Water–Fertilizer Interactions: Optimizing Water-Saving and Stable Yield for Greenhouse Hami Melon in Xinjiang

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

I have carefully reviewed the provided manuscript , fundamentally you provided a substantial version improved and corrected. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No need to improve 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive and encouraging feedback on our revised manuscript. We are sincerely grateful for the time and expertise you have dedicated to reviewing our work, and we are pleased to hear that you consider the revised version to be substantially improved.Please refer to the document below for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have made editorial suggestions throughout the manuscript. Please address those suggestions. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please refer to the document below for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a well-designed, methodologically study that addresses a highly relevant problem in arid-region horticulture: optimizing irrigation and fertilization to maximize yield and resource-use efficiency in greenhouse Hami melon.

The experimental design is comprehensive, including multiple irrigation and fertilization gradients, replicated plots, and detailed growth and yield monitoring. The study provides concrete, quantitative recommendations (90% irrigation, 100% fertilization; 3276 m³/ha water, 814.8 kg/ha fertilizer), offering actionable guidance for growers in arid regions.

The combination of field experiments and multi-objective optimization (Entropy-weighted TOPSIS and NSGA-II) reflects a careful and innovative approach. While yield and efficiency were well addressed, indeed, including traits such as sugar content, firmness, and soluble solids could add value and offer a more holistic perspective on optimizing both productivity and marketable quality. Overall, the results are clearly presented, logically interpreted, and the conclusions are well supported by the data.

Figures 4 and 5 are currently difficult to read. I recommend improving their resolution so that they are easily interpretable.

The reference formatting does not comply with the journal’s guidelines. The authors should carefully revise all references to ensure uniformity with the journal’s prescribed citation format.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your careful review.Please refer to the document below for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report for sustainability-4085275-peer-review-v1

Dear authors,

This aims to the interactive effects of irrigation and fertilization to identify an optimal regime that balances yield, water conservation, and efficiency and evaluated and comprehensively analyzed using the entropy-weighted TOPSIS method, regression analysis, and the NSGA-II multi-objective genetic algorithm. The English is fine, and the manuscript was written in a readable manner. However, some specific comments and suggestions are provided to improve the clarity and impact of your article.

Title

The title reflects the main focus of the research and the aim of the study.

Abstract

The abstract is clarity and mentions promising results.

• Line 19: five irrigation levels (W1–W5: 60%–100% of full irrigation) is not clearly demarcated
• Please provided “drip irrigation”

Keywords:

I recommend reviewing the keywords to ensure their consistency with the main concepts discussed in the abstract.

Introduction Section

The introduction well writing and clear, however, some specific comments and suggestions are provided to improve the clarity.

• Line 44: “cash crop has reached approximately 6,333 ha” is not clearly demarcated
• Line 62: it is particularly crucial to research the effects of
• Line 68: Please put the ref No. “Ma Liang”
• The introduction lacks the use of quantitative analysis in evaluating the interaction between irrigation and fertilization, and then, the research gap is sharpened to distinguish different with another validation from existing controlled or pot-scale studies.

Materials and Methods Section

The experimental design is generally sound and appropriate for addressing the stated objectives. Methods are described in sufficient detail to allow replication. Only minor clarifications are still required and some specific comments and suggestions are provided to improve the clarity.

• Table 1. Physical properties of soil in the experimental area of Huayuan Township. “Some initial properties of soil in the experimental area of Huayuan Township”.
• Remove the Initial words from table, and Soil type word is not correct “Soil texture” and also sand is Sandy
• Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of Temperature and Humidity Inside and Outside the Greenhouse. Please provided the rainfall data.
• Line 128: Please provided the water and fertilizer applied according to experience of local farmers.
• Lines 137-177 need to more clearly demarcated.
• Please remove duplicate sentences
• Lines 236-262: move it above “2.5. Data Processing”

Results and Discussion Section

• The results maintain a clear and professional article structure. However, some Figures need to have an increased font to show values, and checking of figure captions is recommended to ensure they are fully self-explanatory, with clear definitions of treatments, abbreviations, and statistical indicators.
• Some tables can be moved to the supplementary for easier tracking of the results.
• Some minor redundancy between the text and tabulated data, and the narrative could be further streamlined by emphasizing key trends rather than repeating numerical values already presented in tables.
• Discussion should be streamlined by removing redundancy between the Results and Discussion sections to further improve clarity.
• The authors may consider adding a brief statement in the discussion acknowledging the practical limitations related to short study duration and single-site conditions, without expanding this section substantially.

Conclusions Section

It is not adequate to the topic of research. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The conclusions are clearly linked to the original research questions and are largely supported by the reported results. However, the wording of some statements should be slightly refined to avoid implying causative mechanisms where the evidence is primarily correlative.
• The authors should also briefly acknowledge that the study represents short-term, site-specific field evidence, which strengthens internal validity but limits broader generalization. This clarification will ensure that conclusions remain appropriately bounded by the experimental scope.

Reference Section

The reference list is fully and recently.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful review.Please refer to the document below for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Quantitative Analysis of Water-Fertilizer Coupling: An Optimal Model for Water Saving and Yield Enhancement of Greenhouse-Grown Hami Melon in Xinjiang

 

The authors mentioned that

“The experiment was conducted from April to October 2025 in a greenhouse in Huayuan Township, Yizhou District, Hami City.Using the 'Cui Can Ming Zhu' muskmelon variety as plant material, a split-plot design with randomized block arrangement was adopted.”

How? The MS was submitted in September but the experiment was conducted from April to October 2025”

This information was confirmed by the authors again in line 137”

“The experiment was conducted from April to October 2025”

Again how did the authors finish and complete this study?

 

More comments:

Abstract is very long and needs more improvements like adding many findings using increase or decrease rate according to the control

The keywords: please avoid any word already mentioned in the title and not use many words together

Introduction needs more update refs.

Materials section:

The basic analyses of used soil are needed (mainly soil texture, field capacity, pH, EC, others like available NPK in soil)

The total treatments are 15, how can the authors explain the results?

“A total of 15 treatments were established, comprising five irrigation gradients (W1–W5: 60%–100% irrigation volume) and three fertilization gradients (F1–F3: 80%–100% fertilization amount).Growth indicators (plant height, stem diameter, leaf area index) throughout the growth period and yield were measured.”

Several parts in this section are NOT clear like:

Line 140-142: “of the full irrigation amount (crop water requirement coefficient), and three fertilizer gradients: 80% (F1, low), 90% (F2, medium), and 100% (F3, high) of the standard application rate” where these rates? Which base was used?

Line 171 “fish protein fertilizer, and amino acids” where details?

 

What does mean “3. Results and Analysis”

Where is the economic evaluation in this study?

For sure, the economic combination between water (in irrigation) and fertilizers should be evaluated based on the is economic evaluation

The MS should be rejected

Thanks

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides first quantative irrigation - fertilization thresholds for Hami melon in green houses.  

The paper is well structured. The methodology is clear. 

There are two issues.

*) There are several references that are unrelated to melon irrigation. 

10. Ren et al. (2022), Journal of Cleaner Production
Focuses on nitrogen fertilizer optimization for *grain* crops; no relation to Hami melon or greenhouse horticulture.

15. Mehmood et al. (2023), Agricultural Water Management
Winter *wheat* systems in North China Plain—different crop physiology and field context, unrelated to melon.

*) It should be explained in the introduction what exactly this study distinguisehed from prior regional melon irrigation research.

line 137. The experiment was conducted from April to October 2025,....    Note that the end-date is still in the future.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript aims to determine the optimal irrigation and fertilization levels for greenhouse-grown Hami melon using statistical modeling and multi-criteria decision analysis. Although the topic is relevant to sustainable horticultural production, the study suffers from fundamental scientific, methodological, and reporting weaknesses that undermine the credibility of its conclusions. Major revisions—both conceptual and technical—are required before it can be considered scientifically sound.

 

1. Experimental Design and Replication

 

Lack of true replication: The number of replicates per treatment is not reported, and measurements appear to come from multiple plants within the same plot. Such subsampling cannot substitute for experimental replication and invalidates the ANOVA results.

 

Unclear design: Although the text mentions a split-plot randomized block design, there is no explanation of the blocking factors or randomization procedure.

 

Control duplication: The control treatment appears identical to one of the main irrigation–fertilizer combinations, causing pseudo-replication and confusion in the interpretation of comparisons.

 

2. Methodological Inconsistencies

 

Normalization and modeling: The manuscript describes a min–max normalization but presents values that correspond to standardized z-scores. This inconsistency affects all subsequent modeling and decision-analysis results.

 

Incorrect equations:

 

The equation for leaf area index is wrong because it omits the reference ground area.

 

The formula for fruit volume is dimensionally incorrect and lacks the geometric constant used in a prolate spheroid model.

 

 

Variable definitions: Some symbols are used inconsistently between equations and tables, making it impossible to reproduce the calculations.

 

3. Statistical Analysis

 

Improper use of ANOVA: Without genuine plot replication, the reported F-values and significance levels have no statistical meaning.

 

Ambiguous multiple-comparison tests: The paper alternately refers to Tukey and Duncan tests without justification or uniform reporting.

 

Missing data structure: Degrees of freedom, mean squares, and precise factor names are absent from the ANOVA tables.

 

Pseudoreplication: Multiple fruits from the same plot are treated as independent samples, inflating degrees of freedom and exaggerating significance.

 

 

4. Quantitative and Modeling Errors

 

Unit confusion: The denominator in water-use efficiency lacks area normalization; yield and irrigation amounts are expressed in inconsistent units.

 

Optimization model: The regression surfaces and entropy-weighted ranking are derived from inconsistent or erroneous data normalization, making the identified “optimum” unreliable.

 

Interaction effects: The negative interaction term between irrigation and fertilizer contradicts the graphical interpretation, suggesting incorrect coefficient estimation.

 

 

 

5. Reporting and Reproducibility

 

Incomplete description of irrigation protocol: The method for calculating “full irrigation” (ETc, Kc, or soil-moisture trigger) is missing.

 

Fertilization details: Formulations are given only as total nutrients without timing, concentration, or chemical form.

 

Environmental data gaps: Greenhouse temperature, humidity, and light data are referenced but not presented. Coordinates contain impossible numerical values.

 

Missing information on bio-inputs: Microbial inoculant types, CFU counts, and application details are absent.

 

No data availability: There are no raw data, code, or statistical outputs provided for verification.

 

 

6. Presentation and Formatting

 

Numerous typographical and grammatical errors indicate inadequate language editing.

 

Placeholder editorial notes and formatting templates remain in the text.

 

Figure numbering is inconsistent, and several figures appear missing or mismatched with their captions.

 

Equation numbering is irregular and sometimes followed by residual bullet formatting.

 

The ethics statement is irrelevant to a plant study and should be replaced with “Not applicable.”

 

The reference list includes broken links, incomplete citations, and non-standard sources.

 

 

 

 

7. Interpretation and Novelty

 

The claim of being the “first quantitative threshold determination” is not justified; similar optimization studies exist for muskmelon and other cucurbits.

 

Results are overstated given the weak experimental design and statistical flaws.

 

The discussion fails to connect the findings with physiological mechanisms or previous regional studies.

 

 

 

 

8. Practical and Conceptual Improvements

 

1. Clearly define replication at the plot level and re-analyze using the correct experimental unit.

 

 

2. Correct all equations for leaf area index, fruit volume, and yield, ensuring dimensional consistency.

 

 

3. Use a single, well-described multiple-comparison test and include full ANOVA tables with degrees of freedom.

 

 

4. Recompute all normalization and regression models using verified data.

 

 

5. Distinguish the control treatment clearly from the tested combinations.

 

 

6. Provide full details of irrigation scheduling, fertilizer formulations, and microbial inoculant composition.

 

 

7. Replace placeholders, re-number figures and tables properly, and revise the language for clarity and grammar.

 

 

8. Include fruit-quality parameters (e.g., soluble solids, firmness) to support the agronomic value of the proposed optimum.

 

 

9. Make all datasets and analysis scripts openly available for reproducibility.

 

 

10. Moderate novelty claims and explicitly compare with earlier regional studies.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language requires in depth corrections throughly the manuscript.