Phenology, Morphology and Physiology Responses of Deficit Irrigated ‘Koroneiki’ Olive Trees as Affected by Environmental Conditions and Alternate Bearing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a contribution to the field of deficit irrigation scheduling from a specific cultivar Koroneiki olive tree as affected by environmental conditions and alternate bearing. In general, the article is well-organized and contains all expected components, from introduction to conclusions. English is not my native language, but I feel that the article is well-written. The article does not suppose a major advance but a useful contribution to the knowledge base. Some minor revisions are proposed in the attached pdf file (see attached file revision.agronomy-1640928-peer-review-v1.pdf), expecting to improve the clarity of the performed research and their results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

I have read the manuscript (agronomy -1640928). Entitle: Phenology, morphology and physiology responses of deficit irrigated ‘Koroneiki’ olive trees as affected by environmental 4 conditions and alternate bearing written by Melpomeni Siakou et. al.. In this study, the author investigates the olive tree phenology, morphology and physiology for improving irrigation scheduling. A regulated (RDI) and a sustained (SDI) deficit irrigation treatment were applied in a ‘Koroneiki’ olive orchard in Cyprus. This author found that the Irrigation treatments did not significantly affect plant parameters. Fruit growth was favored by substantial rainfall and water savings in RDI were 24–32% in “on” and 24 48% in “off” years, relative to SDI, with no statistically significant effects on olive yields.

The overall research is well conducted, and research is obvious application potential for the readers because this study helps to improve the better understanding of the irrigation scheduling for the olive orchard based on their phenological, morphological, and physiological performances. In this sense, the manuscript is much valuable. However, I found some points, especially the flow of the text is not smooth and sometimes I found the shallow writing and lack of potential references, and lack of connection of story in different paragraphs, especially in the introduction and discussion sections. In discussion, the author should be deal with the physiological perspectives. I also found the lack of potential and appropriate references to support the findings. The author should provide enough examples and their interpretation of different traits of morphology and physiological responses. I recommend some literature I hope those will help you to improve manuscript quality better. Overall after I evaluate this manuscript, I request the author for the “MAJOR REVISION” and also, I request to authors for revision according to the rules of the journal and correct the bibliography.

 Major suggestions

1) Abstract Issue: Author wrote some important findings, but the finding is not well enough. Author should improve the abstract further by well connecting the results part and it should be enough to provide the home message of the overall study. In abstract, author should focus on the novelty of the findings. I saw the good result overall of the study, but writing is not good enough even some case not matching the title and some findings in the abstract. Please modify and rephrase the text again. The presentation of the results is shallow and less conciseness. Please remember that the abstract should more logical, short, concise, and informative. Your abstract should reflect your study and major findings while shortly observed by readers. Please make the necessary corrections. Please address all those comments in the abstract for further clearance of your research to the readers.

2) Introduction: Author did a good starting the introduction by including the global climate change issue due to drought stress in the Mediterranean countries which is much appreciated. However. Author did not describe the negative effect of drought stress to plant biology in the first paragraph in the introduction section. The sequential presentation about cause, factor and result is very important in scientific writing. The effect of drought is much devastating worldwide, equally, this effect is also seen in the Olive crops. Please correlate the drought effect in the plant, and consequently, it shows a negative effect on the plant.  Please mention that “drought reduced the morphological and physiological traits, reduce the leaf water potential and sap movement due to alternation of xylem anatomical features in the plants”. Then only author should jump on the effect of drought stress in the cereals crops, especially wheat, and its effect and global scenario and negative effect on the wheat productivity, especially arid and semi-arid regions.

3) Hypothesis of the study: Author well describes the objective of the study in the lines 98 to 103. However, the section of the hypothesis is hidden overall in the introduction. The hypothesis of the study is an important thing and it gives another strength for the introduction. The hypothesis should be very clear in the introduction sections because, without appropriate literature, questions, or hypotheses in the introduction section the entire text will be unclear. The author should give special attention and the sequential presentation of the content in the introduction with presenting the hypothesis of the study in the last section of the introduction.

4) Discussion sections (Line no 389): Please, improve the section of 3.4. Author should be properly cover the literature in this section by enough cited the reference articles related to the “plant water-relation, gs role and to conservation water (by partial stomatal open and close) its effect on the vegetative growth” Author may cite these articles in this section that deal the drought stress more integrated ways by addressing plant biology. Author should add the text “Drought reduced and morphology of the plant such as reduction of leaf size and vegetative growth, as well as reduce the plant vitality by reducing the photosynthesis and leaf water potential and reduce the transpiration

5) Discussion section (Section 3.4):  Author discussion related to physiology is still incomplete in the discussion section. Author should include an important component of “Hydraulic Failure” which is very important under drought/water deficit. Generally, drought stress is the major challenge in the world and it causes a reduction in the vitality of the plant and its metabolic activity and affects the physiological activities of the plant.  The possible reason behind this is subsequently changing the stem anatomical structure such as xylem vessel structure such as reducing the vessel diameter, area which also affects the other physiological process as well in the plant”.

 6) Result: Line no 420): Please, improve the result footnote of figure 4. It is not clearly presented.

7) Conclusion section (Line no. 475): The conclusion for me comes off as repetitive of the abstract or a summary of the results section. I would love to read striking points and take-home messages that will linger in the readers’ minds. What is the novelty, how does the study elucidate some questions along this field, and the contributions the paper may offer to the scientific community?

 8) References (Line no. 530): please double-check the citations, their style, spell check, and other grammatical errors. moreover, I request to authors for revision throughout the manuscript according to the journal rules.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author

I have read the revised manuscript (Agronomy- 1640928). Entitle: Phenology, morphology and physiology responses of deficit irrigated ‘Koroneiki’ olive trees as affected by environmental conditions. Author addressed all the questions and suggestions what I raised issue in the review of the original manuscript. I satisfy the author revisions throughout the paper. The abstract issue is well written by the author. Now this manuscript improved the flow of writing, which was comparatively shallow in the original version but in this revised copy author addressed all the quarries and suggestions where the introduction is significantly improved by author.  I request to author to check the whole manuscript by a native speaker for correct spell check, and other grammatical errors.