Effects of Irrigation Strategy and Plastic Film Mulching on Soil N2O Emissions and Fruit Yields of Greenhouse Tomato
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Tomato is one of the four most widely grown and consumed vegetables worldwide. It is mostly grown in greenhouses.
This manuscript deals with the effects of different irrigation strategies and plastic film mulching combinations on N2O emissions and tomato fruit yields in greenhouse.
This fact basically affects the different cultivation strategies, so in this way it has significant importance.
The experiment is very diverse, it basically analyses two irrigation methods in a lot of points of view.
This is a great value of the manuscript.The introduction points out the problem clearly. The research design is appropriate, the methods are described in details.
However, it is recommended to make this section simpler and more readable for potential interested practitioners.
The results are clear and understandable, the conclusions are supported by the results.This is basically an engineering experiment, it is expected to arouse the greatest interest among practitioners.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for giving us a chance to revise the paper and also for providing constructive suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. Here, we submit a new version of our manuscript that has been modified according to the reviewers’ suggestions. Efforts were also made to correct the mistakes and improve the English of the manuscript. All changes are shown as markups in an attached word file. Thank you! I appreciate your help!
We hope these changes will make the manuscript more acceptable for publication.
Sincerely yours
Yuan li
Point 1: Tomato is one of the four most widely grown and consumed vegetables worldwide. It is mostly grown in greenhouses. This manuscript deals with the effects of different irrigation strategies and plastic film mulching combinations on N2O emissions and tomato fruit yields in greenhouse. This fact basically affects the different cultivation strategies, so in this way it has significant importance. The experiment is very diverse, it basically analyses two irrigation methods in a lot of points of view. This is a great value of the manuscript.The introduction points out the problem clearly. The research design is appropriate, the methods are described in details. However, it is recommended to make this section simpler and more readable for potential interested practitioners. The results are clear and understandable, the conclusions are supported by the results.This is basically an engineering experiment, it is expected to arouse the greatest interest among practitioners.
Response 1: Thanks for your advice. According to your requirements, we added the following: The MSPF treatment is appropriate for configuring commercially available installation and operation.
In addition, Conclusions (4) was changed to: (4) Both the MSPF and the DIPF treatments can improve tomato fruit yield in greenhouses. MSPF is can be used to configure commercially available installation and operation. The comprehensive benefit of MSPF treatment is more profitable than that of DIPF.
Thank you! I appreciate your help!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I am not familiar with the term "district" as used in the following sentence:
Seventeen 88 tomato seedlings per plot were planted in double rows, with a row spacing of 50 cm, a 89 plant spacing of 40 cm, and a length of 3.4 m in each district.
I would recommend changing it as follows "... and row lengths of 3.4 m each."
The term "district" is used numerous times. Please see how it can be changed to make clear what it is. Or explain clearly what a district is the first time it is use. Then it can stay.
In relation to Figure 6 - the following is said:
"PF mulching significantly increased N2O emissions, whereas the N2O emission rate reached a maximum under the MSPF treatment and a minimum under the MSI treatment.
This is however not in agreement what is shown in figure 6 - The maximum is reached under DIPF in figure 6.
In line with this, also have a look at :
"The average N2O emission rate during spring and autumn decreased by 4.50% and 4.43%, respectively, under the DIPF treatment compared with the MSPF treatment but increased by 24.31% and 22.99%, respectively, compared with the MSI treatment."
and make sure it is correctly stated. The sentence can also be broken into shorter sections as it is not clear if it is MSPF that is compared to MSI or if DIPF is compared to MSI in the last section of the sentence.
Figure 8 - it is stated "The community abundance of unclassified_p__Proteobacteria in the DIPF treatment was lower than that in the MSPF and MSI treatments."
But in Fig 8C and 8D the purple bar for DIPF is in both cases longer than for MSPF and MSI, thus the sentence should read "The community abundance of unclassified_p__Proteobacteria in the DIPF treatment was higher than that in the MSPF and MSI treatments."? Please check
Also not mentioned in relation to Fig 8 C and D is that the abundance of species were higher in spring than autumn and that it was always DIPF that had the higher species abundance.
For Fig 9's wording of "Under the PC1 condition, the effects of the DIPF and MSI treatments were similar, whereas the effects of the MSPF treatment were significantly different from those of the other treatments." Rather say
"Under the PC1 condition in spring, the effects of the DIPF and MSI treatments were similar, whereas the effects of the MSPF treatment were significantly different from those of the other treatments."
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for giving us a chance to revise the paper and also for providing constructive suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. Here, we submit a new version of our manuscript that has been modified according to the reviewers’ suggestions. Efforts were also made to correct the mistakes and improve the English of the manuscript. All changes are shown as markups in an attached word file. Thank you! I appreciate your help!
We hope these changes will make the manuscript more acceptable for publication.
Sincerely yours
Yuan li
Point 1: I am not familiar with the term "district" as used in the following sentence:Seventeen tomato seedlings per plot were planted in double rows, with a row spacing of 50 cm, a plant spacing of 40 cm, and a length of 3.4 m in each district. I would recommend changing it as follows "... and row lengths of 3.4 m each." The term "district" is used numerous times. Please see how it can be changed to make clear what it is. Or explain clearly what a district is the first time it is use. Then it can stay.
Response 1: Thanks for your advice. This was changed to: Seventeen tomato seedlings per plot were planted in double rows, with a row spacing of 50 cm, a plant spacing of 40 cm, and row lengths of 3.4 m each plot.
In addition, the sentence “Three monitoring points were selected in each district” was changed to: Three monitoring points were selected in each plot.
Point 2: In relation to Figure 6 - the following is said: "PF mulching significantly increased N2O emissions, whereas the N2O emission rate reached a maximum under the MSPF treatment and a minimum under the MSI treatment". This is however not in agreement what is shown in figure 6 - The maximum is reached under DIPF in figure 6.
Response 2: We are very sorry for our mistakes. This was changed to: PF mulching significantly increased N2O emissions, whereas the N2O emission rate reached a maximum under the DIPF treatment and a minimum under the MSI treatment.
Point 3: In line with this, also have a look at : "The average N2O emission rate during spring and autumn decreased by 4.50% and 4.43%, respectively, under the DIPF treatment compared with the MSPF treatment but increased by 24.31% and 22.99%, respectively, compared with the MSI treatment." and make sure it is correctly stated. The sentence can also be broken into shorter sections as it is not clear if it is MSPF that is compared to MSI or if DIPF is compared to MSI in the last section of the sentence.
Response 3: Thanks for your advice. This was changed to: During the spring growing season, the average N2O emission rate decreased by 4.50% under the MSPF treatment compared with the DIPF treatment, but increased by 24.31% compared with the MSI treatment. During the autumn growing season, the average N2O emission rate decreased by 4.43% under the MSPF treatment compared with the DIPF treatment, but increased by 22.99% compared with the MSI treatment.
Point 4: Figure 8 - it is stated "The community abundance of unclassified_p__Proteobacteria in the DIPF treatment was lower than that in the MSPF and MSI treatments." But in Fig 8C and 8D the purple bar for DIPF is in both cases longer than for MSPF and MSI, thus the sentence should read "The community abundance of unclassified_p__Proteobacteria in the DIPF treatment was higher than that in the MSPF and MSI treatments."? Please check
Response 4: We are very sorry for our mistakes. This was changed to: The community abundance of unclassified_p__Proteobacteria in the DIPF treatment was higher than that in the MSPF and MSI treatments.
Point 5: Also not mentioned in relation to Fig 8 C and D is that the abundance of species were higher in spring than autumn and that it was always DIPF that had the higher species abundance.
Response 5: Good comments. Your suggestion is very good. We added the sentence: In addition, the abundance of species were higher in spring than autumn and that it was always DIPF that had the higher species abundance (Figure 8 C and Figure 8 D).
Point 6: For Fig 9's wording of "Under the PC1 condition, the effects of the DIPF and MSI treatments were similar, whereas the effects of the MSPF treatment were significantly different from those of the other treatments." Rather say "Under the PC1 condition in spring, the effects of the DIPF and MSI treatments were similar, whereas the effects of the MSPF treatment were significantly different from those of the other treatments."
Response 6: This was changed to: Under the PC1 condition in spring, the effects of the DIPF and MSI treatments were similar, whereas the effects of the MSPF treatment were significantly different from those of the other treatments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Respected Sir,
Thanks for considering me to review the manuscript titled “
Effects of irrigation strategy and plastic film mulching on soil N2O emissions and fruit yields of greenhouse tomato
The paper is well written and presented in an excellent form. As study has some novelty, so it should be improved and published. Overall, the MS must be revised to avoid the typos mistakes.
Discussion: Results should be justified accordingly with some latest references and modern style. Overall the manuscript should be improved with some latest references.
Conclusion: Is well written but it need to be more focus on the practical results of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for giving us a chance to revise the paper and also for providing constructive suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. Here, we submit a new version of our manuscript that has been modified according to the reviewers’ suggestions. Efforts were also made to correct the mistakes and improve the English of the manuscript. All changes are shown as markups in an attached word file. Thank you! I appreciate your help!
We hope these changes will make the manuscript more acceptable for publication.
Sincerely yours
Yuan li
Point 1: Thanks for considering me to review the manuscript titled “Effects of irrigation strategy and plastic film mulching on soil N2O emissions and fruit yields of greenhouse tomato”. The paper is well written and presented in an excellent form. As study has some novelty, so it should be improved and published. Overall, the MS must be revised to avoid the typos mistakes.
Response 1: Thanks for your advice. I have checked all spelling, grammar, and formatting.
Point 2: Discussion: Results should be justified accordingly with some latest references and modern style. Overall the manuscript should be improved with some latest references.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your advice. According to your request, we have updated the references.
The flow velocity of micro-sprinkler emitters is approximately 40 times that of drip irrigation, and the irrigation duration is shorter [26, 27].
- Del, V. Á.; Zubelzu, S.; Juana, L. Numerical routine for soil water dynamics from trickle irrigation. Appl. Math. Model. 2020, 83, 371-385.
- Manoranjan, K.; Ravikant, V. A.; Reddy, K. S.; Reddy, K. S. Development of micro-sprinkler system utilizing renewable energy for small holders in dryland agriculture of India. Cleaner Engineering and Technology. 2022, 100433.
Soil enzyme activity has been proven to be a key indicator of microbial function in the nutrient cycle and is associated with soil quality[41].
- Zhou, L.; Xu, S.; Carlos, M. M.; Neil, B. M.; Zhao, B.; Liu, J.; Hao, G. Bentonite-humic acid improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, enzyme activities and grain quality in a sandy soil cropped to maize (Zea mays L.) in a semi-arid region. J. Integr. Agr. 2022, 21, 208–221.
Point 3: Conclusion: Is well written but it need to be more focus on the practical results of the study.
Response 3: Conclusions (4) was changed to: (4) Both the MSPF and the DIPF treatments can improve tomato fruit yield in greenhouses. MSPF is can be used to configure commercially available installation and operation. The comprehensive benefit of MSPF treatment is more profitable than that of DIPF.
Thank you! I appreciate your help!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
