Water Saving and Yield of Potatoes under Partial Root-Zone Drying Drip Irrigation Technique: Field and Modelling Study Using SALTMED Model in Saudi Arabia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line	Txt	Suggestions/comments
58	evapotranspiration plant	plant or crop evapotranspiration
68		grain and dry matter yield
70	… the SALTMED model can simulate high relation,	between ?
72	distribution in the soil profile	distribution of what?
75	observer	observed
76	for soil moisture nitrogen dynamics.	for soil moisture and nitrogen dynamics.
78	observer	observation
79, 86 175 679	in Syria by [15] showed Studies conducted by [16] and [17] according [23]	In this case, you have to refer Names
87	could be simulated every day	Could make simulations in daily basis?
106	circumstances	use “conditions” instead
125	germination. With	germination ending up to an average
135	the season, fertilizing was stopped	the season,when fertilizing was stopped
135	humic acid was added 6% at a rate of 4 …	Please, rearrange
167-170		Units for irrigation, rainfall and soil moisture
178		weather data
242	seasonality	You mean seasonal reference evapotranspiration or water requirements?
271		distributed more vertically
768	which resulted in same yield of 100% …	… and gave the same yield under the 100% of ETc …
775	reasonable method for simulating	Yoy mean “outcome”?
782	that predicting soil moisture distribution, salinity, and nitrogen was perfect in predicting the final potato yield of potato	Please, rearrange

General suggestion:

Avoid using so many numbers (results) in the text (in the abstract also). The graphs you present give a very good picture of the findings. Please, be more comprehensive in the text by giving only significant numbers and try to make your graphs more visible and uniform (equally dimensioned).

Please, take into account the attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to comments and suggestion by reviewer # 1 for the manuscript Agronomy- 1036520

line	text	Comments and suggestions	responses
58	Evapotranspiration plant	Plant or crop evapotranspiration	Changed to crop evapotranspiration
68		Gain and dry matter yield	Changed with thanks
70	The saltmed model can simulate high relation	between	corrected
75	observer	observed	corrected
76	for soil moisture nitrogen dynamics	for soil moisture and nitrogen dynamics.	corrected
78	observer	observation	corrected
79,86	in Syria by [15] showed		done
175	Studies conducted by [16] and [17]	In this case, you have to refer Names	done
679	according [23]		done
87	could be simulated every day	Could make simulations in daily basis?	Done with thanks
106	circumstances	use “conditions” instead	Done with thanks
125	germination. With	germination ending up to an average	Done with thanks
135	the season, fertilizing was stopped	the season, when fertilizing was stopped	Done with thanks
135	humic acid was added 6% at a rate of 4 …	Please, rearrange	Sentence was rewritten
167-130		Units for irrigation, rainfall and soil moisture	Units were added
178		weather data	done
242	seasonality	You mean seasonal reference evapotranspiration or water requirements?	Reference evapotranspiration
271		distributed more vertically	done
768	which resulted in same yield of 100% …	… and gave the same yield under the 100% of ETc …	rewritten
775	reasonable method for simulating	You mean “outcome”?	Changed to outcome
782	that predicting soil moisture distribution, salinity, and nitrogen was perfect in predicting the final potato yield	Please, rearrange	rewritten

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Water Saving and Yield of Potatoes Using Partial Root-Zone Drying Drip Irrigation Technique: Field and Modelling Study Using SALTMED Model” seems to be an excellent topic and time-worthy work indeed. Using sensors can save valuable time and reduce the expenses related to the estimation of irrigation water in drought-prone and desert areas. The model used in this study will be a useful tool for agricultural practice in such a place where the water scarcity problem is severe. However, some queries need to address to improve the manuscript. Some technical information was incorrectly written along with typo errors in the whole manuscript. I strongly suggest revising and check the entire manuscript carefully, for which I recommend minor revision.

Line 58-60: Please check the sentence carefully, did you mean plant water uptake?

Line 66-69: Please check the sentence carefully, did you mean grain dry matter yield?

Line 238-241: The result explained here is confusing. What does it mean by all season? Table 5 comparing the spring and fall seasons only. We can see in both season Penman-Monteith showed higher result than Pan evaporation.

Line 249-255: Too much confusing result explained here. I did not find the relevant result from table 6b. I think “At PRD-SS yield decrease by 5.1% compare to PRD-S treatment” statement indicating table 6a.  Yield increased in CDI-SS by 2.6% compare to CDI-S, or others should mention. Table number and season is not written correctively. Potato yield results should rewrite according to the table's data and mention the table number accordingly.

Line 263: I did not find soil salinity and nitrogen data in figure 3a.

The stage should specify by using a,b,c, and d as like Figure 3b in all cases.

Line 378: Figure 4a is not showing any data regarding salinity and nitrogen.

Line 675-682: To be honest, I could not understand this discussion part that the authors explained in table 5. I would suggest checking the information given here is correct or not.

Line 738-739: Table 4 is not showing any data regarding statistical indicators. Please check whether it will be Table 4 or Table 7.

Line 755: Figure must be specified by a, b, c, etc., as mentioned in results and discussions for all cases.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments and suggestion by reviewer # 2 for the manuscript 1036520

Comment: The manuscript “Water Saving and Yield of Potatoes Using Partial Root-Zone Drying Drip Irrigation Technique: Field and Modelling Study Using SALTMED Model” seems to be an excellent topic and time-worthy work indeed. Using sensors can save valuable time and reduce the expenses related to the estimation of irrigation water in drought-prone and desert areas. The model used in this study will be a useful tool for agricultural practice in such a place where the water scarcity problem is severe. However, some queries need to address to improve the manuscript. Some technical information was incorrectly written along with typo errors in the whole manuscript. I strongly suggest revising and check the entire manuscript carefully, for which I recommend minor revision.

Response: Thank you.

Comment: Line 58-60: Please check the sentence carefully, did you mean plant water uptake?

Response: The sentence was checked and rewritten.

Comment: Line 66-69: Please check the sentence carefully, did you mean grain dry matter yield?

Response: corrected.

Comment: Line 238-241: The result explained here is confusing. What does it mean by all season? Table 5 comparing the spring and fall seasons only. We can see in both season Penman-Monteith showed higher result than Pan evaporation.

Comment: the sentence was rewritten.

Comment: Line 249-255: Too much confusing result explained here. I did not find the relevant result from table 6b. I think “At PRD-SS yield decrease by 5.1% compare to PRD-S treatment” statement indicating table 6a.  Yield increased in CDI-SS by 2.6% compare to CDI-S, or others should mention. Table number and season is not written correctively. Potato yield results should rewrite according to the table's data and mention the table number accordingly.

Response: Thank you. The paragraph was rewritten.

Comment: Line 263: I did not find soil salinity and nitrogen data in figure 3a.

Response: nitrogen data was removed from the sentence. This happened as we separated the figures

Comment: The stage should specify by using a,b,c, and d as like Figure 3b in all cases.

Response: Thank you done and added to figures.

Comment: Line 378: Figure 4a is not showing any data regarding salinity and nitrogen.

Response: corrected as mentioned before.

Comment: Line 675-682: To be honest, I could not understand this discussion part that the authors explained in table 5. I would suggest checking the information given here is correct or not.

Response: the information was checked and corrected.

Comment: Line 738-739: Table 4 is not showing any data regarding statistical indicators. Please check whether it will be Table 4 or Table 7.

Response: it was corrected to table 7. Tlhanks

Comment: Line 755: Figure must be specified by a, b, c, etc., as mentioned in results and discussions for all cases.

Response: a, b, and c added to the figures.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx