Yield and Yield Parameters Response of Cabbage to Partial Root Drying and Conventional Deficit Irrigation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Water-saving irrigation is a very critical research issue under the context of water crisis. In this study, taking cabbage in Turkey as the study crop, two water-saving irrigation methods, i.e., partial root drying (PRD) and  deficit irrigation (DI), were compared in terms of yield-related indicators.

After carefully reviewing, I consider that this is a well-organized and well-written manuscript. In particular, two-year experiments were performed and various analysis methods were included. To this end, this paper is of relatively high quality. However, I also have some major concerns regarding this work:

(1) I think the authors must emphasize the results regarding water use efficiency (WUE). It is common sense that crop yield increases with irrigation amounts (without waterlogging), so too much analysis regarding the relation of cabbage yields and irrigation amounts or ET is not important or attractive. In this paper, the authors seems disregard the important role of WUE and IWUE, which can demonstrate the efficiency of water-saving methods. In Table 5, which can be regarded as the most important result for this work, the WUEs of full irrigation were greater than deficit irrigation, and the results were quite different between the two years. I hope the authors can make more detailed explanations.

(2) I can not understand why the authors highlight the results of kc in Abstract and Conclusion. In this paper, so many significant results were obtained, but kc were not specifically investigated. And in my view, kc is a experienced coefficient, and you did not directly observe or calculate it in your work. Instead, I am confusing why you did not report more results regarding cabbage growth and quality indicators in Abstract and Conclusion.

(3) In Table 4, why cabbage yield indicators of PRD100 were so low in 2020? This treatment can be regarded as a control, but its cabbage yields were low in 2020 but high in 2019. So, I am wondering if there were other disturb factor in your experiments?

(4) In Introduction, the authors should include previous research regarding cabbage water-saving irrigation in Turkey, as well as the research regarding cabbage water-deficit stress.

(5) All the figures in this paper were constructed with low quality. I strongly suggest the authors to improve the figures, especially avoiding improper use of dual Y axis.

In addition, there are other minor comments:

-Lines 76-77, “pressurized ridged drainage (PRD) ” must be corrected because PRD refer to partial root drying in this paper.

-Lines 89-91, it is unnecessary to introduce cabbage production in other countries. Instead, please introduce more about cabbage cultivation in Turkey.

-Line 153, you should explain kp

-Figure 8, the Y axis is confusing.

-Figure 9, the texts in the figure were too small.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for carefully reviewing the manuscript in which we wrote our research results. You provided us with a better presentation opportunity. Thank you very much for your important and meaningful suggestions. We carefully reviewed your suggestions step by step and tried to complete them.

(1) I think the authors must emphasize the results regarding water use efficiency (WUE). It is common sense that crop yield increases with irrigation amounts (without waterlogging), so too much analysis regarding the relation of cabbage yields and irrigation amounts or ET is not important or attractive. In this paper, the authors seems disregard the important role of WUE and IWUE, which can demonstrate the efficiency of water-saving methods. In Table 5, which can be regarded as the most important result for this work, the WUEs of full irrigation were greater than deficit irrigation, and the results were quite different between the two years. I hope the authors can make more detailed explanations.

Response: The reviewer is absolutely right to warn us about this and we thank her for it. In this study, WUE and IWUE, which are the most important parameters and can show the effectiveness of water saving methods, played a very important role (Table 5). The seasonal effect was considered in the study and accordingly, as a result of the irrigation management applied, there was a change in the amount of irrigation water (Table 3). This situation is also explained in the method section (Page: 5, Line: 160-164). Additionally, additions were made regarding this issue between lines 260-263 and in the discussion section between lines 439-445 and 453-456.

(2) I can not understand why the authors highlight the results of kc in Abstract and Conclusion. In this paper, so many significant results were obtained, but kc were not specifically investigated. And in my view, kc is a experienced coefficient, and you did not directly observe or calculate it in your work. Instead, I am confusing why you did not report more results regarding cabbage growth and quality indicators in Abstract and Conclusion.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. The Reviewer is absolutely right about this. In this paper, kc was not specifically investigated. But it is only one parameter of the study. According to the reviewer's suggestions, Abstract and Conclusion were revised.

(3) In Table 4, why cabbage yield indicators of PRD100 were so low in 2020? This treatment can be regarded as a control, but its cabbage yields were low in 2020 but high in 2019. So, I am wondering if there were other disturb factor in your experiments?

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. An explanation of this situation is explained in the discussion section, lines 434-445.

(4) In Introduction, the authors should include previous research regarding cabbage water-saving irrigation in Turkey, as well as the research regarding cabbage water-deficit stress.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. This section has been revised.

(5) All the figures in this paper were constructed with low quality. I strongly suggest the authors to improve the figures, especially avoiding improper use of dual Y axis.

Response: Changes were made in line with the suggestions. In addition, the originals of the manuscript's images at 300 dpi resolution were uploaded to the submission system.

In addition, there are other minor comments:

-Lines 76-77,“pressurized ridged drainage (PRD)” must be corrected because PRD refer to partial root drying in this paper.

Response: Thanks for noticing this mistake. It has been corrected.

-Lines 89-91, it is unnecessary to introduce cabbage production in other countries. Instead, please introduce more about cabbage cultivation in Turkey.

Response: Thank you for this meaningful suggestion. Statistical data regarding other countries between lines 88-92 has been removed. Information regarding cabbage production in Turkey has been added.

-Line 153, you should explain kp

Response: Thanks for the reminder. We've added the explanation. (Line 155)

-Figure 8, the Y axis is confusing.

Response: Changes were made to the manuscript regarding the y-axis.

-Figure 9, the texts in the figure were too small.

Response: The text on the figure has been made slightly larger.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I found you artcle very interesting and novel. I have few minor suggestions and questions  directly given in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for carefully reviewing the manuscript in which we wrote our research results. You provided us with a better presentation opportunity. Thank you very much for your important and meaningful suggestions. We carefully reviewed your suggestions step by step and tried to complete them.

Line 132: Evaporation is different from evapotranspiration and its value is higher. Did you reduce measured evaporation in some way? Otherwise you overestimate water requirements.

Response: We reduced measured evaporation by keeping the crop coefficient (kc) low.

The explanation for this topic is on page 5 lines 161-162.

Line 139: This description would be more clear if you make  scheme of irrigation plot design

Response: An irrigation design is included in Figure 2.

Line 152: What is kp?

Response: : Thank you for your warning. Thank you for your kp is Class-A Evaporation Pan coefficient.

Line 169: How did you control capillary  water?

Response: There was no capillary water inlet in the study. Because, the study was conducted in a field with no groundwater problems.

Line 236: Please explain what is the difference?

Response: The differences are explained in the discussion section on line 436.

Line 284: There is no need for double presenation: by table and graph. Graphical presentation is always better.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. As you have stated, there is detailed information in the table including statistics. However, we wanted to express it with a figure to emphasize it in detail. We think that the figure should not be removed because it adds a visual effect.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf