Development of a Cereal–Legume Intercrop Model for DSSAT Version 4.8
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In general, I would like to mention that it is a study in which high quality results can be obtained in terms of agricultural science. However, there is the impression that statistics are prioritized over agriculture in your work. If the study is based on acronomic values, it is important that the method is compatible with real conditions. Do you think that the system you apply is compatible with field conditions or technical infrastructure?
If your aim is to evaluate the study from a physiological point of view, the data you presented do not meet this goal. I suggest you improve the data you collect and present. In fact, the work is very suitable for this.
Author Response
REVIEWER 1
We appreciate your wonderful remarks on the manuscript. Here below, we present the way that we addressed every single comment made by you and the approach we took to correct them.
Observation. In general, I would like to mention that it is a study in which high quality results can be obtained in terms of agricultural science. However, there is the impression that statistics are prioritized over agriculture in your work. If the study is based on agronomic values, it is important that the method is compatible with real conditions. Do you think that the system you apply is compatible with field conditions or technical infrastructure?
Response: This study is our first attempt to allow DSSAT to run at least two crops at the same time, as is the case for an intercropping system using the MPI approach. This study is only the first step towards that, focusing on light competition. In the first step, we just focus on testing the approach and a simple model. From now on, we will work on developing a process-oriented model that will take into consideration competition for water and nutrients. Several field experiments will be conducted to calibrate and refine the model so that it will be more compatible with field conditions, particularly for those who practice intercropping in developing countries with many limiting factors.
Overall, in this first study, we just focused on presenting valuable data for the development and improvement of Decision Support Systems. One example that illustrates the intercropping model's compatibility with field conditions is evident when comparing the intercrop model simulating maize-maize intercrop with sole crop maize grown at twice the planting density. The latter model (the DSSAT sole crop maize model) has been thoroughly validated under field conditions. The finding that our intercrop model gave identical results indicates the logic behind the intercrop model is valid.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please refer to the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
REVIEWER 2
We appreciate your wonderful remarks on the manuscript. Here below, we present the way that we addressed every single comment made by you and the approach we took to correct them.
Observation. The introduction section is written very broadly and needs to be more specific as the model is generally focused on light intensity and radiation.
Response: This has been improved in lines (91-97 and 100-103).
Observation. It is better to explore and added the keywords which are not mention in the title.
Response: this has been corrected in line 28.
Observation. Materials and methods section is jointed with results and discussion section.
Response: this has been corrected.(Line 336 and 421).
Observation. Subsections need numbering management.
Response: this has been integrated in lines (121,122,144,179,180,269,270 and 327)
Observation. The authors also claimed that the data to validate this model is not sufficient, it is better to use sufficient data to compare and validate the model.
Response: A one-year field experiment was used just to develop the model using the MPI approach; however, the next phase is to conduct additional field experiments, with data from different environments to validate the model. One example that illustrates the intercropping model's compatibility with field conditions is evident when comparing the intercrop model simulating maize-maize intercrop with sole crop maize grown at twice the planting density. The latter model (the DSSAT sole-crop maize model) has been thoroughly validated under field conditions. The finding that our intercrop model gave identical results indicates the logic behind the intercrop model is valid.
Observation. The authors compared maize in mono and intercropping systems but inserted four comparison lines in figure 2. Why? Also cowpea in other figures. As for figure 4, this comparison is looking good, because of 2 crops and 2 planting systems.
Response: this hypothetical test was made to make sure that our light competition model works well. Because we consider maize 1 as the first crop which sown as intercrop and received the competition, and maize 2 as the second maize without any competition in the monocropping systems. We hypothesize that they were planted on the same day. However, in the case of fig. 4, this was a real case, using our field data experiment.
Observation. L46-47: these sentences are ambiguous and need revision.
Response: This has been revised in line (46-47).
Observation. L47-48: these sentences do not make sense and need revision.
Response: this has been revised and corrected in lines (46-49).
Observation. L39: Insert the scientific name for squash.
Response: this has been integrated in line 39.
Observation. L12: remove the words “in the world”.
Response: this has been deleted in line 12.
Observation. The first cited abbreviation should explain. Example, L83, L123, L124, L141.
Response: This has been included in lines (84,126-127, 141-142).
Observation. L428-431: why the authors inserted citation here, as the explained about their procedures.
Response: this mistake has been corrected in line 436.
Observation. Some references are very old. It is better to change them to the latest ones.
Response: Some of them have been updated, the remaining ones are fundamentals citations.
Observation. Citations and references should revise based on the format of the journal.
Response: This has been corrected according to the journal reference citation guide.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors presented valuable data for the development and improvement of Decision Support Systems.
The main comment to the quality of manuscript is little lack of discussion. Please enrich this part.
And improve the style of reference list. Please look to the requirements of the Journal.
Author Response
REVIEWER 3
We appreciate your wonderful remarks on the manuscript. Here below, we present the way that we addressed every single comment made by you and the approach we took to correct them.
Observation. The main comment to the quality of manuscript is little lack of discussion. Please enrich this part.
Response: This has been improved in lines (344-346 and 399-401)
Observation. And improve the style of reference list. Please look at the requirements of the Journal.
Response: This has been integrated according to the journal reference guide.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
General comments:
The purpose of this study was to construct intercropping modules based on traditional DASST models and to simulate intercropping of maize and cowpea. The research has some significance to extend the application of the model, and makes a good attempt. In addition, the overall writing of the manuscript is standardized, and some small problems need to be modified and improved.
Special comments:
Line15, “some limitations” need to be specified.
Line88, The description of the APSIM abbreviation should appear on Line83.
Line120-121, “2. Materials and Methods” and “2. MPI_Maize-Legume intercrop development” overlap or contradict each other.
Line356 and Line416, What's the difference between Fig. 2B and Fig. 4B?
Author Response
REVIEWER 4
We appreciate your wonderful remarks on the manuscript. Here below, we present the way that we addressed every single comment made by you and the approach we took to correct them.
Observation. Line15, “some limitations” need to be specified.
Response: this has included in lines (15-16).
Observation. Line88, The description of the APSIM abbreviation should appear on Line83.
Response: this has been included in lines (85-86).
Observation. Line120-121, “2. Materials and Methods” and “2. MPI_Maize-Legume intercrop development” overlap or contradict each other.
Response: This has been corrected and renumbered.
Observation. Line356 and Line416, What's the difference between Fig. 2B and Fig. 4B?
Response: in Fig. 2, we hypothetically simulated the potential run of maize monocrop versus maize intercropped with maize while in Fig. 4 the potential run of maize monocrop versus maize intercropped with cowpea. Therefore, Fig. 2B is the total grain yield of maize when intercropped with the same maize (Hypothetical scenario) while in Fig. 4B, it is total grain yield of maize when intercropped with cowpea (Real scenario). For example, one example that illustrates the intercropping model's compatibility with field conditions is evident when comparing the intercrop model simulating maize-maize intercrop with sole crop maize grown at twice the planting density. The latter model (the DSSAT sole-crop maize model) has been thoroughly validated under field conditions. The finding that our intercrop model gave identical results indicates the logic behind the intercrop model is valid.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations for your work.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Observation. Congratulations for your work.
Response: Thank you so much for your contributions to this work.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is improved but still it needs more corrections.
1- The introduction section is still written broadly and needs to be more specific, the authors should remove some of the unnecessary sentences.
2- L321-328: these sentences are not related to the results and discussion section and should move to materials and methods section.
3- the results and discussion section should to be more enrich with related discussion and related published articles.
4- Citation and references are still not on the format of the journal.
Author Response
Observation. The manuscript is improved but still it needs more corrections.
Response: Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your additional remarks on the manuscript. Here below, we present the way that we addressed every single comment made by you and the approach we took to correct them.
Observation. 1- The introduction section is still written broadly and needs to be more specific, the authors should remove some of the unnecessary sentences.
Response: This has been restructured and improved completely, removing the unnecessary sentences.
Observation. 2- L321-328: these sentences are not related to the results and discussion section and should move to materials and methods section.
Response: This has been moved to the materials and methpds section.
Observation. 3- the results and discussion section should to be more enrich with related discussion and related published articles.
Response: Improvements have been included in lines (390-394 and 397-415).
Observation. 4- Citation and references are still not on the format of the journal.
Responses: We fixed the citation better according to the journal’ s guide.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
