Scheduling Regulated Deficit Irrigation with Leaf Water Potential of Cherry Tomato in Greenhouse and its Effect on Fruit Quality
, Hanán Issa-Issa 1,†, Alfonso Moriana 2,3, Noemí Medina Zurita 2, Alejandro Galindo 2,3, María José Martín-Palomo 2,3, Luis Andreu 2,3, Ángel A. Carbonell-Barrachina 1, Francisca Hernández 4 and Mireia Corell 2,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Check the lines: 82 and 110
On Table 2 shows the letters that describe significant differences at week 2
In the section of conclusions indicate that there has been a saving of 53% of water, to support this conclusion should be presented the total water provided throughout the experiment
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments.
We think that thanks to this the manuscript has improved considerably.
We answer each of them in detail
- Check the lines: 82 and 110 ??
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see line 112-120.
- On Table 2 shows the letters that describe significant differences at week 2
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see Table 2.
- In the section of conclusions indicate that there has been a saving of 53% of water, to support this conclusion should be presented the total water provided throughout the experiment.
Answer: Total amount of water applied in the same as week 6 harvest. Please, see material and methods.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript I reviewed made a very good impression on me. The research topic contributes significantly to the development of knowledge about water-saving irrigation treatments of crops, which significantly supports the progress of precise agriculture.
Nevertheless, I have a number of comments regarding the preparation of this manuscript:
1. First of all, the manuscript is very poorly adapted to the current TEMPLATE!
2. Abstract - clarify the TSS abbreviation; the abstract must be clear and legible without having to look at the text.
3. Introduction - I believe that it should be further developed by enriching it and citing a few additional publications (similarly in the Discussion). The authors base their review of the existing knowledge only on the basis of 7 publications! There are only 6 new publications in the Discussion! I believe that the world literature should be once again examined in the scope of the topics covered in the manuscript.
4. Materials and Methods - some methods are too detailed. Consideration should be given to shortening it, especially where the publication in which this method is characterized is cited.
5. The abbreviations should be explained when first used: L. 93 RDC (no explanation); L. 97 Etc and ETo (no explanation); L. 153-154 why AA and TPC are repeated twice.
6. Results and Discussion - the abbreviations used in the Tables and Figures should be explained either in the title of the table /figure or in the footer, as tables and figures must be understandable without having to look at the text.
7. The type of font used in all Figures should be the same.
8. The "Palatino Linotype" font should be used in the Tables.
9. The lines in the tables are too thick.
10. The text in bold unnecessary appears in the text, e.g. L. 88, L. 97, L. 101, L. 232, etc.
Despite my numerous comments, the work is valuable and after making the changes I suggest and carefully adapting the manuscript to TEMPLATE.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments.
We think that thanks to this the manuscript has improved considerably.
We answer each of them in detail
The manuscript I reviewed made a very good impression on me. The research topic contributes significantly to the development of knowledge about water-saving irrigation treatments of crops, which significantly supports the progress of precise agriculture.
Thank you very much for these positive comments.
In detail
Nevertheless, I have a number of comments regarding the preparation of this manuscript:
- First of all, the manuscript is very poorly adapted to the current TEMPLATE!
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see all manuscript.
- Abstract - clarify the TSS abbreviation; the abstract must be clear and legible without having to look at the text.
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see line 29 - 30.
- Introduction - I believe that it should be further developed by enriching it and citing a few additional publications (similarly in the Discussion). The authors base their review of the existing knowledge only on the basis of 7 publications! There are only 6 new publications in the Discussion! I believe that the world literature should be once again examined in the scope of the topics covered in the manuscript.
Answer: The requested information has been added; please, see change in all introduction and discussion.
- Materials and Methods - some methods are too detailed. Consideration should be given to shortening it, especially where the publication in which this method is characterized is cited.
Answer:
Done, as suggested; please, see all section Materials and Methods
- The abbreviations should be explained when first used: L. 93 RDI (no explanation); L. 97 Etc and ETo (no explanation); L. 153-154 why AA and TPC are repeated twice.
Answer. Done, as suggested; please, see lines 125,128 and 188.
- Results and Discussion - the abbreviations used in the Tables and Figures should be explained either in the title of the table /figure or in the footer, as tables and figures must be understandable without having to look at the text.
Answer. Done, as suggested; please, see lines 296, 297 and 442.
- The type of font used in all Figures should be the same.
Answer. Done, as suggested, please, see the changes in all figures
The "Palatino Linotype" font should be used in the Tables.
Answer. Done, as suggested; please, see the changes in all tables.
The lines in the tables are too thick.
Answer. Done, as suggested; please, see the changes in all tables.
- The text in bold unnecessary appears in the text, e.g. L. 88, L. 97, L. 101, L. 232, etc.
Answer. Done, as suggested; please, see changes in all manuscript.
Despite my numerous comments, the work is valuable and after making the changes I suggest and carefully adapting the manuscript to TEMPLATE.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript titled “Scheduling regulated deficit irrigation with leaf water potential of cherry tomato in greenhouse and its effect on fruit quality” evaluating the effects of deficit irrigation on tomato growth. The irrigation strategy finally proposed by the authors do not significantly affect production, at the same time will save limited available water resources, as limited amount of water could apply at specific growth stages.
The paper is very much interesting and very much relevant to the scope of the present journal. Also, it is a nice work that it deserved to be published.
However, there are also some limitations. In order for the paper to improved, most of the comments need to be addressed. Especially the discussion section must be improved. Discuss your results and compared with others’ work.
For specific comments please look the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments.
We think that thanks to this the manuscript has improved considerably.
We answer each of them in detail
The manuscript titled “Scheduling regulated deficit irrigation with leaf water potential of cherry tomato in greenhouse and its effect on fruit quality” evaluating the effects of deficit irrigation on tomato growth. The irrigation strategy finally proposed by the authors do not significantly affect production, at the same time will save limited available water resources, as limited amount of water could apply at specific growth stages.
The paper is very much interesting and very much relevant to the scope of the present journal. Also, it is a nice work that it deserved to be published.
Thank you very much for these positive comments.
However, there are also some limitations. In order for the paper to improved, most of the comments need to be addressed. Especially the discussion section must be improved. Discuss your results and compared with others’ work.
For specific comments please look the attached file.
In detail
- Line 74. in comparison?
Answer. Done, as suggested; please see change in abstract.
- Lines 21-22. Rewrite better.
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see lines 19 – 23.
- Lines 27. Explained TSS.
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see lines 29 – 30.
- Lines 37 - 40. Rewrite, as two sentences.
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see lines 45 – 49.
Lines 74 – 76. Rephrase. Tomatoes are cultivated in open field and as a greenhouse crops. However, for achieving optimum climatic conditions for growth within greenhouses a lot of inputs required such as energy, water and fertilizers. The water requirements are not differed significantly with other crops such as cucumber.
In semi-arid regions there is a need for deficit irrigation in order to optimize the water productivity etc…
Answer: Thanks for the changes. Please, see lines 99 – 104
- Line 82. Please descript the greenhouse.
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see lines 112 – 114.
- Line 88. (Figure 1) belongs to the results section. In materials and methods, you have to descripted climatic equipment, and how to calculate VPD.
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see lines 118 – 120.
- Line 91. Liter per hour?
Answer: Done, included 4 l.h-1
- Lines 98 – 99. You should explained the model used.
Answer: The model is adapted to the type of greenhouse structures of southern Spain, and depending on the day of the year, external radiation and transmissivity of the plastic estimated ETo inside the greenhouse. We have included the original reference of the model (Bonachela et al 2006), in addition to the reference in which it is compared with traditional models (Fernández et al 2010). In the two references the reader can see the model.
- Line 106. According to ….
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see lines 138.
- Line 108. According to ….
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see lines 141.
- Line 111. According to ….
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see lines 143.
- Lines 224 – 229. Maybe the manuscript will benefit by adding a table with mean values of climatic data for daylight hours and removes the graphs.
Answer: It is possible that a table was clearer, the advantage of the graph is that it shows the daily variability. If you consider it essential, we change it. But the rest of the reviewers consider the graph adequate.
Lines 226 – 268. Explained the terms RDI, etc.... The same comment for all tables.
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see the changes in all tables.
- Lines 368 – 375. You have to compare your results with others' scientific work.
Answer: Done, as suggested; please, see the changes in all manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
