Prescriptive-Corrective Irrigation and Macronutrient Management in Greenhouse Soil-Grown Tomato Using the VegSyst-DSS v2 Decision Support Tool

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please refer to comments on the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

General comments

The manuscript provides a detailed outline of the performance of tomato plants grown in a

greenhouse using Prescriptive-Corrective Management (PCM) with the VegSyst-DSSv2 support tool and traditional irrigation and nutrient management based on the advice of farmers/specialists. The manuscript was generally well written with methodology described in sufficient detail. The experimental design was robust and the results obtained were satisfactorily explained. A few minor comments are made regarding the statistical analysis and a recommendation on the discussion (described in the detailed comments below).

 

Detailed comments

• L14 and throughout the manuscript: it is generally not recommended to start a sentence

with an abbreviation

Response: The manuscript has been revised and where abbreviations started a sentence they have been replaced with text.

 

• Table 3: the data presented in this table does not appear to be statistically – it is

recommended to include statistical analysis here to support the conclusions reached from

this experiment and for consistency with the rest of the manuscript. Inclusion of the

Standard Deviation/Standard Error is also recommended for consistency with the results

presented in the figures

Response: In the revised manuscript (MS), Table 3 has been modified to include standard errors and the results of the analysis of variance. The text in the MS in sub-sections 3.2 and 3.3 has been modified to include the additional results of the analysis of variance.

 

• Figure 6: Standard Deviation/Standard Error bars are missing

Response: Error bars cannot be applied to figure 6 because of the method used for soil sampling and analysis (see lines 222 to 231 in the MS). Soil sampling was conducted in each replicate plot of the two treatments. A combined sample, for each treatment, was then prepared by mixing the four individual samples from each replicate plot. Only the combined sample (one per treatment and soil sampling) was analyzed for economic reasons given the high cost of soil analysis (for multiple nutrients) in commercial laboratories.

 

• Discussion: only 12 references are cited throughout the entire discussion – suggest citation of additional relevant studies. This will add weight to the arguments presented

Response: Two references and a reference to unpublished data have been added to the Discussion. Altogether, the manuscript has 40 references.  We think that the references used, effectively place this work and the results in the context of previous work and established scientific knowledge.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

VegSyst-DSS v2 in this paper has important guiding significance in irrigation and nutrient research of long-lived tomato. However, the introduction of the paper does not give relevant research background, and the analysis of current research status is not clear. The discussion part suggests that the evaluation and analysis of model performance should be increased, and the author should revise and sort out relevant parts before publication.

1. Currently, there are many systems used for decision-making of irrigation and fertilization. Please explain why VegSyst-DSS v2 was chosen in this study and what advantages this system has compared with other irrigation decision-making systems.

2. The word model as a keyword in this article is a bit far-fetched, please consider it carefully.

3. In this paper, ' Figure ' is used to sort the pictures, but ' Fig ' is used to refer to them, please unify the sorting and reference format of the full text pictures.

4. This study is an improved use of VegSyst-DSS v2 for various influencing factors, but the results do not describe the advantages and disadvantages of the improved model compared with the original model, please provide relevant information.

5. In the same table, the number of digits reserved after the decimal point of the data should be the same. Please check all the tables and make corrections.

6. The time of x axis in Figure 1 is 220, while the time of 240 is shown in other figures. Please make a unification by the author.

7. What does the abbreviation PrHo in line 77 of the article mean? The full name of the abbreviation does not appear in the article. Please explain.

8. The number of references cited in this paper is small, please increase the citations of relevant studies.

9. The conclusion of this study lacks the direction and prospect of future research, so please supplement and improve it.

10. The existing conclusion is not complete and substantial enough. The author is requested to rearrange and improve the conclusion.

11. What is the contribution of VegSyst-DSS v2 used in this paper in the research field? Please discuss this issue in the discussion to improve the quality of the discussion part.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

VegSyst-DSS v2 in this paper has important guiding significance in irrigation and nutrient research of long-lived tomato. However, the introduction of the paper does not give relevant research background, and the analysis of current research status is not clear. The discussion part suggests that the evaluation and analysis of model performance should be increased, and the author should revise and sort out relevant parts before publication.

Response: As commented in the next point, a paragraph has been added (L97-108) to the Introduction that provides background for selecting the approaches that were used.  In this new paragraph, the current status of research regarding suitable DSS systems is described. Also, more background for the selection of corrective management (monitoring) approaches is provided on L110-112. In the Introduction, there is now appreciable justification for the methods used. And now, in the Discussion, there is also a full discussion of results in relation to their practical implications and to the literature, to transferring this technology to the production sector and on future development of the software.

Currently, there are many systems used for decision-making of irrigation and fertilization. Please explain why VegSyst-DSS v2 was chosen in this study and what advantages this system has compared with other irrigation decision-making systems.

Response: There are a number of models that have been developed for, or adapted to, tomato. Many of these are complex simulation models (e.g., TOMSIM, Eurotate_N, CropSyst, etc.). Generally, these model are aggregations of scientific knowledge rather being relatively simple models that would be suitable bases for the development of DSSs for practical farm management. These complex models require large amounts of input data and do not have user friendly DSS interfaces. In contrast, VegSyst-DSS v2 requires relatively few data inputs and has a user-friendly interface. VegSyst-DSS was specifically developed for soil-grown vegetable crops grown in Mediterranean greenhouses. It was developed because there were no suitable model-based DSSs available for these conditions. It is the only model-based DSS that has been calibrated and validated for these particular conditions.

In the Introduction, a paragraph has been added (L97-108) that explains the reasons for selecting the particular approaches that were used in this work.  For example, why the VegSyst-DSS v2 DSS was used rather than other DSS systems. There are very few established DSSs that can provide irrigation and nutrient (generally they just provide N) recommendations for fertigated vegetable crops (see Gallardo et al., 2020).  Two examples are CropManage (developed for California open field vegetable crops) and GesCoN (developed for open field tomato in Italy); both are described in Gallardo et al. (2020). However, they cannot be used in SE Spain without being calibrated and validated, which has not been done. In contrast, all components (interception of PAR radiation, PAR radiation use efficiency, reference evapotranspiration, crop coefficients, growth, and all macronutrient dilution curves) of VegSyst-DSS v2 have been calibrated and validated for tomato grown in SE Spain (Gallardo et al, 2014; 2016; 2021; 2023).

VegSyst-DSS was developed for this growing system. It is the result of a 16 year research program.  To use another DSS would involve years of work to adapt it to our conditions.

In Almeria, complete nutrient solutions are applied in all irrigations. VegSyst-DSS v2 is the only DSS that calculates the concentrations of various macronutrients, applied in fertigation nutrient solutions throughout the crop. Other DSSs such as CropManage and GesCoN provide recommendations for periodic fertilizer applications.

In summary, VegSyst-DSS v2 is the only DSS that provides recommendations for irrigation, and of N, P, K, Ca and Mg concentrations in the applied fertigation nutrient solution.  It is the only DSS that has been calibrated and validated for the conditions of greenhouse vegetable production in SE Spain.

2. The word model as a keyword in this article is a bit far-fetched, please consider it carefully.

Response: The VegSyst-DSS incorporates the crop simulation model VegSyst that has been developed for several vegetable crops grown in Mediterranean greenhouses (Gallardo et al., 2011; 2014; 2016; 2021; 2023; Gimenez et al., 2013). The model component of the DSS enables the calculation of daily crop water and nutrient demand that is specific to the conditions of an individual crop, considering planting date and climatic conditions. Because VegSyst-DSS is a model-based DSS, we consider it appropriate to use the term “model” in the keywords. The simulation model component is explained in a paragraph in the Introduction (lines 64-72).

3. In this paper, ' Figure ' is used to sort the pictures, but ' Fig ' is used to refer to them, please unify the sorting and reference format of the full text pictures.

Response: The word “Figure” was consistently used in figure legends following the guide for authors of the journal Horticulturae. In the text, we have used the abbreviation “Fig.” to save space.  We have observed that this is common practice in published articles. We prefer to maintain “Fig.” in the text. If required, we can change it.

4. This study is an improved use of VegSyst-DSS v2 for various influencing factors, but the results do not describe the advantages and disadvantages of the improved model compared with the original model, please provide relevant information.

Response: This study is a field evaluation of the VegSyst-DSS to manage water and nutrients as compared to farmers’ management. The development of VegSyst-DSS v2 was fully described in a recent article (Gallardo et al., 2023). That article described in detail the adaptation of the VegSyst-DSS to provide recommendations of P, K, Ca and Mg as concentrations to be applied in the fertigation nutrient solution. Those recommendations consider the nutrient demand of an individual crop and the nutrient status of the corresponding individual soil. This is briefly described in the current manuscript in the Introduction in L55-63. These are the advantages of VegSyst-DSS tv1 compared to the previous version. No other DSS provides crop- and site-specific recommendations of irrigation and the applied concentrations of N, P, K, Ca and Mg for fertigated vegetable crops.

Two new paragraph in the Discussion address this issue (L684-698).

5. In the same table, the number of digits reserved after the decimal point of the data should be the same. Please check all the tables and make corrections.

Response: All the tables have been revised and standardized for the number of decimals. In Table 2, the total amounts are presented without decimals, and the concentrations are presented with one decimal for value >1, and with two decimals for value <1.

6. The time of x axis in Figure 1 is 220, while the time of 240 is shown in other figures. Please make a unification by the author.

Response: Thank you for alerting us to this. The x axis of in Figure has been adjusted to have a maximum value of 240 as in the rest of the figures.

7. What does the abbreviation PrHo in line 77 of the article mean? The full name of the abbreviation does not appear in the article. Please explain.

Response: PrHo is not an abbreviation.  It is the name given to DSS for providing crop water requirements for vegetable crops, that was developed in SE Spain. A reference to this DSS is included. We were not involved in the development and naming of this DSS. We do not know why this name was chosen.

8. The number of references cited in this paper is small, please increase the citations of relevant studies.

Response: The number of references has been increased to 40 in the revised MS. We consider that this is sufficient to place the work and the results in the context of previous work and established scientific knowledge.

9. The conclusion of this study lacks the direction and prospect of future research, so please supplement and improve it.

Response: A new paragraph with this information has been included at the end of the Discussion section (L690-698).

10. The existing conclusion is not complete and substantial enough. The author is requested to rearrange and improve the conclusion.

Response: We have added the results of the economic analysis to the Conclusions to make it more complete. In general, we have tried to prepare a focused and brief Conclusions section that succinctly presents, the key results and implications of this work. The Discussion section has been expanded and there is now appreciable discussion of various aspects of the work and its implications.

11. What is the contribution of VegSyst-DSS v2 used in this paper in the research field? Please discuss this issue in the discussion to improve the quality of the discussion part.

Response: The results of this manuscript show that a system of prescriptive-corrective management based on VegSyst-DSS v2 achieved notable reductions in irrigation, N, P, K, and Mg use. This was associated with appreciable financial savings.  This is referred to throughout the Discussion.  We have edited the text to highlight these contributions.

References

Gallardo, M., Giménez, C., Martínez-Gaitán, C., Stöckle, C.O., Thompson, R.B., Granados, M.R. 2011. Evaluation of the VegSyst model with muskmelon to simulate crop growth, nitrogen uptake and evapotranspiration. Agricultural Water Management, 101, 107-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.09.008

Gallardo, M., Thompson, R.B., Giménez, C., Padilla, F.M., Stöckle, C. 2014. Prototype decision support system based on the VegSyst simulation model to calculate crop N and water requirements for tomato under plastic cover. Irrigation Science 32, 237-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-014-0427-3

Gallardo, M.; Fernández, M.D.; Giménez, C.; Padilla, F.M.; Thompson, R.B. 2016. Revised VegSyst model to calculate dry matter production, critical N uptake and ETc of several vegetable species grown in Mediterranean greenhouses. Agricultural Systems 146, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.03.014.

Gallardo, M., Elia, A., Thompson, R.B. 2020. Decision support systems and models for aiding irrigation and nutrient management of vegetable crops. Agricultural Water Management 240, 106209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106209

Gallardo, M., Cuartero, J., Andújar de la Torre, L., Padilla, F.M., Segura, M.L., Thompson, R.B. 2021. Modelling nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium uptake, and uptake concentration, of greenhouse tomato with the VegSyst model. Scientia Horticulturae 279, 109862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109862

Gallardo, M.; Peña-Fleitas, M.T.; Giménez, C.; Padilla, F.M.; Thompson, R.B. 2023. Adaptation of VegSyst-DSS for macronutrient recommendations of fertigated, soil-grown, greenhouse vegetable crops. Agricultural Water Management, 278, 107973 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107973.

Giménez, C., Gallardo, M., Martínez-Gaitán, C., Stöckle, C.O., Thompson, R.B., Granados, M.R. 2013. VegSyst, a simulation model of daily crop growth, nitrogen uptake and evapotranspiration for pepper crops for use in an on-farm decision support system. Irrigation Science 31, 465-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-011-0312-2

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

horticulturae-2624894

Dear authors,

The article has practical significance and is important for the implementation of this experience for farmers and for the environment and can be published after correction and explanation of the following comments:

-The air temperature in the greenhouse during the experiment for quite long time is 10-12°C, which is unfavorable for tomatoes. As well as air temperature above 25°C

- The amount of irrigation carried out did not always coincide with the amount recommended by the irrigation management program. Why?

It is necessary to add in the summary and conclusions about the cost that was spent to conduct the experiment

- In Figure 1 and other figures, the line (DSS Rec) is difficult to see. need to change

Table 1. It is necessary to indicate in more detail the Texture of the soil and the name of the soil

 

With a strong carbonate content of 12.9% of the soil, the high saturation of mobile phosphorus is questionable

all the best

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

horticulturae-2624894

 

Dear authors,

The article has practical significance and is important for the implementation of this

experience for farmers and for the environment and can be published after correction and

explanation of the following comments:

-The air temperature in the greenhouse during the experiment for quite long time is 10-

12°C, which is unfavorable for tomatoes. As well as air temperature above 25°C.

Response: The greenhouse system of South-Eastern (SE) Spain consists of plastic greenhouses with a low to medium level of greenhouse technology. In nearly all greenhouses in this system, climate control is passive without active heating or cooling systems. Cooling in warmer period is achieved by ventilation and applying calcium carbonate suspensions to the roof. During cooler periods, in nearly all greenhouses, there is no active heating. This often results in unfavorable cool conditions during the winter and early spring period. This limits crop growth and production during this period.  However, even with this limitation, the system is profitable on account of the mild winter climate, the price of the vegetables, and minimal energy costs.

 

- The amount of irrigation carried out did not always coincide with the amount

recommended by the irrigation management program. Why?

Response: The irrigation management followed also a prescriptive-corrective approach based on the use of the DSS (prescriptive component) in combination with tensiometers (corrective component). There were some periods where climate was cooler than the historical year used, by the DSS, to calculate the ETc, the tensiometers recommended to reduced the volume of irrigation, e.g., in rainy or overcast days.

 

It is necessary to add in the summary and conclusions about the cost that was spent to

conduct the experiment

Response: This has been done in both the Abstract and the Conclusions

 

- In Figure 1 and other figures, the line (DSS Rec) is difficult to see. need to change

Response: All figures in the MS have been revised and legends are now more visible as well as title and numbers on the axes.

 

Table 1.  It is necessary to indicate in more detail the Texture of the soil and the name of the soil. With a strong carbonate content of 12.9% of the soil, the high saturation of mobile phosphorus is questionable.

Response:  A sentence describing the percentages of the sand, silt and clay contents has been added on L179-180. The soil does not have a name.

 

The effect of carbonate on the availability of soil phosphorus is considered in the DSS. The calculations are described in Gallardo et al. (2023).

 

 

Gallardo, M.; Peña-Fleitas, M.T.; Giménez, C.; Padilla, F.M.; Thompson, R.B. Adaptation of VegSyst-DSS for macronutrient recommendations of fertigated, soil-grown, greenhouse vegetable crops. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 278, 107973 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107973.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has modified and improved the relevant content, and it is suggested that the details of the table be revised and published.

1. In the same table, the number of digits reserved after the decimal point of the data should be the same. Please check all the tables and make corrections.

Author Response

Reviewer comment: In the same table, the number of digits reserved after the decimal point of the data should be the same. Please check all the tables and make corrections.

Response:  Please note that the text marked in bold indicates where changes have been made in the manuscript (MS).

Table 2:  The value for the seasonal concentration of phosphorus in the prescriptive corrective management (PCM) treatment has been changed and is now expressed with one decimal place the same as for the concentration of phosphorus in the conventional (CONV) treatment.  Previously, in the PCM treatment, it was expressed to two decimal places.

Tables 1, 3, 4, 7: In each table, the number of decimal places is consistent for all values

Table 5: Here, different number of decimal places are used for data of different parameters. Titratable acidity and the H value for the external quality colour analysis are reported to two decimal places because the values are all less than one. The values reported for the other parameters are reported to one decimal place because they are all greater than one.

Here, we have used the criteria of:
- values <1: two decimal places

• values >1: one decimal place

We understand that this is an established procedure for determining the number of decimal places.

We have maintained these criteria in the revised manuscript (MS).

 

Table 6. The number of decimal places for the value of Fertilizer (€ ha^-1), in the right-hand side column, have been changed to zero decimal places to be consistent with the value for irrigation (€ ha^-1) in the third column

The criteria, for decimal places, in the revised table are:

• Irrigation and fertilizer (€ ha^-1): no decimal places because of the large size these values, they are >1000
• Fertilizer (kg): one decimal place because the values range from one to 151.
• Fertilizer ((€ kg^-1): two decimal places because four of the values <1, and the other are only slightly >1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx