduction, you should present more clearly the pros and cons of microsprinkling irrigation systems. Are there any disadvantages that you had to overcome?

Re: Agree with your points. Related references were added accordingly, especially the pros and cons of micro-sprinkling. As for the disadvantage of the irrigation system, at present, there are still some problems to be solved in the use of micro-sprinkling hose irrigation. For example, the irrigation quality was greatly affected by wind during irrigation, and the thin and soft micro-sprinkling hose was very easy to twist and fold after irrigation. Therefore, the windless or breezy weather was often selected for irrigation, and the sprinkler belt didn’t roll up until the end of the growth period after irrigation. The corresponding content has been supplemented.

3. L96: You should present the soil structure (mechanic analysis), by giving the %clay, %silt, %sand of the soil.

Re: Agree. Your points are well taken. Soil physical properties were given in Table 1.

4. L98: How water table was detected?

Re: The water table is measured by an ultrasonic electronic water level meter.

5. L114: Please give relative info.

Re: Related information was given accordingly.

6. L117-120: It would be useful and easier to the reader if you have provided the treatments as follows: 3 reps x 2 irr. levels x 3 border widths = 18 treatments.

Re: The corresponding parts have been modified as required.

7. L122-124: The way this sentence is written is confusing. Please rewrite the sentence including that 60%FC and 55%FC were the lower limits of soil moisture (where FC = Field Capacity).

Re: The corresponding parts have been modified as required.

8. L149-150: More information on soil moisture sensors is needed. Do the use electromagnetic waves? Do they measure soil water tension?

Re: The sensors don’t measure soil water tension. It is a sensor that records soil moisture and soil temperature to a depth of 100 cm at 10 cm increment. Based on the continuous and dynamic real-time monitoring of soil moisture and temperature, the soil water content at different depths and the meteorological information of the environment are comprehensively and intelligently analyzed to realize the depth perception of soil and crop root water consumption.

9. L152: A general rule is that when giving acronyms (e.g. SWC), you should give an explanation the first time you use it and then when use it no explanation is needed again. So, you should explain the meaning of SWC.

Re: SWC has been modified for SMC, and the first use has been explained.

10. L165: More information on rain gauges and how you calculated penetration is needed.

Re: The method of calculating the penetration rate under the canopy is widely used in sprinkler irrigation. In this study, the method of collecting rain gauges are improved through its optimized layout, as is shown in Figure 1. The under canopy penetration rate is the ratio of the under canopy water permeability to the total irrigation water volume. The total irrigation water volume is measured by the double gauges method, and the under canopy water permeability is measured by the rainfall collecting gauges method.

11. L168: It would be helpful to the reader if you gave the Christiansen formula here (especially when the relative reference is in Chinese).

Re: Relevant formulas have been added

12. L176: Did you collect samples regularly? No information on the frequency of collecting samples is given.

Re: In order to study the relationship between irrigation quality and final yield, the final wheat yield was measured only at maturity stage.

13. L201: How did you estimate ET0? Which method did you use? PenmannMonteith? Else?

Re: ET0 was calculated using Penmann-Monteith equation.

14. L211: Correct “soil depth deepening” to “soil depth increasing”. Same at L213.

Re: The corresponding parts have been modified as required.

15. 3: x-axis must be corrected to: “soil moisture (% v/v)”.

Re: The corresponding parts have been modified as required.

16. L268: How did you estimate ETc? How did you take k for wheat? A stable k, or changing at growing steps?

Re: ET_C was calculated using water balance equation. K values vary with the growing steps.

17. Although you say that the lower limits of soil moisture were determined as FC quota, no FC data are presented. Did you measure FC? Did you also measure Permanent Wilting Point (PWP)?

Re: Before the test, the FC was determined to be 25.4%, which was explained in the introduction of the test area. In this study, control FC was significantly higher than PWP.

18. The results, discussion and conclusion are supported by the tables and figures, but no statistical analysis was made. Are the differences between the effect of border widths, irrigation levels etc. significant or not? Only math can tell.

Re: Agree with the reviewer’s points. Actually, Yield components, water consumption, and water use efficiency were subjected to statistical analysis as indicated by the different letters in Table 4. No significant interactive effect of border widths and irrigation levels was observed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks to the authors for providing this study

This study provides practical information on: “Effect of Border Width and Micro-sprinkling Hose Irrigation on Soil Moisture Distribution and Irrigation Quality for Wheat Crops”.

However, please answer the following comments:

 

Abstract:

·       Add in the summary also a phrase that explains the concept of  Micro-sprinkling Hose Irrigation.

 

Keywords: I suggest modifying the keywords as follows: Delete (North China Plain) and add: Border Width - Irrigation Quality.

In Introduction:

·       Does everything that was mentioned in the introduction from line 38 to line 52 all follow the same reference (No. 1)? Please review that and add more than one reference to the ideas contained in the mentioned lines.

·       Add in the introduction reference studies on Border Width and its effect on improving irrigation quality.

In Material and Methods:

·       The source of the irrigation water is from the well as mentioned in line 112: Add an analysis of the well water, especially with regard to salinity.

·       Modify the title of Table 1 so that it expresses only the contents of the table and delete the date from the title and move it to an appropriate place in Paragraph 2 .2.

·       Add the amount of irrigation water and the duration of irrigation applied in the micro-sprinkling hose irrigation system.

The results are well written and discussed

Thanks

Author Response

Responses to the Reviewers’ Comments

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for providing this study

This study provides practical information on: “Effect of Border Width and Micro-sprinkling Hose Irrigation on Soil Moisture Distribution and Irrigation Quality for Wheat Crops”.

However, please answer the following comments:

Abstract:

• Add in the summary also a phrase that explains the concept of  Micro-sprinkling Hose Irrigation.

Keywords: I suggest modifying the keywords as follows: Delete (North China Plain) and add: Border Width - Irrigation Quality.

Re: It has been modified.

In Introduction:

• Does everything that was mentioned in the introduction from line 38 to line 52 all follow the same reference (No. 1)? Please review that and add more than one reference to the ideas contained in the mentioned lines.

Re: Related references have been added.

• Add in the introduction reference studies on Border Width and its effect on improving irrigation quality.

Re: Related references have been added.

 

In Material and Methods:

• The source of the irrigation water is from the well as mentioned in line 112: Add an analysis of the well water, especially with regard to salinity.

Re: The salinity of shallow groundwater in this area is 0.5-1.5 g/l, which has been supplemented in this paper.

• Modify the title of Table 1 so that it expresses only the contents of the table and delete the date from the title and move it to an appropriate place in Paragraph 2 .2.

Re: It has been modified according to relevant requirements.

• Add the amount of irrigation water and the duration of irrigation applied in the micro-sprinkling hose irrigation system.

Re: It has been added as required.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to the Reviewers’ Comments (V2)

1. First of all, keywords should be different than words into the title, so keywords that are the same, either should be deleted, or changed.

Re: Modified as required.

3. L96: You should present the soil structure (mechanic analysis), by giving the %clay, %silt, %sand of the soil. Authors still do not present the soil structure.

Re: Agree. Your points are well taken. The soil is a fluvo-aquic soil with granular structure. Soil physical properties were given in Table 1.

8. L149-150: More information on soil moisture sensors is needed. Do the use electromagnetic waves? Do they measure soil water tension? Authors give explanation in their reply, but no details of the method are added into the manuscript.

Re: Modified as required. The sensor is a wireless portable sensor based on Frequency Domain Reflectance (FDR), which can realize automatic collection, wireless transmission, portable charging and other functions.

10. L165: More information on rain gauges and how you calculated penetration is needed. Authors give explanation in their reply, but no details of the method are added into the manuscript.

Re: Completed as required. The amount of water in the flow collecting device would be weighed immediately after irrigation and converted into the amount of water per unit area according to the opening area, which was the amount of canopy water infiltration at this point.

12. L176: Did you collect samples regularly? No information on the frequency of collecting samples is given. Authors give explanation in their reply, but no details of the method are added into the manuscript.

Re: This part of the paper has been further improved. Before irrigation, the undisturbed soil samples attached with wheat plants were loaded into the double tube device in advance, and the inner cylinder and soil samples were weighed. After irrigation, they were taken out immediately and weighed again. The irrigation water amount at this point was determined by the difference between the two weights, and the sampling times were consistent with the irrigation times.

13. L201: How did you estimate ET0? Which method did you use? PenmannMonteith? Else? Authors give explanation in their reply, but no details of the method are added into the manuscript.

Re: Modified as required. Daily reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0, mm, Penman method) of winter wheat…

16. L268: How did you estimate ETc? How did you take k for wheat? A stable k, or changing at growing steps? Authors give explanation in their reply, but no details of the method are added into the manuscript.

Re: ETc here is actually water consumption, which has been modified. Water consumption was calculated using water balance equation.

17. Although you say that the lower limits of soil moisture were determined as FC quota, no FC data are presented. Did you measure FC? Did you also measure Permanent Wilting Point (PWP)? Authors replied that info is given into the Introduction section, but if the values of FC and PWP were measured, they must be presented at the Results section.

Re: This experiment was carried out in Xuchang Irrigation Experiment Station. The main work of the station is to carry out water-saving irrigation experiments. The commonly used soil moisture index of field capacity has been defined in 2.1. Site description（25.4%）.Therefore，details have not been added.

18. The results, discussion and conclusion are supported by the tables and figures, but no statistical analysis was made. Are the differences between the effect of border widths, irrigation levels etc. significant or not? Only math can tell. Authors replied that yield components, water consumption, and water use efficiency were subjected to statistical analysis as indicated by the different letters in Table 4. No significant interactive effect of border widths and irrigation levels was observed. Still, no mention on that has been added to the Discussion and the Conclusions.

Re: Agree with the reviewer’s points. The analysis results have been added as follows: The analysis results showed that the water consumption of different border widths was significantly different There was also significant difference in water consumption and water use efficiency among different irrigation quotas, respectively. Yield was less affected by border width and irrigation quota, and the difference between treatments was not significant.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx