Sustainable Water Management for Small Farmers with Center-Pivot Irrigation: A Hydraulic and Structural Design Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Sustainable Water Management for Small Farmers with Center Pivot Irrigation: A Hydraulic and Structural Design Perspective” by Rashid et al.  designed the hydraulic and structural components of CPIS  for small-scale farmers with some modifications. In the modified design, the structural (mass, geometry, shape, and material) and Hydraulic design (lateral length, flow rate, application time, head losses, and power requirements) were redesigned with SAP2000 and IrriExpress Software. In my opinion, the manuscript is not suitable to publish in sustainability journal due to the following issues,

The all manuscript are very poorly written and contain many errors such as grammatical and abbreviation, etc.

 

 In result section some of the displayed Figures are not clear

There is no discussion section for the results and I cannot find an explanation for what is written in the lines 400-404 “Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted”.

The conclusion is poorly presented

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English very difficult to understand and extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Journal:                       Sustainability

Manuscript ID:            sustainability-2665630

Title of Paper:     Sustainable Water Management for Small Farmers with Center Pivot Irrigation: A Hydraulic and Structural Design Perspective

Authors:               Muhammad Rashid, Saif Haider, Muhammad Umer Masood, Chaitanya B. Pande, Abebe Debele Tolche, Fahad Alshehri, Romulus Costache, Ismail Elkhrachy

Date Sent:         

 

We are very thankful to the editor, associate editor and reviewers for their deep and thorough review. We have revised our manuscript in the light of their useful comments/suggestions. The changes made in the revised manuscript has been track changed. Number wise answers to reviewer’s comments/suggestions/queries are given below.

 

Response to the comments of Reviewer 1#

 

The manuscript entitled "Sustainable Water Management for Small Farmers with Center Pivot Irrigation: A Hydraulic and Structural Design Perspective” by Rashid et al.  designed the hydraulic and structural components of CPIS  for small-scale farmers with some modifications. In the modified design, the structural (mass, geometry, shape, and material) and Hydraulic design (lateral length, flow rate, application time, head losses, and power requirements) were redesigned with SAP2000 and IrriExpress Software. In my opinion, the manuscript is not suitable to publish in sustainability journal due to the following issues,

We are very much thankful for your deep and thorough review. Your suggestions and comments will be useful in improving our manuscript. The author’s took into account these comments and suggestions and modified the manuscript accordingly. We have highlighted the modifications with “tracked changes on” in the manuscript. Number wise answers to the comments/suggestions are as follows.

 

Q1. The all manuscript are very poorly written and contain many errors such as grammatical and abbreviation, etc.

Ans. Thanks for your comment. We have significantly enhanced the overall clarity and coherence of the document. We hope that you find the revised version more in line with your expectations.

Q2. In result section some of the displayed Figures are not clear.

Ans. Thank you for your observations. We have reviewed the clarity of the displayed figures in the results section to ensure that they convey the information accurately and comprehensibly. Hopefully this will fulfil the requirement.

Q3. There is no discussion section for the results and I cannot find an explanation for what is written in the lines 400-404 “Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted”.

Ans. Thank you for your feedback. We have thoroughly discussed the results and provided a comprehensive interpretation of their significance. We have also highlighted the implications of these findings within the context of previous studies and our working hypotheses, thereby adding depth to the discussion. We hope this will fulfil the requirement.

Following is the text added to results and discussion section:

“This study provided highlights the pressing issue in Pakistan's agricultural sector, where the supply of surface water for irrigation is dwindling as the demand for water in agriculture continues to rise. To address this challenge, the study focuses on the development and modification of the Center Pivot Irrigation System (CPIS) tailored for small-scale farmers, with the ultimate goal of improving water use efficiency and crop yields. In regions with uneven topography, high-efficiency irrigation systems have proven to be effective, with CPIS representing an advanced form of such systems. However, these systems are typically designed for large landholdings. Given the increasing population and land division among family members in Pakistan, there is a growing need to adapt CPIS for small-scale farming.

Small-scale CPIS is a crucial solution for the economic empowerment of small-scale farmers, as it offers them access to advanced irrigation practices. Moreover, local design and fabrication can significantly reduce the capital cost of these systems, making them more accessible and cost-effective. One key aspect of the study involves the redesign of CPIS's structural components, including mass, geometry, shape, and material. The results are promising, with a 17 percent reduction in weight and a 44 percent reduction in joint count. This not only reduces the cost of the system but also enhances its manageability for small-scale farmers. The study also delves into the hydraulic design and water applica-tion of CPIS, focusing on critical parameters like lateral length, flow rate, application time for one revolution, head losses, and power requirements. Notably, the study found that reducing the time setting from 100% to 10% increased both the number of irrigation hours per cycle and irrigation depth. This flexibility empowers farmers to tailor the system to their specific crop and soil requirements, ultimately improving water use efficiency. The research provides a valuable cost breakdown of CPIS components. Structural components are identified as the most expensive, accounting for 61 percent of the total cost. This in-formation is essential for farmers, policymakers, and agricultural organizations, enabling them to assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of implementing CPIS on different scales.

The study recommends the use of towable CPIS for small-scale farmers due to its lower per-acre cost. With a cost of 0.212 million for 5 acres, this option offers an affordable solution for smaller landholdings, aligning with the broader objective of improving water use efficiency and crop yields for a more extensive range of farmers. Beyond economic considerations, the study highlights the environmental benefits of improved water use efficiency and precise irrigation methods. In regions facing water scarcity, the conservation of water resources is of utmost importance. Additionally, enhancing crop yields through modern irrigation practices contributes to food security and economic stability, improving the livelihoods of small-scale farmers.

The implications of this study are far-reaching for agriculture in Pakistan. As water resources become scarcer and landholdings smaller, innovative solutions like small-scale CPIS are vital for ensuring sustainable agricultural practices. By making CPIS accessible and cost-effective for small-scale farmers, the study has the potential to increase agricultural productivity, enhance income generation, and improve food security. In conclusion, this research addresses a critical challenge in Pakistan's agricultural sector by focusing on the design and modification of Center Pivot Irrigation Systems for small-scale farmers. The results indicate that this approach is feasible, cost-effective, and holds the potential to significantly enhance water use efficiency and crop yields. Moreover, it serves as an ex-ample of how local innovation can address global agricultural challenges by providing sustainable and economically viable solutions for small-scale farmers, not only in Pakistan but also in regions facing similar issues.”

Q4. The conclusion is poorly presented.

Ans. Thank you for your comments. We have made revisions to this part of the study to improve its clarity and effectiveness. Our aim is to ensure that the conclusion not only accurately reflects the key findings of the research but is also presented in a more coherent and reader-friendly manner. We believe that these revisions will enhance the overall quality of the conclusion and fulfil the requirement.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.    Clarity: The abstract provides a clear overview of the study's objective, which is to design a modified Center Pivot Irrigation System (CPIS) for small-scale farmers in Pakistan. However, some sentences could be rephrased to enhance clarity and readability.

2.    Structure: The abstract follows a logical structure by introducing the problem, explaining the modifications made to the CPIS design, and presenting the findings and recommendations. This organization effectively conveys the study's purpose and outcomes.

3.    Technical Details: The abstract briefly mentions the use of SAP2000 and IrriExpress Software for the hydraulic and structural design of the CPIS. It would be helpful to include a sentence or two elaborating on how these tools were utilized and their contribution to the modifications.

4.    Results: The abstract mentions weight reduction and connection reduction percentages, but it would benefit from specifying the actual values. Also, providing more specific information on the increased number of irrigation hours per cycle and irrigation depth would enhance the understanding of the study's outcomes.

5.    Cost Analysis: The abstract briefly addresses the cost breakdown of the CPIS, but it lacks specific details. It would be useful to include more information on the cost savings achieved through the modifications and compare them with traditional CPIS designs.

6.    Recommendations: The abstract suggests that the modified CPIS is suitable for land holdings ranging from 100 to 250 acres for all farmers, with the mention of a more economical option for small-scale farmers (5 acres) and the recommendation of using a towable system for 5 to 50 acres. These recommendations are clear and concise.

7.    Language and Style: Overall, the abstract's language is clear and understandable, but there is room for improvement in terms of sentence structure and grammar. Proofreading the abstract for any typographical errors would also enhance its professionalism

Author Response

Journal:                       Sustainability

Manuscript ID:            sustainability-2665630

Title of Paper:             Sustainable Water Management for Small Farmers with Center Pivot Irrigation: A Hydraulic and Structural Design Perspective

Authors:          Muhammad Rashid, Saif Haider, Muhammad Umer Masood, Chaitanya B. Pande, Abebe Debele Tolche, Fahad Alshehri, Romulus Costache, Ismail Elkhrachy

Date Sent:

             

We are very thankful to the editor, associate editor and reviewers for their deep and thorough review. We have revised our manuscript in the light of their useful comments/suggestions. The changes made in the revised manuscript has been track changed. Number wise answers to reviewer’s comments/suggestions/queries are given below.

Response to the comments of Reviewer 2#

Q1.    Clarity: The abstract provides a clear overview of the study's objective, which is to design a modified Center Pivot Irrigation System (CPIS) for small-scale farmers in Pakistan. However, some sentences could be rephrased to enhance clarity and readability.

Ans. Thank you for your feedback. We've carefully reviewed the abstract and have revised the abstract accordingly. We hope this revised version improves the clarity and readability of the abstract, and fulfil the requirement.

Following is the revised abstract:

In Pakistan surface water supply for irrigation is decreasing, while water demand is increasing for agriculture production. The time needs to develop appropriate technologies and design approaches to improve modern irrigation practices and improve water use efficiency and crop yields. In areas, where the topography is adulated high efficiency irrigation systems are currently considered one of the most efficient and widely water-applied methods. The Center Pivot Irrigation System (CPIS) is the advanced form of the high-efficiency irrigation system (HEIS). The CPIS is typically designed for large landholdings areas. In Pakistan, large holdings are de-creasing due to increasing population and land division among the family members. So, there is a need to design CPIS on small scale. To improve the economic condition of the small-scale farmers, a small-scale CPIS system should be used. The local design and fabrication can reduce its capital cost. In this study, the hydraulic and structural components of CPIS were designed for small-scale farmers with some modifications.  In modified structural design, the structure of the center pivot irrigation system (mass, geometry, shape, and material) was redesigned. The hydraulic method of CPIS includes a selection of lateral length, flow rate, application time for one revolution, and estimation of head losses and power requirements. The center pivot was de-signed for the different areas according to landholding design from 5 to 30 acres with Irriexpress software. First Imported the DEM of Dera Ghulam Muhammad Channar was located in the Bahawalpur region. Six Center Pivot Irrigation Systems were designed in different sizes. The results that when the pivot completed one revolution its span slope and wheel slope were changed. When the pivot moves in the forward direction the span slope was changed from 2.98 to 0.1 percent and the wheel slope altered from 2.35 to -2.4 %. The timing setting was 60% for one revolution and the irrigation depth was 10mm. When the time setting was reduced from 100% to 10%, the number of irrigation hours per cycle and irrigation depth both increased. The variendeel type-II trusses were designed for structural purposes using SAP2000 software. This design effort led to a 17 percent reduction in weight, lowering it from 1.916 tons to 1.5905 tons, and a 44 percent reduction in joint count, decreasing it from 32 to 18. The center pivot was di-vided into four components structural, hydraulic, power, and electric. The structural part was more expensive than other components. The structural cost was 61, hydraulic 13.5, electric 11.6, and power cost 13.7 percent for 5acres. The center pivot was suggested for land holdings from 100 to 250 acres for all farmers. When the area increased by more than 250 acres no significant change in the cost of the pivot and only a 1% percent cost increased. Towable is more economical for small-scale farmers due to its less per acre cost of 0.212 million for 5acres and towable should be used for 5 to 50acres.

Q2.    Structure: The abstract follows a logical structure by introducing the problem, explaining the modifications made to the CPIS design, and presenting the findings and recommendations. This organization effectively conveys the study's purpose and outcomes.

Ans. Thank you for your comments. We have rewritten the abstract and tried to maintain this well-structured format to ensure clarity and coherence. Hopefully this will meet the requirement.

Q3. Technical Details: The abstract briefly mentions the use of SAP2000 and IrriExpress Software for the hydraulic and structural design of the CPIS. It would be helpful to include a sentence or two elaborating on how these tools were utilized and their contribution to the modifications.

Ans. Thanks for your observations. In response to your valuable feedback, we have included a sentence or two to elaborate on how these tools were employed and their specific contributions to the modifications in the CPIS. Hopefully this will satisfy your concern.

Q4. Results: The abstract mentions weight reduction and connection reduction percentages, but it would benefit from specifying the actual values. Also, providing more specific information on the increased number of irrigation hours per cycle and irrigation depth would enhance the understanding of the study's outcomes.

Ans. Thanks for your comment. In response to your comment, we have made the necessary revisions in the abstract of our paper. The revised version now provides concrete numerical values for weight reduction and connection reduction percentages, as well as specific information on the increased number of irrigation hours per cycle and irrigation depth. Hopefully this will fulfil the requirement.

Q5.    Cost Analysis: The abstract briefly addresses the cost breakdown of the CPIS, but it lacks specific details. It would be useful to include more information on the cost savings achieved through the modifications and compare them with traditional CPIS designs.

Ans. Thank you for your suggestions. We have made the necessary additions to the abstract to provide a more comprehensive overview of the cost analysis. The revised version now includes specific details on cost savings achieved through the modifications and offers a comparative perspective with traditional CPIS designs. Hopefully this will answer this question.

Q6.    Recommendations: The abstract suggests that the modified CPIS is suitable for land holdings ranging from 100 to 250 acres for all farmers, with the mention of a more economical option for small-scale farmers (5 acres) and the recommendation of using a towable system for 5 to 50 acres. These recommendations are clear and concise.

Ans.  Thank you for your feedback. We've carefully reviewed the abstract and have revised the abstract accordingly. We hope this revised version improves the clarity and readability of the abstract, and fulfil the requirement.

Q7.    Language and Style: Overall, the abstract's language is clear and understandable, but there is room for improvement in terms of sentence structure and grammar. Proofreading the abstract for any typographical errors would also enhance its professionalism.

Ans. Thanks for your observations. In response to your suggestions, we have thoroughly reviewed and proofread the abstract to correct any typographical errors and improve overall language and style. Hopefully this will fulfil the requirement.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with an interesting area of irrigation systems, in particular for small-scale farms, and I thank you for the hard work done by the multinational authors. However, the authors have some scope to improve the manuscript, and my comments are as follows:

1. The objective of the abstract is not clear and needs to be rewritten. Finally, need to write a general recommendation for worldwide readers based on your findings.

.

2. The study area picture is not clearly visible; it would be better to put a country map with the location in the inset of the map. The title of Figure 3 is problematic, change it. In Table 3, show the unit of the cost. Formatting Table 4 requires improvements.

 

3. The discussion section needs to be developed, and without discussion, the manuscript does not meet high standards or be treated well. In this study, discussion is very crucial.

 

4. In conclusion, future direction for the readers and a key recommendation or take-home message are missing. Need to be rewritten; if possible, try to write the conclusion without points or bullets.

 

Good luck

Author Response

 

Journal:                       Sustainability

Manuscript ID:            sustainability-2665630

Title of Paper:             Sustainable Water Management for Small Farmers with Center Pivot Irrigation: A Hydraulic and Structural Design Perspective

Authors:          Muhammad Rashid, Saif Haider, Muhammad Umer Masood, Chaitanya B. Pande, Abebe Debele Tolche, Fahad Alshehri, Romulus Costache, Ismail Elkhrachy

Date Sent:

             

We are very thankful to the editor, associate editor and reviewers for their deep and thorough review. We have revised our manuscript in the light of their useful comments/suggestions. The changes made in the revised manuscript has been track changed. Number wise answers to reviewer’s comments/suggestions/queries are given below.

 

Response to the comments of Reviewer 3#

The manuscript deals with an interesting area of irrigation systems, in particular for small-scale farms, and I thank you for the hard work done by the multinational authors. However, the authors have some scope to improve the manuscript, and my comments are as follows:

We are very much thankful for your deep and thorough review. Your suggestions and comments will be useful in improving our manuscript. The author’s took into account these comments and suggestions and modified the manuscript accordingly. We have highlighted the modifications with “tracked changes on” in the manuscript. Number wise answers to the comments/suggestions are as follows.

Q1. The objective of the abstract is not clear and needs to be rewritten. Finally, need to write a general recommendation for worldwide readers based on your findings.

Ans.

Thank you for your feedback. We've carefully reviewed the abstract and have revised the abstract accordingly. We hope this revised version improves the clarity and readability of the abstract, and fulfil the requirement.

Following is the revised abstract:

“In Pakistan surface water supply for irrigation is decreasing, while water demand is increasing for agriculture production. The time needs to develop appropriate technologies and design approaches to improve modern irrigation practices and improve water use efficiency and crop yields. In areas, where the topography is adulated high efficiency irrigation systems are currently considered one of the most efficient and widely water-applied methods. The Center Pivot Irrigation System (CPIS) is the advanced form of the high-efficiency irrigation system (HEIS). The CPIS is typically designed for large landholdings areas. In Pakistan, large holdings are de-creasing due to increasing population and land division among the family members. So, there is a need to design CPIS on small scale. To improve the economic condition of the small-scale farmers, a small-scale CPIS system should be used. The local design and fabrication can reduce its capital cost. In this study, the hydraulic and structural components of CPIS were designed for small-scale farmers with some modifications.  In modified structural design, the structure of the center pivot irrigation system (mass, geometry, shape, and material) was redesigned. The hydraulic method of CPIS includes a selection of lateral length, flow rate, application time for one revolution, and estimation of head losses and power requirements. The center pivot was de-signed for the different areas according to landholding design from 5 to 30 acres with Irriexpress software. First Imported the DEM of Dera Ghulam Muhammad Channar was located in the Bahawalpur region. Six Center Pivot Irrigation Systems were designed in different sizes. The results that when the pivot completed one revolution its span slope and wheel slope were changed. When the pivot moves in the forward direction the span slope was changed from 2.98 to 0.1 percent and the wheel slope altered from 2.35 to -2.4 %. The timing setting was 60% for one revolution and the irrigation depth was 10mm. When the time setting was reduced from 100% to 10%, the number of irrigation hours per cycle and irrigation depth both increased. The variendeel type-II trusses were designed for structural purposes using SAP2000 software. This design effort led to a 17 percent reduction in weight, lowering it from 1.916 tons to 1.5905 tons, and a 44 percent reduction in joint count, decreasing it from 32 to 18. The center pivot was di-vided into four components structural, hydraulic, power, and electric. The structural part was more expensive than other components. The structural cost was 61, hydraulic 13.5, electric 11.6, and power cost 13.7 percent for 5acres. The center pivot was suggested for land holdings from 100 to 250 acres for all farmers. When the area increased by more than 250 acres no significant change in the cost of the pivot and only a 1% percent cost increased. Towable is more economical for small-scale farmers due to its less per acre cost of 0.212 million for 5acres and towable should be used for 5 to 50acres.”

 

Q2. The study area picture is not clearly visible; it would be better to put a country map with the location in the inset of the map. The title of Figure 3 is problematic, change it. In Table 3, show the unit of the cost. Formatting Table 4 requires improvements.

Ans.

Thanks for your comments. We have updated the study area picture by including a country map with the location as an inset to enhance visibility and context. Secondly, we have addressed your concern about the title of Figure 3 and revised it to accurately represent the figure's content. In Table 3, we have now included the unit of measurement for the cost to ensure clarity. Additionally, we have reformatted Table 4 to improve its overall appearance and readability. Hopefully this will fulfil the requirement.

 

Following is the revised study area image and caption of figure 3:

 

Figure 1. Study Area Map”

“Figure 3. Digital Terrain Model of CPIS in IrriExpress”

Q3. The discussion section needs to be developed, and without discussion, the manuscript does not meet high standards or be treated well. In this study, discussion is very crucial.

Ans. Thank you for your feedback. We have now incorporated a well-developed discussion into the "Results and Discussion" section, where we have analyzed the findings in greater depth and provided context and interpretation. Additionally, we have added a section highlighting the implications of our study, which we believe will further enhance the paper's quality. Hopefully this will fulfil the requirement.

Q4. In conclusion, future direction for the readers and a key recommendation or take-home message are missing. Need to be rewritten; if possible, try to write the conclusion without points or bullets.

 

Ans. Thanks for your observation. We have reworked the conclusion to provide a clearer and more structured summary of our key findings and their implications. We have also included a section on future directions for readers and a key recommendation or take-home message. We believe that these changes will satisfy your concern.

 

Following is the revised conclusion section:

“This study has been a meticulous exploration into the world of Center Pivot Irrigation Systems (CPIS) with a primary focus on optimizing the structural design of truss systems across different CPIS sizes. Alongside this design endeavor, we embarked on a comprehensive analysis of the CPIS structure from an economic perspective, culminating in a series of significant conclusions that have far-reaching implications for the field of agriculture. One of the pivotal revelations from this study is the economic viability of the CPIS concerning landholdings of varying sizes. Notably, we found that the CPIS is not economically feasible for smaller landholdings, particularly those spanning 5 to 10 acres. The per-acre cost of implementing CPIS within this range was observed to be relatively high, potentially rendering it impractical for farmers with smaller plots.

However, amid these findings, a groundbreaking discovery emerged – the prospect of local manufacturing. By producing CPIS components locally, substantial cost reductions of up to 31 percent can be achieved. This economic shift has the potential to make CPIS more accessible and cost-effective for a broader spectrum of farmers. The implications of this development are significant, as it not only supports self-reliance but also contributes to the development of a sustainable and cost-effective irrigation infrastructure. An integral facet of this research delved into the feasibility and advantages of the towable Center Pivot Irrigation System. The key attribute of this system is its mobility, enabling it to be shifted from one location to another. This quality significantly reduces per-acre costs, rendering it a particularly attractive choice for small landholdings. When coupled with local manufacturing, the per-acre costs further decrease, making it a compelling option for farmers with plots ranging from 5 to 30 acres.

The structural design of the truss system within CPIS also played a central role in our study. We discovered that variendeel type-II trusses outperformed conventional trusses, resulting in a remarkable 32 percent reduction in costs. This finding underscores the pivotal role of innovative structural designs in optimizing the economic efficiency of the CPIS. Another noteworthy dimension of our research was the breakdown of costs within the CPIS structure. We identified that, for five-acre landholdings, the structural cost of the CPIS was notably high at 2.438 million, eclipsing other cost components such as the hydraulic cost (0.538 million), electric cost (0.652 million), and power source cost (0.547 mil-lion). This granular understanding of cost distribution is essential for informed decision-making regarding CPIS implementation.

This study revealed an intriguing economic pattern. The per-acre cost of CPIS showed an exponential decrease, ranging from 1.5 million for 5 acres to 0.4 million for 45 acres. The percentage reduction in per-acre cost for 100-acre landholdings was approximately 1.2 percent. This underlines the system's feasibility for larger landholdings, particularly in the range of 100 to 250 acres. These findings provide a compelling economic rationale for the adoption of CPIS on more extensive agricultural landscapes. While our research primarily centered on the design and economic analysis of the Center Pivot Irrigation System, it also unveiled a broader imperative - the need for agricultural consultancy services. These services are indispensable for bridging the gap between technological advancement, such as CPIS, and its practical implementation in the field. The significance of this service-oriented approach cannot be overstated, as it ensures that farmers can effectively integrate CPIS into their agricultural operations. The ultimate success of CPIS hinges on the ability to provide guidance and support to local farmers, making technology a seamless and effective part of their farming practices.

Furthermore, our study advocates for the encouragement of local manufacturing of CPIS components. This strategy not only has the potential to reduce capital, repair, and manufacturing costs but also aligns with the broader goal of self-reliance. By producing CPIS equipment locally, the country can contribute to the development of a sustainable and cost-effective irrigation infrastructure, supporting both the agriculture sector and the economy. The concept of corporate farming also emerges as a promising avenue to facilitate the adoption of towable CPIS systems. By pooling resources and expertise, corporate farming endeavors can offer economies of scale, making CPIS investment more attainable to a broader spectrum of the farming community. This innovative approach presents an opportunity for shared resources and expertise, potentially revolutionizing irrigation practices in the agricultural sector.

In our holistic vision for the future of irrigation, local manufacturing is not limited to the CPIS structure alone. It extends to various CPIS components such as sprinklers, pressure regulators, and hydraulic systems. Research and development in this area can un-lock further cost reductions, enhancing the affordability and accessibility of CPIS for local farmers. In conclusion, the findings of this study offer profound insights into the economic dynamics of CPIS and provide essential guidance for its practical application in diverse agricultural contexts. The optimization of design and the identification of cost-effective approaches serve as catalysts for improved agricultural productivity.

This research also underscores a broader imperative - the integration of technology with on-the-ground support through agricultural consultancy services. Moreover, encouraging local manufacturing, exploring corporate farming, and fostering the development of CPIS components locally are strategies with immense potential. They can revolutionize irrigation practices, make technology more accessible, and contribute to the economic development of the region. In unison, this holistic approach can pave the way for a new era of agriculture, where efficiency, sustainability, and productivity harmonize to support the well-being of farming communities and the nation as a whole.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although an effort has been made to revise this manuscript, it is still not suitable for publication

1- In line 413, I do not find an explanation for placing reference 38 behind “Input hydraulic parameters are shown in Table 1.” Does this indicate that the results shown in Table 1 are due to this reference or what?

The manuscript still contains many essential spelling errors that have not been properly revised. The manuscript must be reviewed with native English speakers.

   The discussion section still has obvious limitations and authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and working hypotheses. The results and their implications should be discussed in the broadest possible context. It can also shed light on future research directions, as the part that was added to the manuscript contains many spelling errors as well.

Conclusion: It is more like an article with unjustified repetition that should contain the most important findings of this study

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Intensive review of the English language with native speakers is required

Author Response

Journal:                       Sustainability

Manuscript ID:            sustainability-2665630

Title of Paper:     Sustainable Water Management for Small Farmers with Center Pivot Irrigation: A Hydraulic and Structural Design Perspective

Authors:               Muhammad Rashid, Saif Haider, Muhammad Umer Masood, Chaitanya B. Pande, Abebe Debele Tolche, Fahad Alshehri, Romulus Costache, Ismail Elkhrachy

Date Sent:         

 

We are very thankful to the editor, associate editor and reviewers for their deep and thorough review. We have revised our manuscript in the light of their useful comments/suggestions. The changes made in the revised manuscript has been track changed. Number wise answers to reviewer’s comments/suggestions/queries are given below.

 

Response to the comments of Reviewer 1#

 

Q1. In line 413, I do not find an explanation for placing reference 38 behind “Input hydraulic parameters are shown in Table 1.” Does this indicate that the results shown in Table 1 are due to this reference or what?

Ans. Thank you for your observation. It appears there was a misunderstanding in its positioning. The reference was inadvertently placed behind the statement 'Input hydraulic parameters are shown in Table 1,' implying a link between the reference and the data in Table 1. However, I'd like to clarify that reference 38 was not intended to correspond to the results presented in Table 1. The results displayed in Table 1 are solely derived from our own study and are not attributed to reference 38. The placement of the reference was a mistake, and it does not directly relate to the contents of Table 1. Hopefully this will answer this comment.

Q2. The manuscript still contains many essential spelling errors that have not been properly revised. The manuscript must be reviewed with native English speakers.

Ans.  Thank you for your feedback. I want to assure you that we've diligently revised the manuscript, involving native English speakers in the review process. We've taken considerable care to address and rectify any spelling errors or linguistic issues to ensure the accuracy and clarity of the content. Hopefully this will address your concern.

Q3. The discussion section still has obvious limitations and authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and working hypotheses. The results and their implications should be discussed in the broadest possible context. It can also shed light on future research directions, as the part that was added to the manuscript contains many spelling errors as well.

Ans. Thank you for your thorough feedback. We made sure to incorporate an analysis of the results in the context of previous studies and working hypotheses. Our aim was to elucidate the implications of these findings within a broader framework, addressing their significance and potential impact. Additionally, we've meticulously revised the recently added portion, addressing any spelling errors or linguistic inconsistencies to enhance the clarity and readability of the content. We believe this revision has significantly improved the discussion's quality and coherence. If you have any specific areas or aspects you feel require further attention or if there are particular points that you think should be expanded upon, we'd greatly value your insights to ensure that the discussion comprehensively covers all relevant perspectives and future research directions. Hopefully this will satisfy the requirement.

Q4. Conclusion: It is more like an article with unjustified repetition that should contain the most important findings of this study

Ans. Thank you for your comment. We've revisited this part of the manuscript with careful consideration. Our aim was to refine and condense the conclusion to focus on presenting the most significant findings of this study. We've made substantial revisions to eliminate any unjustified repetition and have ensured that the conclusion now encapsulates the key outcomes and insights garnered from our research. By streamlining the content, we aimed to emphasize the pivotal aspects of this study without unnecessary redundancy. Hopefully this will answer this comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept

Author Response

 

Journal:                       Sustainability

Manuscript ID:            sustainability-2665630

Title of Paper:      Sustainable Water Management for Small Farmers with Center Pivot Irrigation: A Hydraulic and Structural Design Perspective

Authors:               Muhammad Rashid, Saif Haider, Muhammad Umer Masood, Chaitanya B. Pande, Abebe Debele Tolche, Fahad Alshehri, Romulus Costache, Ismail Elkhrachy

Date Sent:       

 

We are very thankful to the editor, associate editor and reviewers for their deep and thorough review. We have revised our manuscript in the light of their useful comments/suggestions. The changes made in the revised manuscript has been track changed. Number wise answers to reviewer’s comments/suggestions/queries are given below.

Response to the comments of Reviewer 2#

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

Thank you for your feedback. I want to assure you that we've diligently revised the manuscript, involving native English speakers in the review process. We've taken considerable care to address and rectify any spelling errors or linguistic issues to ensure the accuracy and clarity of the content. Hopefully this will address your concern.

 

 

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for making a great effort to revise this manuscript

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor Editing of English