Modeling Tomato Yield and Quality Responses to Water and Nitrogen Deficits with a Modified Crop Water Production Function

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The theme of the manuscript is very important for the area of ​​horticulture and irrigated agriculture as it provides important information on the rational use of water and nitrogen fertilizer in tomato production. Overall, the manuscript is very well organized and written. Below I present some suggestions for improvements:

In the keywords, I suggest not using phrases but words that describe your work, for example production function, water, nitrogen and observing the maximum number of keywords recommended in the magazine.

On line 43, put the scientific name of the tomato in italics.

In line 124 I have the suggestion not to insert a quote (Zhang et al., 2022) in this sentence, as it is an extension of the objective of your work.

Suggestion to present Table 2 after the paragraph in item 2.3.2.

In your methodology, what type of soil was used? What were the characteristics of the soil used? We suggest including this information in the methodology if you have it.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript (horticulturae-3111907). We appreciate your contributions and believe that the paper is significantly improved. Our detailed responses are in following document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title and Objective, in abstract, are in opposite direction.

Abstract

In general, as keywords you must use significant words but not the ones in title.

Introduction

The problem is not clear. It needs a broad description.

Objective in abstract does not indicate the same than in introduction

Methodology

Methodology is not comprehensive.

Details for application of irrigation and fertilization are missing. Indicate clearly if soil or substrates were used.

It is not clear, what the data for the first season were used for. Data for the second season were used for calibration.

Why appear first equations form 2 and 3 and then 1.

How was the layer of irrigation computed? as the irrigation system was a drip irrigation one. Details of the irrigation system are missing.

How was evapotranspiration measured?

In general, the way methods are presented do not allow replication.

 

Results

According to methodology, the independent variables are fertilization, irrigation and evapotranspiration. However, dependent variables are not presented as function of independent variables.

The correlation values (R2) lower than 0.7 needs to support. I understand the complexity of the study. However, we want to look for models that come near the real data. My suggestion is to present the result in what the R2 is above 0.7.

In table 4, none of the models is above 0.7.

Conclusion

According to the way results are presented, support to conclusion is difficult to see.

See comments in MS.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript (horticulturae-3111907). We appreciate your contributions and believe that the paper is significantly improved. Our detailed responses are in following document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented a manuscript that tested different models for the simulation of tomato production and quality variables.

In general, a good and well written manuscript. Some specific points are found below:

Abstract: It is not necessary to write the headings.

Line 43: Scientific names are in italics 

Material and methods: Was there any environmental control? Temperature, humidity, CO2? Mean temperature and humidity during the experiment should be described.

Please, describe the acrylic flap deepth.

Results: Figure 2: Y = Yield, Lyc = Lycopen....

In table 3: what is the meaning of "a", "b"... This should be explained.

Line 398: "didn't get" --> this is an informal expression please, revise

Conclusion, lines 424-425: Do other authors use these models also? This should be discussed in discussion section

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The MS can be read. Some mistakes were found.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Following are oThank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript (horticulturae-3111907). We appreciate your contributions and believe that the paper is significantly improved. Our detailed responses are in following document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved substantially.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your generous contributions to this manuscript. Your insights have been of great significance to our research.

Sincerely, authors.