Assessing the Potential of the Cloud-Based EEFlux Tool to Monitor the Water Use of Moringa oleifera in a Semi-Arid Region of South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be improved, please read the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Pleas refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the interesting article. I have noted a few items that require attention:

• Some figures could be improved for clarity. The one I detected the most issue was Figure 7 and it felt pixelated. Can we get a higher resolution image?
• Checked the conclusions and would expect to see some more insight regarding future work and implementation ideas. 
  • For example, you indicated that EEFlux approach was less than satisfactory. What specific refinements to EEFlux or the methodology would you recommend for future studies? Is there any insight?
  • Expanding the future work would be useful.
• Again, for generalizability, a few things would be worth mentioning.
  • Is the research very specific to a particular type of plant and region? How generalizable do you think these findings are to other regions or other crops?
  • These could be indicated in discussion as well.
• Were there any other environmental factors, such as soil type, temperature, moisture, etc, that might have influenced the ET measurements and the performance of EEFlux? If such factors are not considered, perhaps it could be mentioned as limitations? 

Author Response

Pleas refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this manuscript neeeds a substantial revision to address the limitations and enhance the robustness of their findings. I recommend "Revise and Resubmit" with a focus on improving the methodology, data analysis, and discussion of the results. My concerns were listed as follows,

1. In the abstract, the full name of EEFlux-Earth Engine Evapotranspiration Flux should be given.
2. The caption of Figure 3 must be corrected. It appears as ‘Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.’
3. In the section on Materials and Methods, the study period is relatively short and may not capture seasonal variations in water use. The authors should consider discussing the potential impact of extending the study period and including multiple sites with varying climatic conditions to enhance the robustness of their findings.
4. In lines 134-137, how many Landsat images free from cloud contamination were used for this study?
5. Obviously, the scatter points in Figure 8 should not be fitted with a linear equation. Alternatively, a nonlinear curve should be fitted. The nonlinear equation with significance and r-square should be provided.
6. The discussion section is somewhat weak in highlighting the innovations of this study. The data and methods used in this study are very common. The authors just did a simple work by comparing the data from the cloud-based simulation and in-situ measurement. What should be done to reduce the bias between these two datasets?
7. Although the authors acknowledged limitations in the energy balance closure (EBC) of the eddy covariance measurements, which may affect the accuracy of the ET estimates. The authors should provide more detailed information on the potential sources of error in the EBC. They should also explain how these errors might influence the overall accuracy of the results.
8. Moreover, the authors should discuss the representativeness of the gridded weather data used in EEFlux, particularly in regions with high spatial variability in climatic variables.
9. What are the major limitations of this study?

Author Response

Pleas refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1, not to fix the images, is not appropriate for the purpose of publishing a professional-looking article. The coarseness of the data is irrelevant to the pixelation issue that I have mentioned. Check Figure 2, and you will realize that your regular text vs text you utilized in figures have resolution differences and the text you included in any figures are pixelated, blurry and unclear. Possibly, if you used figures that are larger and not stretched, they would look better.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend this enhanced manuscript for publication after minor revision.  My concerns were listed as follows:

• Please reinforce the scientific importance of this study. For instance, what will this study benefit the water usage, ecological conservation, and economic values for arid agriculture in Africa?
• How can the datasets and methods applied in this study benefit the agricultural science and practice in Africa?

Author Response

Please refer to the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf