- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 on “The Impact of Expanding Flooded Land Area on the Annual Evaporation of Rice”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 217 (2016) 282
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 2 on “The Impact of Expanding Flooded Land Area on the Annual Evaporation of Rice”
Original submission Recommendation Minor Revision. Comments to author General comments: In this paper, the authors analyze a decreasing trend of annual evapotranspiration they found in their 6-year observation in rice fields in California, USA, and conclude that the trend was caused by the weakened oasis effect by the expansion of flooded rice fields. Their hypothesis is unique, the process they explore the hypothesis from various aspects is interesting, and the conclusion provides a new insight into evaporation from restricted flooded area. My only concern is that inter-annual variations in surface energy balance closure shown in Table 2. As discussed by the authors (L505-515), the magnitude of the decrease in evaporation over the study period would be smaller and the decreasing trend would be not clear if the similar energy balance closure between years is assumed. Inter-annual variations in surface energy balance closure should be investigated further. Can the similar inter-annual variations be found even if the data is confined into the heart of growing season? What was the cause of year-to-year variations of energy balance closure? Specific comments: 1) L102 (also L535). The paper reports ET from a rice field in Bangladesh, not in India. 2) L169-173. More detailed and accurate information on flooding is desired. “The field was flooded throughout the growing season” may be inconsistent with description in L307. “The paddy was flooded each winter”, but it is not clear which months the paddy was flooded.
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.04.001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.101 0168-1923/
3) L224-232. Why did you use daily values to discuss surface energy balance closure? 4) L330-339 and Table 3. To discuss inter-annual variations in evapotranspiration, it is better to show not only annual climate conditions but also climate conditions in the heart of growing season separately. 5) L458-460. The unit of mean vapor pressure deficit is incorrect. 6) L489-502. Smaller lE/lEeq in the last few years of the study may have been influenced by larger surface energy imbalance. First revision Recommendation Minor Revision. Comments to the author The replies to the reviewers’ comments and the revised manuscript are generally satisfactory, but I would like to add a few more minor comments as below. 1) L94. Please check the reference (L624). You may refer to another paper in the same journal. 2) L192-195. This description is too detailed and is not necessarily included in the manuscript. But if you retain this, please add a reference. 3) L493-495. I agree, but please add how to measure water temperature. The depth of water was generally between 0.10 and 0.20 m (L175), but didn’t you find year-to-year variations in the depth of water, which may have affected the differences in energy balance and E between the years? Anonymous Available online 1 December 2016
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 2 on “The Impact of Expanding Flooded Land Area on the Annual Evaporation of Rice”
Original submission Recommendation Minor Revision. Comments to author General comments: In this paper, the authors analyze a decreasing trend of annual evapotranspiration they found in their 6-year observation in rice fields in California, USA, and conclude that the trend was caused by the weakened oasis effect by the expansion of flooded rice fields. Their hypothesis is unique, the process they explore the hypothesis from various aspects is interesting, and the conclusion provides a new insight into evaporation from restricted flooded area. My only concern is that inter-annual variations in surface energy balance closure shown in Table 2. As discussed by the authors (L505-515), the magnitude of the decrease in evaporation over the study period would be smaller and the decreasing trend would be not clear if the similar energy balance closure between years is assumed. Inter-annual variations in surface energy balance closure should be investigated further. Can the similar inter-annual variations be found even if the data is confined into the heart of growing season? What was the cause of year-to-year variations of energy balance closure? Specific comments: 1) L102 (also L535). The paper reports ET from a rice field in Bangladesh, not in India. 2) L169-173. More detailed and accurate information on flooding is desired. “The field was flooded throughout the growing season” may be inconsistent with description in L307. “The paddy was flooded each winter”, but it is not clear which months the paddy was flooded.
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.04.001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.101 0168-1923/
3) L224-232. Why did you use daily values to discuss surface energy balance closure? 4) L330-339 and Table 3. To discuss inter-annual variations in evapotranspiration, it is better to show not only annual climate conditions but also climate conditions in the heart of growing season separately. 5) L458-460. The unit of mean vapor pressure deficit is incorrect. 6) L489-502. Smaller lE/lEeq in the last few years of the study may have been influenced by larger surface energy imbalance. First revision Recommendation Minor Revision. Comments to the author The replies to the reviewers’ comments and the revised manuscript are generally satisfactory, but I would like to add a few more minor comments as below. 1) L94. Please check the reference (L624). You may refer to another paper in the same journal. 2) L192-195. This description is too detailed and is not necessarily included in the manuscript. But if you retain this, please add a reference. 3) L493-495. I agree, but please add how to measure water temperature. The depth of water was generally between 0.10 and 0.20 m (L175), but didn’t you find year-to-year variations in the depth of water, which may have affected the differences in energy balance and E between the years? Anonymous Available online 1 December 2016