The present work details accounting for human activities i.e irrigation withdrawals and (maybe) dam releases in a hydrological model (SWAT+). It further compares two model set ups with two different crop phenological growth approaches i.e default approach using the heat units and another approach utilizing NDVI from remote sensing. The paper is well written and the diverse aspects crop representation, irrigation withdrawals, calibration approaches as well as, the adopted model setups are well explained and justified. Some limitations are also well recognized. To enhance the paper's significance and potential for inspiring future modeling efforts, it would benefit from providing additional information on the following points:

1. Utilizing NDVI as a proxy for phenological development is a commendable approach, and it has been employed in previous studies as well as the Leaf Area Index from remote sensing (Ma et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2023). However, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations associated with this method in the manuscript. For instance, it is important to note that NDVI may not be able to distinguish between different crops within the same field in cases of mixed cropping. Additionally, it can be challenging to differentiate between crops and other types of vegetation, such as shrubs. Consequently, while NDVI may be effective in agricultural catchments with predominantly single crops, its effectiveness might be limited in mixed or intercropping fields. Further elaboration and information regarding these limitations would be beneficial.
2. The authors' preference for utilizing NDVI to derive phenology raises a question regarding the presence of cropping calendars from PKGC, as indicated in the "plant phenology" section. Nkwasa et al. (2022) have emphasized the recommendation of using crop calendars, which include plant and harvest dates. By using crop calendars, the authors show that the model can properly simulate the LAI in comparison to remote sensing LAI. It would be beneficial to have a discussion regarding the relative strengths of remote sensing over crop calendars. This discussion could highlight the advantages of remote sensing in situations where crop calendars are not available or feasible to use.
3. Given the focus of this study on crop modeling, it would have been valuable to assess the model's performance in terms of crop yields. It raises the question of whether the two different implementations, utilizing the default approach with heat units versus the approach incorporating NDVI from remote sensing, would have a significant impact on crop yield estimates. This would enhance the understanding of their potential implications on agricultural assessments.
4. There is a lack of information regarding the representation of the two dams in the study. It is important to clarify whether this was achieved through the use of decision tables. If decision tables were employed, it would be beneficial to provide further elaboration, possibly in the supplementary material, to enhance the understanding of the dam representation method. Furthermore, it is crucial to elaborate how water was abstracted from the rivers in the model. Did this process involve the utilization of irrigation decision tables or water transfer tables? This information holds value for the scientific community, particularly in terms of reproducibility and ensuring the ability to replicate the study's methodology.

Editing and language comments

Line 4: Do you mean “Two different crop models” or “Two different model setups of SWAT+”?

Line 5: Which high resolution data from Sentinel-2?

Line 18: “accounts”

Line 20: “on spatial extents”

Line 23: “scenarios” – check through text.

Line 27: “forecasts”

Line 27: Are the names of the software and links to the software necessary here? Please, reference properly.

Line 31: “users of the SWAT”

Line 39: “crop dynamics”

Line 44: “data have been”

Line 45: “and have bloomed”

Line 67: “decision rules with remote sensing”

Line 82: “irrigation has”

Line 86: What Sentinel-2 data is used? Please clarify and rephrase sentence.

Line 356: “summer crops”

Line 399: What is an “unusual accuracy?”

Line 115: ……..high resolution remote sensing data of what? Please clarify on this and make clear through out text.

Line 119: What gap filled time series were created? Please clarify.

Line 120: How long was the discharge data timeseries?

Line 150: Please clarify on what you mean by “true crop rotation”? Was this seasonal or annual? And what was the crop rotation (At least add this information to SI)? Also, this could be misleading I that it’s interpreted as you are feeding the model with the actual plant and harvest dates for the different crops in the right rotations. Maybe clarify on this.

References

Chen, S., Fu, Y.H., Wu, Z., Hao, F., Hao, Z., Guo, Y., Geng, X., Li, X., Zhang, Xuan, Tang, J., Singh, V.P., Zhang, Xuesong, 2023. Informing the SWAT model with remote sensing detected vegetation phenology for improved modeling of ecohydrological processes. J. Hydrol. 616, 128817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128817

Ma, T., Duan, Z., Li, R., Song, X., 2019. Enhancing SWAT with remotely sensed LAI for improved modelling of ecohydrological process in subtropics. J. Hydrol. 570, 802–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.01.024

Nkwasa, A., Chawanda, C.J., Jägermeyr, J., van Griensven, A., 2022. Improved representation of agricultural land use and crop management for large-scale hydrological impact simulation in Africa using SWAT+. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 26, 71–89. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-71-2022

Review of

How to account for irrigation withdrawals in a watershed model

by Brochet et al.

General comments:

This is an interesting modeling study performed in a context where many in situ observations are available (dam releases, river discharge, irrigation withdrawals, crop emergence dates). Two river discharge models including a representation of crop growth and irrigation are intercompared over a small watershed in southern France. One of the model is driven by satellite NDVI data. The paper is reasonably well written but I think a separate Discussion section should be added. The Table and Figure captions are often incomplete. Code availability is mentioned but nothing is said about in situ and satellite data availability. Are the various datasets used in this study available? Where?

Recommendation: minor revisions.

Particular comments:

- L. 42: A few more details should be given. For example, can emergence dates be determined from space?

- L. 97: Unclear. Looks like you mean "winter sunflower". I would suggest adding another sentence explaining which crop is sown in winter.

- L. 161: frpHU is undefined. Is this variable related to the growing degree-day concept?

- L. 173: I suggest replacing "Hnet" by "Rn".

- L. 174: wrong units. Replace kg m3 by kg m-3.

- L. 179: Is Zr constant in time? If not, what are the drivers of Zr?

- L. 187: What is the difference between ET0 and PET?

- L. 218: Are these parameters those listed in Table 3? Should be written here.

- L. 241: Caption of Fig. 2 is not complete. What are the boxplot percentile limits? What is the meaning of dots? Why plotting a "relative change" for Ksat and Cn2? Why not using a logarithmic scale for example?

- L. 242: 6 mm/year of change in storage. Does this mean that the soil is continuously storing more water?

- L. 249-251: description of BFI should be made in Section 2. Not here.

- L. 260: This should be indicated in the caption of Table 5.

- L. 261-264: the Moriasi classification should be described in Section 2. Not here.

- L. 270-274: move to a Discussion section.

- L. 289: why "-1"?

- L. 290-299: move to a Discussion section.

- L. 304-307: move to a Discussion section.

- L. 312: Figure caption is not complete. I can see 5 lines in these Figures: black, orange, light-orange, blue, light-blue. Only 3 are defined in the Figures, none in the Figure caption. I would replace "water meters" by "observations".

- L. 321-322: Is SWAT-O more realistic than SWAT-NDVI for this time period?

- L. 323: Start a new section 4 (Discussion) here. End section 3 here.

Editorial comments:

- L. 18: accounts

- L. 20: extent

- L. 22: extent

- L. 44: have been

- L. 56: soil water balance calculation

- L. 81: take into account agricultural practices

- L. 94: the average yearly precipitation amount

- L. 103: delete the end of the sentence (unclear),

- L. 109: French

- L. 166: when all the conditions

- L. 220: allowed

- L. 222: delete “indeed”

- L. 246: sensitive

- L. 295: lead

- L. 328: Figure 6 compares

- L. 348: 7-Up?

- L. 376: approach.