Water-Saving Technologies in Galapagos Agriculture: A Step towards Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very informative paper. The paper assessed the effectiveness of water-saving technologies, Hydrogel and Growboxx, on different vegetable crops, including Broccoli, Cucumber, Pepper, Tomato, and Watermelon in two different periods (2017-2018 and 2021). The identification of the optimal water-saving technology for different crops is important for guiding practical applications. The overall paper is clear and concise, with a reasonable experimental design and trustworthy results. I believe that the further explanation of water-saving technologies, including their applicability, should be strengthened. Additionally, one thing to note is the regional differences in the applicability of water-saving technologies, which may vary significantly among different islands. Furthermore, please pay attention to the spelling of words and the correctness of the figures and tables in this paper.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point raised and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. Please see the attachment for a point-by-point response addressing all of the raised concerns.
Kind regards,
Patricia Jaramillo & co-authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This study evaluated the application of Hydrogel to five crops in the period 2017-2018 and added Growboxx® as a treatment for two crops in 2021. This research is very interesting.
However, some comments and suggestions:
There are 3 flaws in the introduction part:
1. Limited context on previous studies: The introduction briefly mentions a previous study evaluating the effectiveness of the Groasis Waterboxx® technology for cucumber, pepper, and tomato. However, it would be beneficial to provide more context on the findings and conclusions of that study to better understand how the current study builds upon it.
2. Insufficient explanation of the selected crops: While it is mentioned that the study focuses on five economically important crops, namely broccoli, cucumber, green pepper, tomato, and watermelon, it would be beneficial to explain why these crops were chosen. Are they specifically relevant to the Galapagos Islands, or are they representative of the broader agricultural practices in the region? Providing a rationale for selecting these crops would strengthen the justification for the study.
3. Lack of clarity on the study timeline: The introduction mentions two periods, 2017-2018 and 2021, without providing a clear context or explanation for why these periods were chosen. It would be helpful to clarify the reasons for selecting these specific timeframes and how they relate to the study's objectives.
In the Materials and Methods part:
1. Added experimental setup diagram in Groasis Growboxx section.
2. In the Before planting section, why choose 35 grams of powder and 20L of water to configure the hydrogel solution, please give a reasonable explanation.
3. In the Statistical analysis section, why LM, and Tukey HSD statistical methods were chosen.
In the Results part:
The results part is too simple, please analyze them in detail in combination with figures and tables.
The quality of the English language is high.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point raised and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. Please see the attachment for a point-by-point response addressing all of the raised concerns.
Kind regards,
Patricia Jaramillo & co-authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article 'Water-saving technologies in Galapagos agriculture: a step towards sustainability' provides a study with serious flaws and to improve it further experiments with properly conducted research are needed. Scientific writing also needs to be improved considerably. The Abstract does not allow an understanding of the work, which crops were evaluated and the numerical results, where are they? In the Introduction, emphasis is given to the place where the experiments are carried out and not to the treatments to be applied. Results show no water savings data, where are the water use efficiency (WUE) values? The discussion is also not well worked in the sense of the focus that is given to these treatments that aim to save water. So, my recommendation went to 'Reject'.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point raised and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. Please see the attachment for a point-by-point response addressing all of the raised concerns.
Kind regards,
Patricia Jaramillo & co-authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have carefully revised the paper according to the comments, and the quality of the manuscript has been improved, and it can be considered for acceptance.
Author Response
The reviewer did not include further comments/suggestions, so no actions are needed.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been improved.
Author Response
The reviewer did not include new comments/suggestions, so no further actions are needed.
