Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

For the better quality if the article the Methodical part should be improved :

 

How was fruit size, weight evaluated? How many fruits were selected for the evaluation of their size and weight?

Author Response

For the better quality if the article the Methodical part should be improved :

The methodology section was changed. Tables 2 and 3 together with the results were moved to the results section. A section alone for data analysis was added.

Section 2.5 Data analysis was introduced.

Trees morphological values were introduced to a spreadsheet, and their values averaged their standard deviation obtained. An analysis was carried out for HD trees and another for mature trees during a season. Data of fruit yield during 2020 and 2021, water use efficiency, fruit yield, fruits per tree, fruit weight, canopy volume and irrigation application were evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the means were separated by Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). Data was loaded to a spreadsheet where the columns corresponded to each variable and ten lines corresponded to each irrigation treatment: 100%DI-2020, 75%RDI1-2020, 50%RDI2-2020, 100%DI-2021, 75%RDI1-2021 and 50%RDI2-2021. R Statistical Software calculates ANOVA and determines whether two or more groups are significantly different.

How was fruit size, weight evaluated? How many fruits were selected for the evaluation of their size and weight?

Trunk diameter was measured with a meter at a height of 80 cm from soil level in both HD and mature trees. Leaves were visually counted in HD trees. Three workers counted the leaves and an average value should be within ±5 leaves. If this difference was greater, the number of leaves were counted again. Leaves in mature trees were not counted. Once harvested each mango box was weighted with a 45 kg digital scale (mod. JS7916, JUSTA, China) to obtain the yield per tree. After collecting the mango fruits from a tree, the fruits were counted and the ratio between yield per tree, and fruit number provided the average fruit weight.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors aimed to determine the optimize water use and provide producers with the latest technology to save water during the mango growth period. Overall, the paper is generally well written, well organized and technically sound, this should be of interests to the readers of Agronomy-basel. However, I have some minor comments/suggestions that need to be addressed or clarified before the paper is accepted for publication by Agronomy-basel.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

1. Line 20-21 How much has yield increased? Please show the data.

2. Line 16-17 The author only mentions pruning of mature trees, but the yield of high density trees treatment is also after pruning, this is contradictory.

3. Materials and methods need to be modified according to the format requirements of the journal

4. Line 346 Where is the trunk diameter measured in the tree? Many parameters do not have specific measurement methods, such as how to measure the number of leaf?

5. The data analysis in Table 2 and Table 3 should be placed in the “Results” section

6. It is important that the “data analysis content” is missing in the “Materials and methods” section.

7. Line 456-457, The author mentioned “The effect of fruit size and yield one year after pruning was apparent.”. However, there is no detailed data description in Section 3.1

8. Please rephrase the discussion section, which should be comprehensively compared with the results of this study.

9. Conclusion: Please rewrite the Conclusion section.

Line 794 The yield difference is 7.5%. Please explain the differences between the treatments

Line 795-796 Please specify the impact of pruning on yield

Line 797-798 Please explain impact of the fuzzy controller on high density trees on yield WUE

12. Please handle the name uniformly in the paper, such as “mature trees”and “high density trees”

Author Response

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

1. Line 20-21 How much has yield increased? Please show the data.

CORRECTION: It was found that one year after trees were trimmed by taking away the larger internal branch, more light penetrated the canopy, and increasing yield increased in both mature by 60%; pruning in HD trees presented a yield increase of 5.37%.

2. Line 16-17 The author only mentions pruning of mature trees, but the yield of high density trees treatment is also after pruning, this is contradictory.

SEE PREVIOUS ANSWER

3. Materials and methods need to be modified according to the format requirements of the journal

It is restructured.

4. Line 346 Where is the trunk diameter measured in the tree? Many parameters do not have specific measurement methods, such as how to measure the number of leaf?

The following lines were added after line 346:

Trunk diameter was measured with a meter at a height of 80 cm from soil level in both HD and mature trees. Leaves were visually counted in HD trees. Three workers counted the leaves and an average value should be within ±5 leaves. If this difference was greater, the number of leaves were counted again. Leaves in mature trees were not counted. Once harvested each mango box was weighted with a 45 kg digital scale (mod. JS7916, JUSTA, China) to obtain the yield per tree. After collecting the mango fruits from a tree, the fruits were counted and the ratio between yield per tree, and fruit number provided the average fruit weight.  

5. The data analysis in Table 2 and Table 3 should be placed in the “Results” section

Tables 2 and 3 were changed to the first paragraph of the result section as their result analysis.

6. It is important that the “data analysis content” is missing in the “Materials and methods” section.

Section 2.5 Data analysis was introduced.

Trees morphological values were introduced to a spreadsheet, and their values averaged their standard deviation obtained. An analysis was carried out for HD trees and another for mature trees during a season. Data of fruit yield during 2020 and 2021, water use efficiency, fruit yield, fruits per tree, fruit weight, canopy volume and irrigation application were evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the means were separated by Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). Data was loaded to a spreadsheet where the columns corresponded to each variable and ten lines corresponded to each irrigation treatment: 100%DI-2020, 75%RDI1-2020, 50%RDI2-2020, 100%DI-2021, 75%RDI1-2021 and 50%RDI2-2021. R Statistical Software calculates ANOVA and determines whether two or more groups are significantly different.

 

7. Line 456-457, The author mentioned “The effect of fruit size and yield one year after pruning was apparent.”. However, there is no detailed data description in Section 3.1

3.1. Fruit size and yield after pruning

The effect of fruit size and yield one year after pruning was apparent. If each tree canopy is separated from its neighbor, yield increases. With a lower height and a better branch distribution, light penetrates through the canopy full of leaves and limbs.

This title and the first paragraph were modified as fruit size and yield is considered from section 3.2 onwards with its detailed data analysis.

3.1. Light penetration and ground cover factor in mature trees after pruning

With a lower height and a better branch distribution, light penetrates through the canopy full of leaves and limbs. A better canopy separation between trees avoids shade and increases main physiological activities.  

8. Please rephrase the discussion section, which should be comprehensively compared with the results of this study.

With our radiation measurements, total day transmission ratio (TRt) of pruned trees ranged between 0.61 and 0.67. Unpruned tree TRt only accounted for 0.31, being half of the collected radiation obtained by trimmed trees.

Total average yield per mature tree watered with 100%DI before pruning was of 226.41 kg tree^-1, and increased one year later to 361.53 kg tree^-1 (Table 10). Also HD trees watered with 100%DI increased their yield after trimming from 37.6 to 44.83 kg tree^-1 (Table 9). This difference is not huge and can also be related to tree age.

We found that storm water precipitation maintained the soil wet and after two weeks, weed growth affected micro-sprinkler performance. If pipes are not removed it will require of excessive manual labor to remove the weeds at the end of the harvest, with possibilities of breaking the pipes. The irrigation system is not used anymore without reducing mango production, meanwhile increasing WUE.

Our EC-5 probes buried at a depth of 35 cm monitored soil moisture every hour during all the tree phenological stages from flowering to harvest (Figure 19). Soil VWC at a depth of 35 cm varied from 36% to 27% with the 50% RDI irrigation treatment.

9. Conclusion: Please rewrite the Conclusion section.

Line 794 The yield difference is 7.5%. Please explain the differences between the treatments

Mature trees without pruning (2020-Table 7) presented greater yields with 100% irrigation. Yield was 22% higher with this treatment than with 50% RDI. Although there were less fruits per tree in the HD trees without pruning (2020-Table 6), the yield decreased by 33.5% when half the water was applied per tree (50% RDI).

Line 795-796 Please specify the impact of pruning on yield

Pruning affected volume canopy and yield considerably. A decrease of 29.2% in canopy volume was obtained after averaging all the mature trees before and after pruning. An average canopy volume loss of 2.6% was noted in trimmed HD trees. Trimmed HD trees reduced its average canopy volume by 2.6%. Mango production in mature trees increased by 59.6% (Table 7) after pruning, using the same trees under 100%DI treatment. First and second year productivity differences after pruning were insignificant. Minimum yield was obtained in mature trees with the 50% RDI irrigation treatment, decreasing 7.6% with respect to the production obtained with 100% DI. HD trees after pruning increased its average yield by 5.4%, being the same trees irrigated by the 100%DI treatment during 2020 and 2021.  Average fruit size of 753.6 g was obtained with the 50% RDI treatment, being heavier than 710.2 g fruits produced with 100%DI. Nevertheless, yield was higher with the 100% DI treatment as more fruits were produced per tree.

 

Line 797-798 Please explain impact of the fuzzy controller on high density trees on yield WUE

The fuzzy controller used a rain gauge during its operation. Yield from mature trees was not affected with its use, but a much better WUE achieved. WUE varied from 47 to 87 kg m^-3 (Table 10) in mature trees with the use of the fuzzy controller and the irrigation treatment used. Yield increased by 13.1% in 2021 by using the fuzzy controller in pruned HD trees with 100% DI. With this higher yield and less irrigation periods, WUE increased to 29.89. Without using the fuzzy controller in HD trees, yield and WUE were of 39.62 kg tree^-1 and 6.3 kg m^-3, respectively under the 100% DI treatment (Table 9).

12. Please handle the name uniformly in the paper, such as “mature trees”and “high density trees”

Line 195 was added to obtain a clear definition of high density trees (10 year old):

The trees were ten-year-old in 2020 and will be named through the paper high density HD trees.

25-year old trees were also fixed except the one in Fig1. Caption.

The unit of WUE was included in Tables and after the corresponding values in the text. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The changes made are satisfactory and this version can be accepted for publication.