Next Article in Journal
Effects of Infiltration Amounts on Preferential Flow Characteristics and Solute Transport in the Protection Forest Soil of Southwestern China
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring Mediating Factors between Agricultural Training and Farmers’ Adoption of Drip Fertigation System: Evidence from Banana Farmers in China
Previous Article in Journal
Relationship between Upstream Swimming Behaviors of Juvenile Grass Carp and Characteristic Hydraulic Conditions of a Vertical Slot Fishway
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Supplement Irrigation and Nitrogen Application Levels on Soil Carbon–Nitrogen Content and Yield of One-Year Double Cropping Maize in Subtropical Region
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Evaluation of Subsurface Drip Irrigation Designs in a Soil Profile with a Capillary Barrier

Water 2021, 13(9), 1300; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091300
by Koichi Noguchi 1,2, Hirotaka Saito 1,*, Reskiana Saefuddin 1,3 and Jiří Šimůnek 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2021, 13(9), 1300; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091300
Submission received: 5 April 2021 / Revised: 27 April 2021 / Accepted: 29 April 2021 / Published: 6 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Development and Application of Subsurface Irrigation Techniques)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study investigated the performance of the subsurface drip irrigation in a soil profile with a capillary barriers. A pot experiment was carried out to obtain the soil moisutre data, which was then used to calibrate the HYDRUS model for numerical analysis. The topic is interesting to general research readers. There are some major concerns about the  model setup and the model calibration needed to be impoved before publication.

(1) since I did not find any plant in the experiment pot as shown in Fig. 1, why did the author calculate the root uptake as mentioned in section 2.3.1?

(2) Did the author consider the evapotraspiraton in the upper boundary? How did you set the ET rate?

(3) In fig. 4, there was a large deviation between the simulated and observed results in S6, it seems that the model calibration part should be improved to increase accuracy.

(4) In line 348-351, the author mentioned that CB depth and the ring-shaped emitter depth influenced the amout of water lost by evaporation. Please provide more details and data about it and explain the reason.

(5) Please provide the 2-d soil water distribution profiles simulated by the model under differnt scenarios for clearly understand the water dynamics with a CB under SDI.

(6) The conclusion part should be added.

Author Response

Please kindly see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Kindly, see the document attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please kindly see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop