Open sumanager56 opened 1 year ago
Outline:
Timeline for manuscript completion:
Table.2-7: (Supplementary): FC and PWP values identified at different depths for (corn-non/corn-full/cotton-non/cotton-full/corn-precision/cotton-precision) using density, hysteresis, and event-based analyses There will be 6 tables - one for each probe (I was thinking if I should average out the precision irrigation plots from 2020 since there are 3 for each, corn and cotton)
Table.4: Classification accuracy and consistency of FC and PWP values estimated using density, hysteresis, and event-based analyses compared to the reference values for 2020 and 2021
Thanks Suman. For tables 2-7, these don't even necessarily need to be saved as supplementary material but might be better suited to a repository where all of the data and code from the project is housed. Examples: https://osf.io/5pqvx/?view_only=a9b67a7867eb411585897076bf36a433 https://github.com/laljeet/Agwat_Tidewater
Table 4 might be a little confusing all in one table. I would suggest breaking into two tables either by FC/PWP (eg, Table 4 is classification accuracy and estimation error for FC signatures, Table 5 is the same for PWP) or by classification/estimation errors (e.g., Table 4 is classification accuracy for FC and PWP signatures, and Table 5 is estimation error for FC and PWP). Whichever you think makes the most sense.
For the figures, it seems like Figures 1 and 2 might be redundant with figures 4 and 5. I am thinking you probably don't need all four of those, and maybe they make more sense in the results section rather than the methods. In general, you have a lot of figures aimed at showing example issues, representative examples, etc. (Figures 7 through 10, I think). I think that will probably be a little too much - while I don't think AWM has a hard length limitation, they're going to frown upon really long articles and eventually it starts to distract from your main points. Remember, you don't need to discuss every nuance or issue with your methods - focus on the main results and then maybe 1-2 "supporting" figures max. I'd aim for no more than 10 tables and figures total.
Also regarding this comment: There will be 6 tables - one for each probe (I was thinking if I should average out the precision irrigation plots from 2020 since there are 3 for each, corn and cotton). For the precision irrigation plots from 2020 where there are multiple plots, don't average them, just choose one and use it.
Thank you, Dr. Shortridge. Based on your suggestions, here's a list of tables and figures (in order) that I would aim to have in the manuscripts. Figure 6 below is to give an overall idea of the range of FC and PWP estimates based on different methods using a scatter plot - but I can exclude that if it starts to become too long and messy.
Figure 1. Diagram overview of the event-based approach to identify different events using a head-tail classification algorithm Figure 2. Time series plot of Θ data for representative depths and probe sites along with the parameter estimates determined by time series analyses. Estimated FC and PWP values are indicated by blue and red lines, respectively. Figure 3. Schematic diagram demonstrating density analysis to represent the soil hydrologic parameters from (left) Chandler (2017) and (right) this study Figure 4. Schematic diagram demonstrating hysteresis analysis to represent the soil hydrologic parameters from (left) Chandler (2017) and (right) this study Figure 5. Representative plots (A, B, C) of the event-based method to demonstrate different events and identify the FC and PWP values. Plot - D, E, and F shows potential issues associated with the classification of different events and identification of FC and PWP estimates Figure 6. Summary of FC and PWP estimates for representative soil depths and probe locations identified using density (triangle), hysteresis (diamond), and event-based (circle) analyses. Reference values by time-series analyses are shown as dashed lines for FC (blue) and PWP (red), respectively Supplementary - Soil moisture characteristics curve for non-irrigated corn developed using a calibrated SWAP model. Θ values corresponding to 10, 33, and 1500 kPa soil water tension values are identified to indicate reference FC and PWP and shown in grey dashed lines
Table.1: Summary of signature extraction methods assessed in this study Table.2: Comparison of FC and PWP values estimated using density, hysteresis, and event-based analyses to VWC values corresponding to standard soil water potential for non-irrigated corn plot Table.3: Classification accuracy and consistency of FC values estimated using density, hysteresis, and event-based analyses compared to the reference values for 2020 and 2021 Table.4: Classification accuracy and consistency of PWP values estimated using density, hysteresis, and event-based analyses compared to the reference values for 2020 and 2021 Repository - FC and PWP values identified at different depths for (corn-non/corn-full/cotton-non/cotton-full/corn-precision/cotton-precision) using density, hysteresis, and event-based analyses for 2020 and 2021