Articles | Volume 27, issue 5
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A comprehensive assessment of in situ and remote sensing soil moisture data assimilation in the APSIM model for improving agricultural forecasting across the US Midwest
- Final revised paper (published on 16 Mar 2023)
- Preprint (discussion started on 25 Oct 2022)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2022-342', Warrick Dawes, 03 Nov 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hamze Dokoohaki, 09 Jan 2023
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2022-342', Svitlana Kokhan, 29 Nov 2022
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hamze Dokoohaki, 09 Jan 2023
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (further review by editor) (24 Jan 2023) by Alexander Gruber
AR by Hamze Dokoohaki on behalf of the Authors (31 Jan 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
EF by Polina Shvedko (01 Feb 2023)
ED: Publish as is (06 Feb 2023) by Alexander Gruber
AR by Hamze Dokoohaki on behalf of the Authors (11 Feb 2023) Manuscript
hess-2022-342 “A comprehensive assessment of in situ and remote sensing soil moisture data assimilation in the APSIM model for improving agricultural forecasting across the U.S. Midwest” M.Kivi, N.Vergopolan, H.Dokoohaki
Kivi et al (2022) is cited 25 times in the text! While this work is distinctly different to that work, perhaps a single mention at the start of each section, rather than every second and third level sub-section, would be adequate (such as the existing introductory paragraph in each major section). As far as I can tell, and I am no expert in data assimilation techniques or applications, the work presented is solid and thoroughly describes the proper use of the techniques. The authors honestly presented when the technique improved certain predictions, when it made little difference, and when the model performance degraded. While I can see why the extension was required in Figure 4b, as it’s only 3 of the results and the big picture is shown well with the box-and-whiskers, the extension can be placed in the Appendices and mentioned in the text as with free-model results.
Was the “free run” calibrated against any data, or was it just an ensemble of model runs with the parameters randomly assigned from prior distributions? Were they a single run with an arbitrary (or literature) set of values assigned to parameters? How do the modelled results compare to the “final” set of parameters after the full SDA? I did not get the appendices so don’t know if this is covered.
There are a number of questions that the work raises, that may be answered here (or later maybe).
The References and citations need a lot of purely technical corrections.