The Effect of Climatic Parameters on Strawberry Production in a Small Walk-In Greenhouse
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
English needs editing
The introduction is weak, authors should describe the state of art concerning the aim of their study
The measurements using perpendicular angle rulers were inaccurate, why didn't you use caliper?
Lack of statistics. I have great doubts whether 8 strawberries are enough to calculate the average. If I am wrong, give appropriate reference to this method. In addition, these averages were not calculated for most of the features studied. The statistical significance of differences between the two harvest periods of strawberries was not compared.
A part of results and discussion should be a part of Materials and methods, for example lines 167-177
Data from tables and graphs must not be duplicated = Table 5 and Figure 14.
The right conclusions begin in 413, you mentioned in the conclusions about significant difference and correlations but you did not calculate significance and correlations
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled “The effect of climatic parameters on strawberry production in 2 small walk-in greenhouse”. The topic is within the scope of this journal, and the manuscript is well written. I will suggest minor revision and please consider the following two comments 1. The authors should add a paragraph on soil conditions and possibly irrigation and fertilization. 2. The sample size in Section 3.3, i.e., “8 samples/period”, could be too small, please increase the sample size if possible.Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
despite the good research you did, the results could be more trusted if you had measured some characteristics related to biomass, leaf are index and light interception of strawberries cultivated in described situation. totally you just describe cultivation process in the environmental situation of your greenhouse without any exact treatments or comparing your result to a long term climate change of the same place.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript “The effect of climatic parameters on strawberry production in small walk-in greenhouse” by Khammayom, et al., talks about the impact of different environmental factors such as temperature, solar radiation, and relative humidity on strawberry production.
Overall, this manuscript is well written and thoroughly described. However, the language used in the manuscript is not up to the standard for publication, and several major and minor grammatical mistakes are shown, and many of the phrases are not clear. It should go through complete proofreading by a native speaker. A few examples from only the abstract section are mentioned below (in bold letters), while it is the same case for the overall manuscript.
Line 12: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of different environmental factors...
Line 13: relative humidity, that influence the quality of strawberry fruit, in terms of its shape, size, and sugar accumulation.
Line 17: To evaluate the influence of environmental factors on strawberry fruit quality
Line 18-20: The environmental results can see that average temperature difference between day and night at peak harvesting was around 12℃ and it was appropriate for high quality strawberry cultivation.
This sentence is too confusing to understand. Rephrase it
Line 22: In addition, there were no significant on solar radiation and relative humidity…. Significant what?
Line 23: Increasing temperatures lead to the decline in soluble sugar contents at the end of the season
Keywords: Keywords are not appropriate; they should depict the aims and findings of the experiment. Moreover, they should be different from title words as well.
The manuscript is interestingly written and generally looks correct. However, in order to draw unequivocal conclusions from field/greenhouse experiments, especially if factor (like temperature, solar radiations, and relative humidity) effectiveness is depended on meteorological season conditions, it is necessary to repeat the experiment for at least two seasons (preferably for three) and more than one location as well. I think the presented data is not enough to draw such conclusions.
Secondly, the overview of the introduction is fine, but the authors have mentioned some additional and irrelevant details which are not related to the topic. This section needs to be very precise with more relevant literature.
Thirdly, another major drawback of the manuscript is the discussions section. The authors did not provide solid reasons for the specific results obtained in this study. They should provide solid justifications for the results obtained with some latest and relevant references.
The author should include and suggest the future prospects of the proposed study in the conclusions section
To sum up, the manuscript can find interest among specialists when these major comments will be taken into account.
Good Luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After the revision the paper can be published
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
Despite the recommendations on repeating study for better results or scarceness of scientific finding due to lack of treatments and other major points that reviewers asked you to make corrections, there is just some explanations that you are agree with reviewers but in current manuscript cant you apply them. I think this manuscript is good for a cooperative extension helping people grow strawberry better in your location but it is not scientific enough to get published in a highly ranked journal.
warm regards
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I appreciate your efforts to incorporate my concerns. However, I still feel that the data presented here is not enough to draw such conclusions.
But on the other hand, I don't want to indulge in the process of the manuscript for its possible acceptance. Therefore, I leave it to the editorial board to decide the suitability of the MS and I respect their final decision.
Good Luck!
