Water Supply on Grafted Stone Pine: Effects on Growth and Mating
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYour research was well planned, conducted and written. I would recommend adding the P values after all the result,s especially with percentage values.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English is hard to understand, extensive English revision was needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to Authors
Manuscript title: Water supply on grafted Stone pine. Effects on growth and mating.
The primary goal of this research was to evaluate how various water supply schedules affect the growth and productivity of 14-year-old pine trees that have been grafted onto Aleppo pines, and to investigate their influence on the mating regulation of these trees. The manuscript is of great significance and is well-written. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed before it can be accepted for publication.
- Please remove lines 79-85 as they are not relevant to the study.
- In the introduction section, it is important for the authors to provide a paragraph that explains how water supply affects the growth, production, and mating of stone pine, supported by relevant references.
- All Tables have been placed before the references section. Please insert each table directly after the corresponding text that mentions it.
- Authors should adhere to the Instructions for Authors when creating Tables.
- Lines 137-147, Please provide a diagram or illustration showing how the various irrigation treatments were allocated in the experiment.
- References number 24 and 46 in line 184 are written in Spanish.
- Please separate the ANOVA table from Table 3 and present it in a standalone table. Ensure that all the details for the ANOVA analysis are included.
- There are numerous references cited in the Results section. It is recommended to include all relevant references in the Discussion section.
- Lines 188-189 “the total amount of consumption about 900 m3 ha-1 in T2 and 1900 m3 ha-1 in T1, how to extract these results from Table 2.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript on the topic " Water supply on grafted Stone pine. Effects on growth and mating" describes effect of using two types of irrigation on parameters of stone pine. This manuscript is very interesting and also, it bring a new information.
The abstract: please, when you first mention a scientific name, write the full name, including the names of the authors who described it. And, can you write whole name „Pinus” when you first mention pinus and then only P. Maybe it is better when you remove P. Pinea and write „stone pine” in abstract.
The keywords: it is good.
The introduction is understandable and readable, and it contains everything important.
The objectives are described appropriately and concisely.
In the material and methodology is write well.
The results: why references are shown in the results (mainly in 3.3. – it can be in discussion)?
The discussion is full-fledged and contains sufficient number of references for comparison.
The conclusion summarizes the own results.
In my opinion, the work is good and it need only a few changes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFor Materials and Method, more explanation about irrigation will be needed as the irrigation is the main experimental factor in this study,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The answer is in the PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have incorporated all of my suggestions from the previous draft of the manuscript. The revised version is now ready for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review the article.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1 "The soil characterization values correspond to the results of the analysis carried out by a specialized company." Even if the test is conducted at the company, the company should provide a test report that clearly indicates which method was used to obtain the data.
2. "Watering begins in April, with the same amount applied weekly and at the same frequency in T1 as in T2. On 1 July, T2 stops receiving water and only T1 continues to be watered until the end of September." This explanation should be appeared in the manuscript. By the way, in irrigation experiments, we usually set the same irrigation frequency but different irrigation quotas, or the same irrigation quota but different irrigation frequencies. This manuscript is essentially a different perspective on the irrigation period. Crops have a critical period for water absorption, and water shortage during non-critical periods has little impact in itself. I guess this is why water supply did not affect final size of the cones.
3 "The water supplied as in T1 and T2 (watering from April to September and from April to the end of June)......." can revised as "The water supplied as in T1 (watering from April to September) and T2 (watering from April to the end of June)...."
Author Response
Answers in attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
