Modeling and Analysis of Rice Root Water Uptake under the Dual Stresses of Drought and Waterlogging

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents innovative modifications to the Feddes model incorporating waterlogging and moisture stress, showcasing well-written new ideas. However, the paper lacks strength in its calibration section. It fails to elucidate the authors' methodology for calibration and the parameters involved. Furthermore, there is a notable absence of sensitivity analysis. I highly recommend conducting sensitivity analysis on the newly developed model. This would entail examining which parameters significantly impact the model and which do not. I suggest a comprehensive global sensitivity analysis on parameters like root distribution, drought, and moisture stress, followed by a comparative evaluation of the outcomes. This would enrich the paper significantly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please review the paper more carefully; there are some grammatical errors present.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks a lot for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Modeling and Analysis of Rice Root Water Uptake under Dual Stress of Drought and Waterlogging” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-2797166). Your kind comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our next researches. We have modified your comments carefully and highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript which we hope meet with approval. All of your questions were answered below. We would like to know if there are still somewhere need to be amended.

We would like to express our great appreciation to your comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,
Jie Huang
E-mail: huangjie2020lcx@126.com or huangjie2016@whu.edu.cn

Corresponding author:
Name: Wei Dong
E-mail: dongwei-sue@163.com

Major/general comments:

Comments 1: The paper lacks strength in its calibration section. It fails to elucidate the authors' methodology for calibration and the parameters involved. Furthermore, there is a notable absence of sensitivity analysis. I highly recommend conducting sensitivity analysis on the newly developed model. This would entail examining which parameters significantly impact the model and which do not. I suggest a comprehensive global sensitivity analysis on parameters like root distribution, drought, and moisture stress, followed by a comparative evaluation of the outcomes. This would enrich the paper significantly.

Response 1: Thanks for Reviewer’s insightful advice. We are so sorry that calibration and the parameters involved was unclear in the original manuscript. We have explained the parameters involved about this model in the corresponding part of the paper. See Part 2.3.3 Model application.

The parameters required for input in the model primarily include meteorological data, soil data such as soil moisture content and parameters related to soil moisture characteristic curves, weighing and irrigation data, water level in flooding pools, root length density, root depth, plant height, leaf area index, and stomatal resistance. These input parameters were all derived from the field experiments . Then, only one parameter, λ, requires calibration. We have revised it in the part 4.1 Evaluation of the Improved Feddes Root Water Uptake Model.

Comments 2: Please review the paper more carefully; there are some grammatical errors present..

Response 2: Thanks for Reviewer’s kind advice. Following your suggestion, we have asked an English teacher to help us modify the styles, spellings, and other grammatical errors. According to the rules of the journal, we revised the whole manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with a model for rice root water uptake, accounting also for hysteresis effects due to water-logging and drought, obtained modifying the classical Feddes model. The paper is of interest for journal readers, but some issues need to be clarified, listed below.

The introduction is well written. Nevertheless, I suggest to frame more exactly the modeling of root water stress in the context of existing and recent bibliography.

For instance, authors should take into account the significant paper by Carminati (VZJ 2012, doi:doi:10.2136/vzj2011.0106), in which the delayed effect of root water uptake has been explained by the presence of mucilage into roots; also, the reference to the recent paper by Berardi and Girardi (CNSNS 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2023.107583) providing a comprehensive mathematical justification of the work by Wu et al AGWAT 2020, and framing the problem of delayed root water uptake in the concept of ecological memory.

In formula (1), I would highlight the dependence of S at the left-hand side on h, other than z and t: thus, I suggest to replace “S(z,t)” with “S(h,z,t)”. the function \alpha depends on h which, in turns, depend both on z and on t.

Line 125, please add the upper bound when saying “0 \leq \psi \leq …”

The origin of the model in (1), together with eqs (2-5) should be acknowledged and properly cited.  

In the process from line 256 to 268, why not adding some pictures of the experiment? This is very common when explaining an experimental set-up.

Figure 6 and 7: why not representing also the data, together with models?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your kind comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Modeling and Analysis of Rice Root Water Uptake under Dual Stress of Drought and Waterlogging” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-2797166). These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our next research. According to your advice, we have tried our best to amend the relevant part and have made revisions which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript. All of your questions were answered as follows.

We would like to express our great appreciation to your comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Jie Huang

E-mail: huangjie2020lcx@126.com or huangjie2016@whu.edu.cn

Corresponding author:

Name: Wei Dong

E-mail: dongwei-sue@163.com

Comments and Suggestions

Comments 1: The introduction is well written. Nevertheless, I suggest to frame more exactly the modeling of root water stress in the context of existing and recent bibliographies. For instance, authors should take into account the significant paper by Carminati (VZJ 2012, doi:doi:10.2136/vzj2011.0106), in which the delayed effect of root water uptake has been explained by the presence of mucilage into roots; also, the reference to the recent paper by Berardi and Girardi (CNSNS 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2023.107583) providing a comprehensive mathematical justification of the work by Wu et al AGWAT 2020 and framing the problem of delayed root water uptake in the concept of ecological memory.

Response 1: Thanks for Reviewer’s helpful suggestions. We have improved the related part of the introduction in the revised manuscript. And we take into account the significant paper by Carminati and by Berardi and Girardi, see [27] and [29].

Comments 2: In formula (1), I would highlight the dependence of S at the left-hand side on h, other than z and t: thus, I suggest to replace “S(z,t)” with “S(h,z,t)”. the function \alpha depends on h which, in turns, depend both on z and on t.

Response 2: Thanks for Reviewer’s kind advice. We have revised formula (1) as your suggestion. See Line 176.

Comments 3: Line 125, please add the upper bound when saying “0 \leq \psi \leq …”.

Response 3: Thanks for Reviewer’s helpful comment. According to your advice, we have modified the relevant expression.

Comments 4: The origin of the model in (1), together with eqs (2-5) should be acknowledged and properly cited.

Response 4: Thanks for Reviewer’s helpful comment. According to your advice, we have added the appropriate references.

Comments 5: In the process from line 256 to 268, why not adding some pictures of the experiment? This is very common when explaining an experimental set-up.

Response 5: Thanks for Reviewer’s helpful suggestion. We have added some pictures, See Figure 3.

Comments 6: Figure 6 and 7: why not representing also the data, together with models?

Response 6: Thanks. Figure 6 and Figure 7 represents the distribution profile of root water uptake rates under various treatments under the drought stress, waterlogging stress and the 10-day period following rewatering.

Figure 6 represents the changes of root water absorption rate in different soil layers during drought stresses. Figure 7 represents the changes of root water absorption rate in different soil layers at the end of rapid shift between drought and waterlogging and ten days post-rewatering.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your response to my query. Please check the manuscript; it needs major editing for grammar and some scientific terminology. Additionally, please review some of my comments below. 

L271: What do you mean by "λ" requires calibration? Please note that authors need to calibrate each and every parameter in the model to determine its effect on the model. First of all, I request that authors need to understand the concepts of sensitivity, calibration, and validation. Please implement the proper calibration procedure for your model.

L275: What is Eq (8)/Eq (7) ? 

L282: "Two-thirds of the data" What type of data it is? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Kindly perform significant editing for both grammar and scientific terminology throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks a lot for your second comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Modeling and Analysis of Rice Root Water Uptake under Dual Stress of Drought and Waterlogging” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-2797166). These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our next researches. According with your advice, we have tried our best to amend the relevant part and have made revision which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript. All of your questions were answered as follows.

We would like to express our great appreciation to your comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Jie Huang

E-mail: huangjie2020lcx@126.com or huangjie2016@whu.edu.cn

Corresponding author:

Name: Wei Dong

E-mail: dongwei-sue@163.com

Response to Reviewer1:

Comments 1: L271: What do you mean by "λ" requires calibration? Please note that authors need to calibrate each and every parameter in the model to determine its effect on the model. First of all, I request that authors need to understand the concepts of sensitivity, calibration, and validation. Please implement the proper calibration procedure for your model.

Response 1: Thanks for Reviewer’s insightful advice. In this improved model, only one parameter, λ, requires to be determined by the measured data. The sensitivity analysis of the parameter λ is detailed in 4.1 Evaluation of the Improved Feddes Root Water Uptake Model, along with the λ-values of the different treatments.

The value of the parameter, λ, reflects the extent of the inhibitory effect of moisture stress on root water uptake. A larger λ results in a smaller φ(W_s). The λ values for groups RSDW, SD, and SW are 0.548, 0.447, and 0.503, respectively. This indicates that under equivalent historical moisture stress, the root water uptake performance in the groups experiencing sudden from drought to waterlogging is severely inhibited and faces the greatest challenge in recovery. It is followed by the single waterlogging group, with the single drought group being the least affected.

Comments 2: L275: What is Eq (8)/Eq (7) ?

Response 2: Thanks for Reviewer. The original text was modified to “The revised root water uptake model was applied to the drought stage in experiment (RSDW1, RSDW4 and RSDW7) to simulate the dynamics of relative transpiration rate Ta/Tp via Eq. (8)-Eq. (7) and soil water content change in soil profile via Eqs. (9)-(12) between three consecutive water stress treatment events.”

Comments 3: L282: "Two-thirds of the data" What type of data it is?

Response 3: Thanks for Reviewer’s insightful advice. "Two-thirds of the data" refers to the input data of the model is input data in this modified model, include meteorological data, soil data such as soil moisture content and parameters related to soil moisture characteristic curves, weighing and irrigation data, water level in flooding pools, root length density, root depth, plant height, leaf area index, and stomatal resistance.

Thanks again for Reviewer’s kind advice. Following your suggestion, we have modified the grammar and scientific terminology throughout the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors properly reviewd the paper and now I think it is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thanks again for Reviewer’s kind advice.