Review Reports - Water Management of Czech Crop Production in 1961–2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to authors :

Title: Water Balance of Czech Crop Production in 1961 – 2019

Introduction

You provide some numbers but no references. From where did you get these numbers? For example: line 45 and 46, 49,

Materials and methods

Study area: please illustrate the climate data on a graphical form (temperature, precipitation) for the study area. You can also include information about sol types and the major crops planted.

Methodology:

In first paragraph, please present the information in a table with areas occupied by each crop, production, yield,…
You present Table 1 and Table 2 without referring them in the text. For Table 2, please change the months designation to regular months name for clarity.
Line 152: maximum value instead of “max. value”
For water deficit abbreviation, please use WD instead of “DW”.
You have mentioned several statistical tests, but no reference or software name were provided. How did you run the statistical analysis? I suggest adding a section for statistical analysis.

Results:

I don’t understand why in all figures you put source 10. I assume the raw information is taken from that source but in case you did some analysis to extract new information from that source, that become your results that you need to discuss. There is no need to put source 10 for each figure in the results section.
Line 187: Still not sure what you meant by crop mix? Please consider deleting the word “mix” in the whole manuscript because it refers to mixtures of crops of different families which is not the case in your study since you work on monocrops.
In the last row of Table 3, please use the multiples of m3 for the total deficit to avoid big numbers.
Line 211:The influence of total precipitation instead of “precipitation totals” and make changes accordingly in the whole manuscript.
Lines 234 and 237: again, please use the multiples of m3 for the water deficit to avoid big numbers.
In Table 4: avoid big numbers for the second and third column. For the change %, there is no need for 7 digits after the comma.
Lines 262 and 264: please be consistent and use Table 2 instead of ‘’tab.no 2”.

Discussion:

Line 272: either “strong” or “very strong” not both.

Conclusion:

Most of the information reported in the conclusion should be in the last paragraphs of the discussion section.

Author Response

Response to Editor and Reviewers

First, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated to investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.

This letter is to confirm that all final corrections and suggestions from the Editor-in-Chief and Reviewers have been addressed, corrected, and implemented. In addition, the authors have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly for possible style and language changes or substitutions.

Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.

Introduction

You provide some numbers but no references. From where did you get these numbers? For example line 45 and 46, 49,

The reference is stated at the beginning of the paragraph. European Commission. Water Scarcity and Droughts in the European Union, 2010. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/envi-419 comment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/water_scarcity.pdf (accessed 21 November 2020).

Materials and methods

Study area: please illustrate the climate data in a graphical form (temperature, precipitation) for the study area. You can also include information about soil types and the major crops planted.

Methodology:

In the first paragraph, please present the information in a table with areas occupied by each crop, production, yield,…

I can ad this chart

You present Table 1 and Table 2 without referring to them in the text. For Table 2, please change the month's designation to regular months name for clarity.

We have added the references to the text.

Line 152: maximum value instead of “max. value”

Corrected

For the water deficit abbreviation, please use WD instead of “DW”.

Corrected

You have mentioned several statistical tests, but no reference or software name was provided. How did you run the statistical analysis? I suggest adding a section for statistical analysis.

The methods of calculations of hypotheses testing have been added

Results:

I don’t understand why in all figures you put source 10. I assume the raw information is taken from that source but in case you did some analysis to extract new information from that source, that becomes the results that you need to discuss. There is no need to put source 10 for each figure in the results section.

I kept that as editors are ok with that

Line 187: Still not sure what you meant by crop mix? Please consider deleting the word “mix” in the whole manuscript because it refers to mixtures of crops of different families which is not the case in your study since you work on monocrops.

We have added a clarification

In the last row of Table 3, please use the multiples of m3 for the total deficit to avoid big numbers.

changed

Line 211:The influence of total precipitation instead of “precipitation totals” and make changes accordingly in the whole manuscript.

Corrected

Lines 234 and 237: again, please use the multiples of m3 for the water deficit to avoid big numbers.

Corrected

In Table 4: avoid big numbers for the second and third columns. For the change %, there is no need for 7 digits after the comma.

corrected

Lines 262 and 264: please be consistent and use Table 2 instead of ‘’tab.no 2”.

Corrected

Discussion:

Line 272: either “strong” or “very strong” not both.

Both according to the correlation coef.

Conclusion:

Most of the information reported in the conclusion should be in the last paragraphs of the discussion section.

Hmmm :-/, Shall we change the order?

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The findings of this study hinge on temperature calculations, but the "td" part of the calculations is not adequately described in terms of what temperatures are being used in calculating (yearly, monthly, growing season) the observed and long term average temperatures. This part of the methods must be clarified. Otherwise my edits focus on language; see annotated manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Editor and Reviewers

First, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated for investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.

Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.

The findings of this study hinge on temperature calculations, but the "td" part of the calculations is not adequately described in terms of what temperatures are being used in calculating (yearly, monthly, growing season) the observed and long-term average temperatures. This part of the methods must be clarified. Otherwise, my edits focus on language; see the annotated manuscript

We have added a clarification to the method of water deficit and temperature differences calculations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The Abstract section hasn't shown the details of water balance, like what was the key part in the balance, was there any specific part for various crops, whether or not irrigation amount increased, etc. Why irrigation deficit was enhanced? And why sowing area increased in some crops, but others didn't? For food safety, or due to restricted water resource and/or supply.

To me, the Introduction section failed to tell why you conducted this study in Czech Republic. The hypotheses weren't good enough. Needs to be re-organised.

p 37-38: We are still not sure if it always leads to "harmful impact".

p 42: Why "temperature" ? The relevance to water balance is indirect here.

p 56-74: What was your point to show these findings? Should it be connected to the topics in previous paragraphs ? And can help to deduce the following hypotheses (scientific questions) ?

p 82-87: They were, to me, not like hypotheses, but some results from data analysis. Recommend to reconsider: Why there is a negative correlation of irrigation deficit with sowing area of some crops, but not of all crops ?

The Materials and methods section failed to give a chance to understand changes of water balance components. The trend of water balance during the testing duration wasn't the only concern in this context. Readers may be interested more in understanding of linkage of water balance change with crop cultivation practices, and the underlying mechanisms.

2.2 Data: Recommend to include data from published papers, if possible, also using meta analysis method.

3. Methodology: This title can be subtitle 2.3. Methodology. In addition, try to add methodology on analyse relationship of water balance with sowing area.

Should introduce crops and associated cultivation patterns.

The Discussion section failed to show why the balance differed in the testing duration. What was the key reason? Did the change in water balance influence the sowing area, or the sowing area affected water balance? Why ? Some paragraphs seemed no links with the findings.

Author Response

Response to Editor and Reviewers

Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.

The Abstract section hasn't shown the details of water balance, like what was the key part in the balance, was there any specific part for various crops, whether or not irrigation amount increased, etc. Why irrigation deficit was enhanced? And why did sowing area increase in some crops, but others didn't? For food safety, or due to restricted water resources and/or supply.

We could maybe include some parts from the conclusion

To me, the Introduction section failed to tell why you conducted this study in the Czech Republic. The hypotheses weren't good enough. Needs to be re-organized.

Hmmm :-/

p 37-38: We are still not sure if it always leads to "harmful impact".

Corrected

p 42: Why "temperature" ? The relevance to water balance is indirect here.

Not really as it is interconnected.

p 56-74: What was your point to show these findings? Should it be connected to the topics in previous paragraphs? And can help to deduce the following hypotheses (scientific questions)?

hmmm :-/

We have added the methodology for hypotheses testing.

The Materials and methods section failed to give a chance to understand changes in water balance components. The trend of water balance during the testing duration wasn't the only concern in this context. Readers may be interested more in the understanding of linkage of water balance change with crop cultivation practices, and the underlying mechanisms.

We have adjusted the methodology to be more clear.

2.2 Data: Recommend to include data from published papers, if possible, also using meta-analysis method.

Methodology: This title can be subtitle 2.3. Methodology. In addition, try to add methodology on analyzing the relationship of water balance with sowing area.

Corrected

Should introduce crops and associated cultivation patterns.

The Discussion section failed to show why the balance differed in the testing duration. What was the key reason? Did the change in water balance influence the sowing area or the sowing area affect water balance? Why? Some paragraphs seemed no links with the findings.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx