Manuscript outline

[sumanager56]

• [ ] Outline for the manuscript to follow through

[sumanager56]

Outline:

1. Introduction: Soil moisture parameters like FC importance in irrigation management (one paragraph), Previous methods used for irrigation management (one paragraph), Hydrological signatures concept applied to soil moisture plus gap (one paragraph), Novelty plus Objectives (1 paragraph)
2. Material and Methods: 2.1. Study Site 2.2. Experimental design and data collection 2.3. Determination of reference PWP and FC (how do we determine the "true" field capacity and wilting point values for different sensors and depths? Combination of visual inspection and laboratory analysis. 2.4. Soil moisture signature extraction Table.1: Summary of signature extraction methods assessed in this study 2.4.1 Method 1: Density plots (describe in full) Figure 1. Schematic diagram demonstrating density analysis to represent the soil hydrologic parameters from (left) Chandler (2017) and (right) this study 2.4.2 Method 2: Hysteresis (describe in full) Figure 2. Schematic diagram demonstrating hysteresis analysis to represent the soil hydrologic parameters from (left) Chandler (2017) and (right) this study 2.4.3 Method 3: Event-based signatures (I think this is what we should call the heads/tails) Figure 3. Diagram overview of event-based approach to identify different event using head-tail classification algorithm 2.5. Signature evaluation criteria: Two questions: 1) does the method correctly identify instances where FC and PWP occur in times series (e.g., does it identify an FC value for a sensor that exhibited FC behavior), and 2) when it does identify an FC value, is the numerical value (or range) consistent with the reference value?
3. Results: 3.1. Density plot – Figure 4. Example plots of density analyses of Θ data from soil sensors at multiple depths and probe locations 3.2. Hysteresis analysis – Figure 5. Example plots of hysteresis analyses of Θ data using a range of depth and probe combinations. Deeper sensors Θ data are shown on the y-axis to maintain a counter-clockwise hysteresis for all plots. Red colored markers indicate the points of the maximum frequency corresponding to FC and PWP, respectively 3.3. Head/tail breaks algorithm – 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 for 2020 and 2021 (format below in a different comment section) Figure 6. Representative plots of the event-based method to demonstrate different events and identify the FC and PWP values Figure 7. Example plots showing potential issues associated with the classification of different events (plots - A, B, C) and identification of the FC and PWP estimates (plots - D, E, F) using the event-based method Figure 8. Time series plot of Θ data for representative depths and probe sites along with the parameter estimates determined by event-based approach and time series analyses. Estimated FC and PWP values are indicated by blue and red lines, respectively, identified using time series (bold) and event-based (dashed) method Table.3: 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 Figure 9 (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 3.4. Signature Evaluation Results Figure 10. 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 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(format attached below in a different comment section)
4. Discussion: 4.1. Application of previously developed signatures in agricultural soils 4.2. Reliability of head/tail classification technique for irrigation scheduling in agricultural soils 4.3. Limitations and areas for further research
5. Conclusion:

[julieshortridge]

Timeline for manuscript completion:

• March
  • Determine reference FC and PWP values based on lab samples and visual inspection of VWC time series. Need to see how much these two processes agree with each other
  • Create summary tables of classification accuracy and FC/PWP values for density plots (attractor values? What is the term used in prior studies?) and hysteresis
  • Event-based signatures: process for identifying lower bound on plant available water (PWP, or another option would be the point where ET starts to become water limited)
  • Writing: methods
• April
  • Figures and descriptive text showing example issues for density and hysteresis methods
  • Tables showing classification accuracy and relative error for different methods
  • Writing: Introduction
• May
  • Writing: results
  • Writing: discussion
  • Writing: conclusions
• June: final review and submittal

[sumanager56]

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

[julieshortridge]

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.

[sumanager56]

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.

Figures

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

Tables

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