Regulated Deficit Irrigation during Vegetative Growth Enhances Crop Water Productivity in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript reports the results of regulated vs. sustained deficit irrigation in chickpea during different phenological stages the crop. Overall, the findings presented by the authors are strongly influenced by the environmental conditions of each year, and the decision to adjust the Kc, which do not seem to be rooted in scientific evidence. Evidently, a change in Kc will lead to greater ETc, and more water availability for the crop to support high biomass accumulation in the yr2 in contrast to yr1. Therefore, it is hard to support the findings of differences associated with treatment imposition, when the treatments were radically different between years.

A common theme throughout the text is the lack of specific information related to the goals of the project, but the incorporation of very general information that is applicable, but common knowledge. There is no novelty in this research.

Additional comments below:

Line 35: heavier than what?

Keywords should include the word ‘chickpea’, and delete deficit irrigation once, it should read ‘regulated/sustained deficit irrigation’.

Introduction

Lines 43-47: This is common knowledge and irrelevant to the study. Provide more specific information related to the experiment.

Lines 48-49: the sentence starts with ‘around the world’, and ends with ‘areas of the world’, please rewrite.

Line 61: agriculture does not demand anything. Please rewrite this sentence.

Line 63: water consumed by the crop? By the irrigation delivery system? By the marketable yield? Please be specific.

Line 75: replace the word ‘technologies’ with ‘irrigation practices’

Line 77: replace the term ‘bet-hedging’

Lines 77-80: This is not entirely true, some plants exhibit this ‘drought escape’ strategy while others allocate more carbon assimilates to belowground water foraging. Please rephrase.

Line 89: what do authors mean by ‘give the life cycles” too short? Annual strategies? please be specific.

Lines 89 and 90: relevance used twice in the same sentence.

Line 95: if CWP was already defined, then why are authors spelling the term out again? This is confusing.

Line 97: what do authors mean by nutritious? More N? more iron?

Line 100: crop evapotranspiration was already defined in line 85. Delete, and use the acronym.

Line 101: replace the word “founding” with “reporting”

Lines 102-103: under which conditions were these experiments conducted? The studies cited in references 34 and 35 does not seem to be very rigorous.

Line 105: replace the word apply and use the verb ‘impose’ instead.

Line 134-135: delete

Line 146: Google

Lines 146-148: were all of these terms typed together or independently? What other parameters were defined for this search? Additionally, what is the purpose of this section 2.1? I recommend deletion. This is not a meta-analysis.

Lines 171-172: Rewrite, and use SI units.

Line 174: express fertilizer rate = 0 with just one zero. For example: 90-30-0. What are the units, source, and formulas for this fertilizer application?

Line 181: delete the word ‘repetition’ and use the word ‘replication”

Lines 201-204: Sources? Why the Kc values changed from year 1 to yr 2?

Line 220: in both years?

Line 230: again, authors have already defined this term, thereby there is not need to spell it out.

I just search chickpea and irrigation in google scholar and yielded SIGNIFICANT more number of published articles in the subject that the number reported by the authors. I think authors would benefit from having a English native speaker help them with their manuscript if they decide to resubmit.

Line 253, this is wishful thinking… not supported by the limited results of 2-yr field study.

Author Response

This manuscript reports the results of regulated vs. sustained deficit irrigation in chickpea during different phenological stages the crop. Overall, the findings presented by the authors are strongly influenced by the environmental conditions of each year, and the decision to adjust the Kc, which do not seem to be rooted in scientific evidence. Evidently, a change in Kc will lead to greater ETc, and more water availability for the crop to support high biomass accumulation in the yr2 in contrast to yr1.

R: We respectfully disagree with the reviewer in most arguments. Please find below a point-by-point reply:

 Overall, the findings presented by the authors are strongly influenced by the environmental conditions of each year, and the decision to adjust the Kc, which do not seem to be rooted in scientific evidence.

 R: We tested eight irrigation treatments with the objective of specifying the best deficit irrigation combination to enhance eight productivity variables. Our main objective was the comparison of the values of these variables across treatments, not the variation across time. As the reviewer and editor can check on our figures 4, 5, and 6, and in our new figure 8, our objective was accomplished across years, with VG75, our treatment restricting irrigation at 75% ETc during vegetative growth and maintaining 100 ETc for flowering and Pod filling, enhancing CWP, irrespectively of the year.

Evidently, a change in Kc will lead to greater ETc, and more water availability for the crop to support high biomass accumulation in the yr2 in contrast to yr1.

R: Again, this obvious comparison was not the aim of our experiment, but the inter-treatment comparisons in CWP and the other seven productivity variables across irrigation treatments, which can be found in our set of figures and tables, and in the text in general.

Therefore, it is hard to support the findings of differences associated with treatment imposition, when the treatments were radically different between years.

R: In figures 7 and 8 we present a synthetic view of the treatment imposition, where it is shown that the difference in greater water availability for the year 2021 does not change the ranking of the treatments influencing productivity variables (Figure 7B), and also that VG75 is the treatment that produced a higher CWP in both years (Figure 8).

A common theme throughout the text is the lack of specific information related to the goals of the project, but the incorporation of very general information that is applicable, but common knowledge.

 

R: Following constructive criticism provided by the other reviewers, we have modified our introduction and discussion, to make a more succinct account of our aims.

There is no novelty in this research.

R: There is no validity in these arguments in light of our data and evidence.

Additional comments are below:

R: In spite of our disagreement, we are thankful to the reviewer for providing this helpful list of observations.

Line 35: heavier than what? R: Corrected.

Keywords should include the word ‘chickpea’, and delete deficit irrigation once, it should read ‘regulated/sustained deficit irrigation’. R: Done.

Introduction

Lines 43-47: This is common knowledge and irrelevant to the study. Provide more specific information related to the experiment. R: Paragraph deleted

Lines 48-49: the sentence starts with ‘around the world’, and ends with ‘areas of

the world’, please rewrite. R: Paragraph deleted.

Line 61: agriculture does not demand anything. Please rewrite this sentence. R: Paragraph deleted.

Line 63: water consumed by the crop? By the irrigation delivery system? By the

marketable yield? Please be specific. R: Paragraph modified according to suggestion.

Line 75: replace the term ‘bet-hedging’ R: Paragraph deleted.

Lines 77-80: This is not entirely true, some plants exhibit this ‘drought escape’ strategy while others allocate more carbon assimilates to belowground water foraging. Please rephrase. R: Paragraph deleted.

Line 89: what do authors mean by ‘give the life cycles” too short? Annual strategies? please be specific. R: Paragraph deleted.

Lines 89 and 90: relevance used twice in the same sentence. R: Paragraph deleted.

Line 95: if CWP was already defined, then why are authors spelling the term out again? This is confusing. R: Corrected.

Line 97: what do authors mean by nutritious? More N? more iron? R: Paragraph modified.

Line 100: crop evapotranspiration was already defined in line 85. Delete, and use the acronym. R: Done.

Line 101: replace the word “founding” with “reporting” R: Done.

Lines 102-103: under which conditions were these experiments conducted? The studies cited in references 34 and 35 does not seem to be very rigorous. R: We avoid taking judgments on other people's work, as these studies are published in peer-reviewed journals. 

Line 105: replace the word apply and use the verb ‘impose’ instead. R: Done.

Line 134-135: delete R: Done.

Line 146: Google R: Done.

Lines 146-148: were all of these terms typed together or independently? What other parameters were defined for this search? Additionally, what is the purpose of this section 2.1? I recommend deletion. This is not a meta-analysis. R: Paragraph deleted.

Lines 171-172: Rewrite, and use SI units. R: Done.

units. Line 174: express fertilizer rate = 0 with just one zero. For example: 90-30-0. What are the units, source, and formulas for this fertilizer application? R: Done and information included.

Line 181: delete the word ‘repetition’ and use the word ‘replication” R: Done.

Lines 201-204: Sources? Why the Kc values changed from year 1 to yr 2?

R: Our Kc values emerged from the average Kc of five bibliographic references of evaluations developed in Mexico, Morocco, Tunisia, and generalized FAO recommendations, such as 0.43, 1.05, and 0.31 for the vegetative growth, flowering, and pod-filling stages, respectively [1,2,3,4,5]. However, these values imply that the formula to determine the Irrigation Water Requirement (IWR) will overestimate the irrigation values that are generally applied to this crop in our study area. Therefore, we opted to employ a lowest array of Kc values of 0.3, 0.75, and 0.22 for the vegetative growth, flowering, and capsule filling stages, respectively. Even though the level of irrigation allowed the crop to develop as expected, and that we found significant differences across treatments, we aimed to test if increasing irrigation overall would have an effect on the treatments. Therefore, in the second year, the values of 0.43, 1.05, and 0.31 were used as initially planned for each of the defined stages. This increase in the IWR allowed us to prove that the differences across treatments were maintained, and that the combination that enhanced the most the CWP was VG75, F100 and PF100 ETc, both in a low and high irrigation years.

We are conscious that the correct determination of Kc values at the local scale is needed, and we recognize that future work is required to implement the Kc values at a wide range of localities worldwide.

Line 220: in both years? R: Paragraph modified.

Line 230: again, authors have already defined this term, thereby there is not need to spell it out. I just search chickpea and irrigation in google scholar and yielded SIGNIFICANT more number of published articles in the subject that the number reported by the authors. R: Paragraph deleted.

I think authors would benefit from having a English native speaker help them with their manuscript if they decide to resubmit. R: Our text was thoroughly revised by Prof. Georgianne Moore, a coauthor of this document and a prolific author herself.

Line 253, this is wishful thinking… not supported by the limited results of 2-yr field study. R: Paragraph modified.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents the results of a strict field study. The research was conducted in 2020-21 in the southern part of the California Peninsula. The influence of 8 variants of drip irrigation on chickpea yielding was investigated. The research hypotheses were confirmed. Overall, the work is very readable and the results are correctly interpreted.

Comments:

1. The material included in the annex is very interesting and I propose its inclusion in the publication. Instead, you can remove the literature review material (lines 142-150, 247-267). The work is experimental and not a review.

2. Tables 4 and 5 are also not interesting. Duplication of experiments in years is not new, it is a normal practice in field experiments, especially in other climatic zones.

3. In table 3, the grain yield is rather in kg per 1 ha.

4. It is necessary to explain why the Kc coefficients in the years were changed and why such and not other values were adopted.

5. Kc coefficients should be constant, and if they are not good, they should first be determined in separate experiments, and then the effects of deficit irrigation should be examined.

Author Response

The paper presents the results of a strict field study. The research was conducted in 2020-21 in the southern part of the California Peninsula. The influence of 8 variants of drip irrigation on chickpea yielding was investigated. The research hypotheses were confirmed. Overall, the work is very readable and the results are correctly interpreted.

Comments:

1. The material included in the annex is very interesting and I propose its inclusion in the publication. Instead, you can remove the literature review material (lines 142-150, 247-267). The work is experimental and not a review.

R: We appreciate the comments by the first reviewer. In response, we have modified the methods and results; specifically, we have eliminated from Materials and Methods the systematic review description and the corresponding lines in Results. Also, the tables and figures initially considered in supplementary material were now incorporated into the article. Please find our new set of eight figures and nine tables in the main text and two supplementary tables. 

2. Tables 4 and 5 are also not interesting. Duplication of experiments in years is not new, it is a normal practice in field experiments, especially in other climatic zones.

R: We thank the reviewer for noting these issues. In consequence, we have sent Table 4 and Table 5 as new supplementary materials (Table S1 and Table S2). We would also like to note that we agree with the reviewer, in that the main focus of our paper is not the duplication across years of the same irrigation treatments, but the comparison across irrigation treatments irrespectively of the year. Therefore, we have reduced the discussion related to inter-year variability and re-focus our discussion on the inter-treatment variation.

3. In table 3, the grain yield is rather in kg per 1 ha.

R: Corrected

4. It is necessary to explain why the Kc coefficients in the years were changed and why such and not other values were adopted.

R: Our Kc values emerged from the average Kc of five bibliographic references of evaluations developed in Mexico, Morocco, Tunisia, and generalized FAO recommendations, such as 0.43, 1.05, and 0.31 for the vegetative growth, flowering, and pod-filling stages, respectively [1,2,3,4,5]. However, these values imply that the formula to determine the Irrigation Water Requirement (IWR) will overestimate the irrigation values that are generally applied to this crop in our study area. Therefore, we opted to employ a lowest array of Kc values of 0.3, 0.75, and 0.22 for the vegetative growth, flowering, and capsule filling stages, respectively. Even though the level of irrigation allowed the crop to develop as expected, and that we found significant differences across treatments, we aimed to test if increasing irrigation overall would have an effect on the treatments. Therefore, in the second year, the values of 0.43, 1.05, and 0.31 were used as initially planned for each of the defined stages. This increase in the IWR allowed us to prove that the differences across treatments were maintained, and that the combination that enhanced the most the CWP was VG75, F100 and PF100 ETc, both in a low and high irrigation years.

We are conscious that the correct determination of Kc values at the local scale is needed, and we recognize that future work is required to implement the Kc values at a wide range of localities worldwide.

References:

[1] Apáez B., M.; Escalante, J. A.; Rodríguez, M. T.; Sosa M., E.; Apáez B, P. Distancia entre hileras, nitrógeno y producción de garbanzo en humedad residual. Distancia entre hileras, nitrógeno y producción de garbanzo en humedad residual. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas 2016, 7, 223-234.

[2] Guevara Díaz, J. M. La fórmula de Penman-Monteith FAO 1998 para determinar la evapotranspiración de referencia, ETo. Terra Nueva Etapa 2006, 31, 31-72.

[3] Hirich, A; Choukr-allah, R.; Jacobsen, S-E.; Hamdy, A.; El youssfi, L. El Omari, H. Improving water productivity of chickpea by the use of deficit irrigation with treated domestic water. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 2011, 59, 1352-1357.

[4] Mbarek, B.; Douh B. Effects of irrigation on the flowering and maturity of chickpea genotypes. Irrigation Systems and Practices in Challenging Environments 2015, 3-18.

[5] Evapotranspiración del cultivo en condiciones estándar. Available on line: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.fao.org/3/x0490s/x0490s02.pdf (page 111).

5. Kc coefficients should be constant, and if they are not good, they should first be determined in separate experiments, and then the effects of deficit irrigation should be examined.

R: We agree with the reviewer regarding the fact that the Kc should be determined for each region in specific experiments; for this reason, now in the paper conclusions, we point out an area of opportunity to explore how Kc varies for this crop across different phenological stages. However, the calculation of Kc demands a laborious research on its own. Several publications support the variation of Kc for our crop, and thus we employed the literature obtained Kc values and tested our eight response variables. Although we agree with the reviewer, our main focus in this manuscript is that the differences across treatments in CWP and other seven productivity related variables are maintained, even when the levels of IWR were low and high across years. 

Obtaining realistic Kc values was one of the reasons to perform a systematic review of literature, which we expected would yield a higher number of articles accounting for this values. However, as the reviewer correctly noted, this was not the main focus, and also, we were not able to extract a number of articles sufficient to perform a meta-analysis to support the definition of Kc values by stages across a wider number of articles, environmental conditions and agricultural practices. We recognize this limitation in our study, and we point towards the need to employ such a synthetic approach, which has been highly successful in other sciences (biomedical sciences, ecology, psychology), to enhance the application of agronomic indices worldwide.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript 'Regulated deficit irrigation during vegetative growth enhances crop water productivity in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)' by Osuna-Amador et al., mainly deals with the  effects of deficit irrigation on plant weight, grain yield and caliber, number of pods and grains per plant, harvest index, and crop water productivity under different schemes of regulated deficit irrigation and sustained deficit irrigation in the Blanoro variety of chickpea in North-west Mexico. On the basis of the results, authors concluded that maintaining ETc 100% during flowering, and the maintenance of regulated deficit irrigation at 75% ETc during vegetative growth would be highly recommended in this study. This topic is suitable for the journal readers and the authors gathered an informative dataset.

Some concerns could be under consideration in this manuscript for revising:

1) In Introduction section, there was an abundant statement and information about this work, while it was some long, and better to short and concentrate the main purpose. Besides, Reference section could also reduce some references.

2) In my opinion, it is better to use “water use efficiency”, rather than “water productivity” in this study.

3) The total quantity of water used or crop evapotranspiration for different treatments could be shown in Results section to clearly reveal the crop water use during the experimental period.

4) Figure 3. was wrong. The A) Grain yield and B) caliber were shown, not the A) Harvest index and B) Crop water productivity were shown here.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript 'Regulated deficit irrigation during vegetative growth enhances crop water productivity in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)' by Osuna-Amador et al., mainly deals with the effects of deficit irrigation on plant weight, grain yield and caliber, number of pods and grains per plant, harvest index, and crop water productivity under different schemes of regulated deficit irrigation and sustained deficit irrigation in the Blanoro variety of chickpea in North-west Mexico. On the basis of the results, authors concluded that maintaining ETc 100% during flowering, and the maintenance of regulated deficit irrigation at 75% ETc during vegetative growth would be highly recommended in this study. This topic is suitable for the journal readers and the authors gathered an informative dataset.

Some concerns could be under consideration in this manuscript for revising:

1) In Introduction section, there was an abundant statement and information about this work, while it was some long, and better to short and concentrate the main purpose. Besides, Reference section could also reduce some references.

R: We appreciate the comments by the reviewer. In response to this concern, please find our new shortened introduction section and a new reference list, more focused on the main purpose of our research.

2) In my opinion, it is better to use “water use efficiency”, rather than “water productivity” in this study.

R: We respectfully disagree with the reviewer on this point. We opted for keeping Crop Water Productivity (CWP) instead of Water Use Efficiency (WUE) for the next reasons: In some literature, both terms have the same meaning, but WUE is mainly defined for plant physiology as the ratio of carbon units captured for anabolism over water units transpired (generally measured in leaves) [1]. WUE can be measured at the individual plant using a photosynthesis system, such as LICOR 6400XT, which involves direct measurement of the CO2 and water vapor in closed chambers using infrared gas analyzers (IRGA) [2]. WUE can also be studied at the ecosystem scale, using Eddy covariance measurements, also involving IRGA [3]. CWP is a derivation of WUE specific for agronomy, in which we quantify the product (i.e., grains) per volume of water irrigated.

CWP does not require direct measurement of carbon acquired over water transpired. In irrigation, WUE would involve measuring the allocation of water across geophysical compartments, for example, if applying 10 mm irrigation to a plant, and if the plant transpires 8 mm, but 2 mm is lost by drainage or evaporation of the soil surface, we would have an 80% WUE, but again, this would not necessarily be related to grain productivity variables [4, 5]. On the other hand, CWP refers to what we can produce per unit of input, this is also a proportion, but both do not necessarily have the same units. For example, water productivity would be 50 kg of grain per cubic meter. In our experiment, we were able to quantify the exact input of water in cubic meters and the grain yield, therefore, we would be suited to express CWP, but not WUE.

References

[1] Taiz, L., Zeiger, E., Møller, I. M., & Murphy, A. (2015). Plant physiology and development (Ed. 6). Sinauer Associates Incorporated.

[2] LeCain, D. R., & Gleason, S. M. (2018). Factors influencing the measurement of assimilation and stomatal conductance with the LI-COR 6400XT gas exchange system. BioRxiv, 494120.

[3] Burba, G. (2013). Eddy covariance method for scientific, industrial, agricultural and regulatory applications: A field book on measuring ecosystem gas exchange and areal emission rates. LI-Cor Biosciences.

[4] Kilemo, D.B. The review of water use efficiency and water productivity metrics and their role in sustainable water resources management. Open Access Library Journal 2022, 9, 1-21

[5] Heydari, N. Water productivity in agriculture: Challenges in concepts, terms and values. Irrigation and Drainage 2013, 63, 22-28.

3) The total quantity of water used or crop evapotranspiration for different treatments could be shown in Results section to clearly reveal the crop water use during the experimental period.

R: We thank the reviewer for this observation. Please find our new Table 4 in Methods, showing the different levels of total water volume used for each treatment. Please also find our new revised figures 4, 5, and 6, which include a new color palette in the box plots, where a more intense blue indicates higher total irrigation volume, and high-intensity red indicates lower irrigation volumes.

4) Figure 3. was wrong. The A) Grain yield and B) caliber were shown, not the A) Harvest index and B) Crop water productivity were shown here.

1. We appreciate the reviewer for noting this mistake. This correction was attended and can be found in the new figure 6, now showing Harvest Index and Crop Water Productivity (previous figure 3).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors must go above and beyond addressing my comments to ensure this manuscript is accepted for publication. 

Adequate use of scientific English style continues to be an issue, and there should be major rearrangements of the text to make the story flow. It is VERY HARD for the reader to follow the chain of ideas in the manuscript current version. 

Line 38: Replace with: “grain yield did not differ between years”

The sentence that starts with “However, Chickpea…” does not read well, and line 110 indicates that “few reports account for” Where are the authors citing these reports?

Line 116: replace had with produced.

Line 117: and?

Line 126: start the sentence with: In order to optimize…

Line 129: refore?? 

 

Overall, and I make this comment reading up to line 129, it appears that the authors did the bare minimum changes, and resubmitted their manuscript for evaluation. 

Line 142: Could authors provide a reference to support this statement?

Line 203: of each year? Is this a common practice in baja CA?

Line 205: Why authors write three times mg kg-1? Isn’t it easier to write: “… and 11.7, 47.6, and 157 mg kg-1 of NO3, P2O5, and K, respectively”

Figure 2: why are the blocks arranged in that order? II, III, I, and IV?

 

Figure 3: authors mention multiple times throughout the manuscript that they conducted their experiment during 2020 and 2021, and now they are adding a 2019 growing season? Additionally, this figure will greatly benefit from formatting colors to make it more easy on the reader, as well as, English proofreading. 

 

Author Response

Authors must go above and beyond addressing my comments to ensure this manuscript is accepted for publication. 

Adequate use of scientific English style continues to be an issue, and there should be major rearrangements of the text to make the story flow. It is VERY HARD for the reader to follow the chain of ideas in the manuscript current version. 

Response. Our current revision has been thoroughly revised to shorten and focus on the introduction and discussion sections. To solve any concern about linguistics, Prof. Georgianne Moore, a coauthor of this document, has thoroughly revised the English language and style.

Line 38: Replace with: “grain yield did not differ between years”.

Response. Done.

The sentence that starts with “However, Chickpea…” does not read well, and line 110 indicates that “few reports account for” Where are the authors citing these reports?

Response:  The sentence was modified and the reports were cited. Now in lines 67-73

Line 116: replace had with produced.

Response: Done, now in Line 72.

Line 117: and?

Response: Paragraph modified.

Line 126: start the sentence with: In order to optimize…

Response: Done

Line 129: refore?? 

Response: Paragraph modified.

Overall, and I make this comment reading up to line 129, it appears that the authors did the bare minimum changes, and resubmitted their manuscript for evaluation. 

Response: We respectfully disagree with the reviewer. In this new version, our introduction and discussion have been shortened and focus on the specific hypotheses, and there were several replacements of figures and tables to strengthen our conclusions about the relevance of RDI in chickpeas. Probably the reviewer has been evaluating a prior version of this document, as the line numbers do not correspond with the current version of our manuscript.

Line 142: Could authors provide a reference to support this statement?

Response: Paragraph modified. Now Line 142 is the description of a fully randomized block experiment.

Line 203: of each year? Is this a common practice in baja CA?

Response: The sentence was rewritten, specifying the seedling date for both years. For the second question, chickpea production under drip irrigation is not the predominant system in our locality. Acevedo (2022) estimated that 70.3% of the producers use surface irrigation, 10.3% sprinkler irrigation, and 10.3% drip irrigation.

Reference: Acevedo Torres, M.J. Caracterización socioeconómica y tecnológica de los productores de garbanzo (Cicer arietinum L.) del Valle de Santo Domingo, Baja California Sur, México. Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, Duitama, Bogota, Colombia. Septiembre de 2022.

Line 205: Why authors write three times mg kg-1? Isn’t it easier to write: “… and 11.7, 47.6, and 157 mg kg-1 of NO3, P2O5, and K, respectively”.

Response: Done.

Figure 2: why are the blocks arranged in that order? II, III, I, and IV?

Response: The nomenclature in figure 2 for the blocks correspond to randomized blocks. This is a common experimental practice to control any systematic error; for example, those generated by unexpected fertility gradients in the plot.

Reference: (2008). Randomized Block Design. In: The Concise Encyclopedia of Statistics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-32833-1_344

Figure 3: authors mention multiple times throughout the manuscript that they conducted their experiment during 2020 and 2021, and now they are adding a 2019 growing season? Additionally, this figure will greatly benefit from formatting colors to make it more easy on the reader, as well as, English proofreading. 

Response: The year number has been corrected and the figure's color palettes have been corrected. Now the English language has been revised by our coauthor, Prof. Dr. Georgianne Moore, a prolific author, and Native English speaker.