Linking Almond Yield and Quality to the Production System and Irrigation Strategy Considering the Plantation Age in a Mediterranean Semiarid Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript explores the interplay between production system (organic vs. conventional), irrigation regime (full irrigation vs. regulated deficit irrigation), and plantation age (3 vs. 7 years) in shaping almond yield and quality within a Mediterranean semiarid context. The topic is both timely and relevant, especially in light of increasing concerns regarding sustainable water use and the expansion of organic farming practices in almond production. Overall, the study is well-conceived and presents a substantial dataset. However, there are several critical areas that require improvement in order to enhance the clarity, scientific rigor, and communicative effectiveness of the paper.
The manuscript makes a meaningful contribution to the growing body of literature on sustainable almond production. The experimental design is sound and appropriate for the research questions posed. The data are extensive and well-collected, encompassing a wide range of physical, chemical, and sensorial parameters. That said, the manuscript is hindered by significant issues in English language usage, including awkward syntax, grammatical errors, and a generally unclear writing style. These issues detract from the scientific message and should be thoroughly addressed before publication.
The M&M section is a strong point of the manuscript. The experimental design is well explained, with clear descriptions of the treatments, plot layout, and measurement techniques. The inclusion of a wide array of variables—from fruit yield to biochemical quality traits—adds depth to the analysis. Nevertheless, the statistical methodology could be described in more detail. For instance, while principal component analysis (PCA) is mentioned, there is little discussion of how the results were interpreted or why this technique was selected. Clarifying the treatment of interaction terms in the ANOVA would also be helpful. Moreover, some of the unit formatting is inconsistent, and standard SI notation should be used throughout for clarity
The Resultsss and discussion  section presents a large volume of data and offers thoughtful discussion of the findings. The authors do a commendable job of linking the observed trends to the treatment variables and drawing comparisons with existing literature. The influence of production system, irrigation, and plantation age is explored thoroughly, and the analysis touches on important interactions between these factors.
However, the writing in this section is often overly wordy and contains many awkward or vague constructions, such as “Even more interesting were the differences...”. Additionally, the integration of discussion with the results is not always smooth; in some places, interpretations feel speculative without sufficient supporting evidence. Greater emphasis could be placed on the practical relevance of the findings, for instance, how growers might balance yield trade-offs with water savings or organic premiums.
The conclusion effectively reiterates the key findings, particularly the complex interplay between irrigation strategy and production system, and how these are influenced by plantation age. However, the section could be more concise and direct in highlighting the novel contributions of the study.
The manuscript requires substantial revision for English language and style. There are consistent grammatical mistakes throughout, misuse of prepositions, and non-native constructions that impair clarity. The overuse of passive voice also diminishes the impact of the findings. I strongly recommend professional language editing by a native English speaker with scientific writing experience.
As far as I'm concerned, I recommend Major Revision, but only due to the language issues and to allow the authors more time to revise the manuscript

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1

The submitted manuscript explores the interplay between production system (organic vs. conventional), irrigation regime (full irrigation vs. regulated deficit irrigation), and plantation age (3 vs. 7 years) in shaping almond yield and quality within a Mediterranean semiarid context. The topic is both timely and relevant, especially in light of increasing concerns regarding sustainable water use and the expansion of organic farming practices in almond production. Overall, the study is well-conceived and presents a substantial dataset. However, there are several critical areas that require improvement in order to enhance the clarity, scientific rigor, and communicative effectiveness of the paper.

The manuscript makes a meaningful contribution to the growing body of literature on sustainable almond production. The experimental design is sound and appropriate for the research questions posed. The data are extensive and well-collected, encompassing a wide range of physical, chemical, and sensorial parameters. That said, the manuscript is hindered by significant issues in English language usage, including awkward syntax, grammatical errors, and a generally unclear writing style. These issues detract from the scientific message and should be thoroughly addressed before publication.

Dear Reviewer 1,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your time and work to improve the final result of this manuscript. According to your introduction, indeed the aim of the work was to evaluate the effects of ecological management and deficit irrigation on almond (cv. Marcona) cultivation, as well as to analyse the variations in the quality of almonds from trees of different ages. Indeed, the manuscript needs to be improved in terms of English style and writing, faults typical of a non-native English speaker. In order to improve these limitations, the corrected version of this paper has been sent to the MDPI review service, and the quality of the language and the writing of the paper have been significantly improved.The M&M section is a strong point of the manuscript. The experimental design is well explained, with clear descriptions of the treatments, plot layout, and measurement techniques. The inclusion of a wide array of variables—from fruit yield to biochemical quality traits—adds depth to the analysis. Nevertheless, the statistical methodology could be described in more detail. For instance, while principal component analysis (PCA) is mentioned, there is little discussion of how the results were interpreted or why this technique was selected. Clarifying the treatment of interaction terms in the ANOVA would also be helpful.

Dear reviewer, thanks for the input. Indeed, the statistical analysis section was somewhat confusing and did not require some improvements to facilitate the understanding of the analyses performed. This section has been modified and an explanation of the motivations for performing the principal component analysis has been added (See 2.5. Section)

Moreover, some of the unit formatting is inconsistent, and standard SI notation should be used throughout for clarity.

Dear reviewer, we have reviewed the units of the data provided and have tried to keep them in SI. If any of the units are not in this form, it is to facilitate the interpretation of the data and to avoid the excessive use of decimals. For instance, the irrigation volumes, rainfall, ET0 or ET_C are shown in mm (L/m²), this being a conventional unit in peer-reviewed papers. Also, TCS are shown in cm² because of transforming them on m² would require the use of too many digits.

The Results and discussion  section presents a large volume of data and offers thoughtful discussion of the findings. The authors do a commendable job of linking the observed trends to the treatment variables and drawing comparisons with existing literature. The influence of production system, irrigation, and plantation age is explored thoroughly, and the analysis touches on important interactions between these factors.

However, the writing in this section is often overly wordy and contains many awkward or vague constructions, such as “Even more interesting were the differences...”. Additionally, the integration of discussion with the results is not always smooth; in some places, interpretations feel speculative without sufficient supporting evidence. Greater emphasis could be placed on the practical relevance of the findings, for instance, how growers might balance yield trade-offs with water savings or organic premiums.

Dear reviewer, thank you for the input. The work has undergone in this first revision a professional English revision as well as the style. We agree that sometimes we have abused the use of hypothetic expressions, but we had the disadvantage of not having enough scientific literature in which the interaction of deficit irrigation with organic production systems and the behavior of a plantation as a function of age were treated in a similar way. We stressed in this second version to limit the use of certain expressions.

The conclusion effectively reiterates the key findings, particularly the complex interplay between irrigation strategy and production system, and how these are influenced by plantation age. However, the section could be more concise and direct in highlighting the novel contributions of the study.

Dear reviewer, we totally agree with you. Some changes have been included in this section trying to emphasize the novelty of our results.

The manuscript requires substantial revision for English language and style. There are consistent grammatical mistakes throughout, misuse of prepositions, and non-native constructions that impair clarity. The overuse of passive voice also diminishes the impact of the findings. I strongly recommend professional language editing by a native English speaker with scientific writing experience. As far as I'm concerned, I recommend Major Revision, but only due to the language issues and to allow the authors more time to revise the manuscript.

Thanks for your contribution. As we have previously indicated, R1 has been checked by a professional native English speaker provided by MPDI English editing service.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

The text only mentions "3-years (2019) and 7-years old (2023)" without clearly defining these two stages. This is difficult to understand, and it is recommended to provide a more detailed description. Additionally, why were these two stages chosen for the research? It is suggested to be supplemented in the text.

The expression of the research significance is rather vague, lacking pertinence and depth. It is suggested to supplement the research significance.

Introduction

The article is mentioned that organic almonds account for 25% in the Andalusia region, but the main limiting factors for organic cultivation (such as pests and diseases, nutrient management difficulties, and low yields from young trees) are not specified. It is suggested to supplement the actual production issues of organic almonds in the local area to highlight the necessity of the research.

The introduction mentions that "young trees and mature trees respond differently to water stress," but it only broadly refers to differences in root development without specifically indicating whether there are studies comparing the quality differences of the same variety under different tree ages and organic production systems? It is recommended to clarify the current situation of "lack of multifactorial dynamic analysis" to strengthen the innovation of this research.

Lines 72-75 mention "consumer recognition of organic products," but do not cite any references regarding market trends or consumer preferences for organic almonds from the past five years. It is recommended to supplement the reference.

Materials and methods

Are organic (OPS) production systems and conventional (CPS) production systems completely consistent in other agronomic measures such as fertilization and pest and disease management? If there are differences, how can the interference of these factors on the results be excluded?

In the experiment, does each treatment have replicates? The text does not clarify this, and it may impact the reliability of the data.

The study involves a comparison between 2019 and 2023, but it does not specify whether the differences in meteorological conditions (such as rainfall, temperature, and sunlight duration) between the two years may affect the experimental results.

The article mentions that organic (OPS) production systems use cow manure organic fertilizer (2 kg/m²) and cover crops, but it does not specify the specific nutrient composition of the organic fertilizer (such as N, P, K content) and does not explain the actual role of cover crops in improving soil nutrients. It is recommended to provide further clarification.

Lines 124-129 of the text mention that “a regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) treatment, which was irrigated applying 80% of ETc ...”. However, the scientific basis for choosing these stages for water stress was not clearly explained.

The root distribution of different tree ages (3 years or 7 years) may vary significantly, but the RDI treatment did not adjust the irrigation amount or stress intensity based on tree age. Is it necessary to consider the influence of tree age on water demand?

Results and Discussion

In section 3.2, the study found that the AA and TPC of OPS in 2019 were significantly higher than those of CPS, but the difference disappeared in 2023. AA showed differences only in the ABTS parameter, with the highest ABTS values under OPS and FI conditions. Is this change related to differences in the regulatory mechanisms of secondary metabolic pathways in mature trees?

In section 3.6, the study found that the quality of 3-year-old young trees was mainly influenced by the production system, while 7-year-old mature trees were more reliant on irrigation strategies. This phenomenon may be related to the development of the root system and carbon allocation patterns, but relevant literature (such as the differences in response to water stress based on root depth) was not cited in the discussion. It is recommended to provide further supplementation.

The research is based on the semi-arid environment of the Mediterranean. Is the conclusion applicable to other climate zones? It is suggested that the limitations of the research be supplemented in the discussion.

A critical aspect of discussion part is to support it with relevant and reliable references. Therefore, authors are requested to ensure that the entire study is validated with relevant and reliable literature.

The study is based on the "Marcona" variety; are the conclusions applicable to other almond varieties, especially those with significantly different drought resistance?

Format problem

The number of decimal places for the data in each table is inconsistent. Some data are retained to two decimal places, while others are retained to only one decimal place, which affects the standardization and readability of the table data. To enhance the professionalism and consistency of the table presentation, it is recommended to standardize the number of decimal places for each table, ensuring that the data format remains consistent within the same table.
Unify the font size of the figures and tables. The font appears somewhat inconsistent, with the font in the figures being too small, while some individual fonts in the tables are excessively large.
The table is not very standardized. It is recommended to check the latest articles in the journal to standardize the table format.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can improve English to express research more clearly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer2,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your time and work to improve the presentation of this manuscript. According to your comments, indeed the aim of the work was to evaluate the effects of organic management and deficit irrigation on almond (cv. Marcona) cultivation, as well as to analyse the variations in the quality of almonds from trees of different ages. Indeed, the manuscript needs to be improved in terms of English style and writing, errors typical of a non-native English speaker. In order to improve these limitations, the corrected version of this paper has been sent to the MDPI review service, and the quality of the language and the writing of the paper have been significantly improved. Please, see below the responses and changes included in the text, according to your suggestions

Abstract

The text only mentions "3-years (2019) and 7-years old (2023)" without clearly defining these two stages. This is difficult to understand, and it is recommended to provide a more detailed description. Additionally, why were these two stages chosen for the research? It is suggested to be supplemented in the text.

Dear Reviewer. Thanks for your comment. We have not included this information in the Abstract because of limit in the number of words. However, additional information has been included in the Introduction section (LINES 86-89 and 101-103)

The expression of the research significance is rather vague, lacking pertinence and depth. It is suggested to supplement the research significance.

Thanks, we have included the p value (p<0.05, p<0.01 or p<0.001) when we mention the significant differences between treatments. Also, additional changes have been included throughout of the text.

Introduction

The article is mentioned that organic almonds account for 25% in the Andalusia region, but the main limiting factors for organic cultivation (such as pests and diseases, nutrient management difficulties, and low yields from young trees) are not specified. It is suggested to supplement the actual production issues of organic almonds in the local area to highlight the necessity of the research.

Dear reviewer, we totally agree with your comment. We have included your idea in this paragraph.

The introduction mentions that "young trees and mature trees respond differently to water stress," but it only broadly refers to differences in root development without specifically indicating whether there are studies comparing the quality differences of the same variety under different tree ages and organic production systems? It is recommended to clarify the current situation of "lack of multifactorial dynamic analysis" to strengthen the innovation of this research.

We have included this idea in the introduction section (LINES 86-89)

Lines 72-75 mention "consumer recognition of organic products," but do not cite any references regarding market trends or consumer preferences for organic almonds from the past five years. It is recommended to supplement the reference.

Dear reviewer, not many scientific references about organic almonds have been found because they are scarce. However, we has been included a study case in Spain (Reference 16).

Materials and methods

Are organic (OPS) production systems and conventional (CPS) production systems completely consistent in other agronomic measures such as fertilization and pest and disease management? If there are differences, how can the interference of these factors on the results be excluded?

In the experiment, does each treatment have replicates? The text does not clarify this, and it may impact the reliability of the data.

Dear Reviewer. Thank you for your comment. Indeed, organic vs. conventional management involves a set of differentiated agronomic practices that refer not only to fertilization (mineral vs. organic), pest and disease control with different products, or the presence of vegetation cover vs. bare soil. Evidently, there are numerous factors that subsequently shape one management system versus another, and which are therefore compared in global terms. It is therefore not possible to differentiate factors such as fertilization, pest and disease control or canopy management, as these all shape one management strategy (organic) versus another (conventional). From this point on, irrigation treatments are an equal factor in both systems. Finally, the number of replications per management system and irrigation treatment (n=4) was also requested by the other reviewer and has been edited and included more information in the text.

The study involves a comparison between 2019 and 2023, but it does not specify whether the differences in meteorological conditions (such as rainfall, temperature, and sunlight duration) between the two years may affect the experimental results.

Thanks for the comment. As you can check on Table 1, rainfall and ET₀ distribution in the different stages is included. In relation to other climatic variables, such as average temperature or sunlight duration, these are very similar during the months of kernel-filling (June, July and August), when the nut components are accumulated. Consider that in the study area, climatic conditions during summer are very similar, with a very low inter-annual variability. Said this, a brief comment about this idea has been included (LINES 257-259)

The article mentions that organic (OPS) production systems use cow manure organic fertilizer (2 kg/m²) and cover crops, but it does not specify the specific nutrient composition of the organic fertilizer (such as N, P, K content) and does not explain the actual role of cover crops in improving soil nutrients. It is recommended to provide further clarification.

Thanks. This information has been included in M&M

Lines 124-129 of the text mention that “a regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) treatment, which was irrigated applying 80% of ETc ...”. However, the scientific basis for choosing these stages for water stress was not clearly explained.  This irrigation strategy was defined according to the theory with the period of least sensitivity to water stress in the case of almond, and coincides with the period of grain filling, being preferable to avoid severe stress situations during the periods of vegetative development and post-harvest. (THIS CLARIFICATION HAS BEEN ALSO INCLUDED).

The root distribution of different tree ages (3 years or 7 years) may vary significantly, but the RDI treatment did not adjust the irrigation amount or stress intensity based on tree age. Is it necessary to consider the influence of tree age on water demand? Obviously, the age of the trees has a direct influence on its water requirements (mainly due to the size of the tree crown, and this causes the ETc to be higher in adult trees). As can be seen in Table 1, neither ETc nor irrigation allocations were similar in both seasons, being much higher in the second one. As for the irrigation strategy, the aim was to compare the same strategy at two different times of development. If we had also varied the strategy according to tree age, comparisons would have been impossible.

Results and Discussion

In section 3.2, the study found that the AA and TPC of OPS in 2019 were significantly higher than those of CPS, but the difference disappeared in 2023. AA showed differences only in the ABTS parameter, with the highest ABTS values under OPS and FI conditions. Is this change related to differences in the regulatory mechanisms of secondary metabolic pathways in mature trees?

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for the comment. We have asked ourselves this same question during the development of the work and obviously many questions remain to be answered. Unfortunately, as you may have noticed, there is currently no scientific literature that has addressed the issue of water deficit and management system together in almond trees, even less comparing different ages. In this sense, there is an important gap that we hope will be covered in the coming years and that, within the current line of work that we have been developing, we are trying to complement.

In section 3.6, the study found that the quality of 3-year-old young trees was mainly influenced by the production system, while 7-year-old mature trees were more reliant on irrigation strategies. This phenomenon may be related to the development of the root system and carbon allocation patterns, but relevant literature (such as the differences in response to water stress based on root depth) was not cited in the discussion. It is recommended to provide further supplementation.

Additional information has been added at the end of this section, including a recent reference. However, if you want to suggest an additional work to consider its inclusion, please, feel free to do it.

The research is based on the semi-arid environment of the Mediterranean. Is the conclusion applicable to other climate zones? It is suggested that the limitations of the research be supplemented in the discussion.

Thanks for the suggestion. An additional comment has been included into the Conclusion section, emphasizing the need to carry out similar work on other cultivars and under other environmental conditions

A critical aspect of discussion part is to support it with relevant and reliable references. Therefore, authors are requested to ensure that the entire study is validated with relevant and reliable literature.  

Dear reviewer, as far as the bibliography is concerned, we have conscientiously reviewed the same, trying to avoid freeways and incorporating the most recent works possible. In any case, and as we have commented above, if the reviewer considers it necessary to incorporate any additional work that could enrich the quality of the discussion, please do not hesitate to let us know.

The study is based on the "Marcona" variety; are the conclusions applicable to other almond varieties, especially those with significantly different drought resistance?

Dear reviewer, this issue has been included in the conclusions of the work to highlight the need to continue working on similar studies but in other varieties and scenarios of water availability.

Format problem

The number of decimal places for the data in each table is inconsistent. Some data are retained to two decimal places, while others are retained to only one decimal place, which affects the standardization and readability of the table data. To enhance the professionalism and consistency of the table presentation, it is recommended to standardize the number of decimal places for each table, ensuring that the data format remains consistent within the same table.

Thank you for pointing this out. The number of decimal places has been standardized within each table.

Unify the font size of the figures and tables. The font appears somewhat inconsistent, with the font in the figures being too small, while some individual fonts in the tables are excessively large. The table is not very standardized. It is recommended to check the latest articles in the journal to standardize the table format.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have tried to homogenize as much as possible the font type and font size in the figures, according to the text and tables.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of the manuscript entitled “Linking the almond yield and quality to production system and irrigation strategy based on plantation age in Mediterranean semiarid environment” falls within the general scope of the journal.

According to the authors, “The aim of this study was to contrast the impact of conventional and organic production systems on the yield and quality parameters of Marcona almond trees at two development stages (3-years and 7-years old), subjecting to different irrigation strategies (DI and full irrigation) in semiarid Mediterranean region of southwest Spain”.

It is an original contribution, in which the authors conducted a two-year experiment (2019 and 2023). The article structure is correct; it is divided into clearly defined and numbered sections and subsections. In my opinion, this manuscript is very interesting for the readers of Agronomy; however, from my point of view, it would improve with some changes.

Comments

The methodology outlined in "2.3. Chemical Composition of the Grain" is well presented; however, I believe that additional detail is needed in other sections of the manuscript. For instance, the experimental design could be enhanced, and the authors should clarify how they calculated the yield and trunk cross-section. In this sense, the irrigation stages should be better defined in the materials and methods section, and authors may consider giving the amount of water applied separately for stages III and IV, since they received different percentages of ETo. In lines 125-126 authors say “which was irrigated applying the 80% of ETc during the vegetative stage (from March to June) and post-harvest (from harvesting to the end of October), … . In lines 243-244 “received 72.5 mm of irrigation water in stage II; whereas the RDI just received 55.5; 75% of the amount imposed in FI plots”. Authors may explain the reason for this different percentage of water applied (80% - 75%).

The authors indicate in "2.2. Analysis of the Physical Parameters of the Grain: For each season, twenty-five almonds per orchard management and irrigation treatment". In tables 4 and 5 they indicate that the values are mean of 3 replications. Authors may indicate how the 25 almonds are considered in the 3 replications.

In point 3.6, the authors have carried out a two-factor principal components analysis for each monitored season, however, in my opinion it would be advisable (although not mandatory) to carry out a two-way ANOVA (on the different tables), which would facilitate the interpretation of the results.

Authors should review the entire article and correct any errors. Some points that should be reviewed are provided as examples.

Tables and figures should be shelf-explanatory. It seems that there is a typo in the “A” and “B” description in Figure 1, which, in general terms, should be improved.

They should indicate binomials in italics.

Table 1: P. Olsen (g kg^-1) Are the authors sure about these units?

Acronyms/Abbreviations should be defined the first time they appear.

Line 28: “de”

Line 112: ET0

Line 136 (and others): kg m-2

Line 196: Organic acids were separated as sugars. It seems that some information is missing.

Line 220: first by variety. The variety ‘Marcona’ is the only one used in the experiment

Line 301-304: “Yield reductions resulting from the application of deficit irrigation strategies or the application of organic farming practices in almond crop, as opposed to conventional systems without water reduction, can be corrected to a certain degree through an improvement in almond quality and hence, in the almond marketability”. Do the authors mean "correct" or "compensate"?

Line 351: “Physical analysis of almonds under production systems and irrigation strategies”. Are the authors referring to almonds or kernels?

Line 681: References number must be checked (e.g. [40] and [41] in the text are [39] and [40] in the list.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 3

The subject of the manuscript entitled “Linking the almond yield and quality to production system and irrigation strategy based on plantation age in Mediterranean semiarid environment” falls within the general scope of the journal.

According to the authors, “The aim of this study was to contrast the impact of conventional and organic production systems on the yield and quality parameters of Marcona almond trees at two development stages (3-years and 7-years old), subjecting to different irrigation strategies (DI and full irrigation) in semiarid Mediterranean region of southwest Spain”.

It is an original contribution, in which the authors conducted a two-year experiment (2019 and 2023). The article structure is correct; it is divided into clearly defined and numbered sections and subsections. In my opinion, this manuscript is very interesting for the readers of Agronomy; however, from my point of view, it would improve with some changes.

 Dear Reviewer 3,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your time and work to improve this manuscript. According to your introduction, indeed the aim of the work was to evaluate the effects of organic management and deficit irrigation on almond (cv. Marcona) cultivation, as well as to analyse the variations in the quality of almonds from trees of different ages. Please, see below the responses and changes included in the text, according to your suggestions.

The methodology outlined in "2.3. Chemical Composition of the Grain" is well presented; however, I believe that additional detail is needed in other sections of the manuscript. For instance, the experimental design could be enhanced, and the authors should clarify how they calculated the yield and trunk cross-section.

Dear reviewer. Thanks for your suggestion. M&M section has been significantly improved. Also, additional details about TCS has been included (CHECK THE NEW SECTION 2.2)

In this sense, the irrigation stages should be better defined in the materials and methods section, and authors may consider giving the amount of water applied separately for stages III and IV, since they received different percentages of ETo.

Dear reviewer. Table 2 has been changed according to your suggestions. Additionally, we have checked the climatic conditions and irrigation doses, and this information has been modified taking into account the changes included. Also, we detected minor mistakes on the irrigation doses in 2019, and these data have been corrected. Likewise, the percentage of water savings remains very similar to those previously indicated.

In lines 125-126 authors say “which was irrigated applying the 80% of ETc during the vegetative stage (from March to June) and post-harvest (from harvesting to the end of October), … . In lines 243-244 “received 72.5 mm of irrigation water in stage II; whereas the RDI just received 55.5; 75% of the amount imposed in FI plots”. Authors may explain the reason for this different percentage of water applied (80% - 75%).

As I have previously indicated, this section has been modified. Also, we have included a brief explanation about the selection of this RDI strategy, including a reference to justify this treatment design. Take into account that when you apply a deficit irrigation strategy, it is very difficult to adjust the design when you are working under field conditions. Minimum problems/actions like obstructed emitters, small bites (among others) can mismatch the expected/defined irrigation doses.

The authors indicate in "2.2. Analysis of the Physical Parameters of the Grain: For each season, twenty-five almonds per orchard management and irrigation treatment". In tables 4 and 5 they indicate that the values are mean of 3 replications. Authors may indicate how the 25 almonds are considered in the 3 replications.

This information has been clarified in the foot table

In point 3.6, the authors have carried out a two-factor principal components analysis for each monitored season, however, in my opinion it would be advisable (although not mandatory) to carry out a two-way ANOVA (on the different tables), which would facilitate the interpretation of the results.

Thanks for your remark. We have considered this option but taking into consideration the length of manuscript and the wide range of studied parameters and information, this would result in a les redeable manuscript. Also, we understand that this inclusion would not improve the final result

Authors should review the entire article and correct any errors. Some points that should be reviewed are provided as examples.

Tables and figures should be shelf-explanatory. It seems that there is a typo in the “A” and “B” description in Figure 1, which, in general terms, should be improved.

Done

They should indicate binomials in italics.

Done

Table 1: P. Olsen (g kg-1) Are the authors sure about these units? Thanks! The correct units are mg kg^-1

Acronyms/Abbreviations should be defined the first time they appear.

Done

Line 28: “de”

Done

Line 112: ET0

Done

Line 136 (and others): kg m-2

Done

Line 196: Organic acids were separated as sugars. It seems that some information is missing.

This sentence has been corrected

Line 220: first by variety. The variety ‘Marcona’ is the only one used in the experiment.

Thanks! A mistake because of copy-paste form other papers published by our research team.

Line 301-304: “Yield reductions resulting from the application of deficit irrigation strategies or the application of organic farming practices in almond crop, as opposed to conventional systems without water reduction, can be corrected to a certain degree through an improvement in almond quality and hence, in the almond marketability”. Do the authors mean "correct" or "compensate"?

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Likewise, manuscript R1 has been sent to Editing English Service to improve the readability and redaction.

Line 351: “Physical analysis of almonds under production systems and irrigation strategies”. Are the authors referring to almonds or kernels? Kernel. This has been corrected

Line 681: References number must be checked (e.g. [40] and [41] in the text are [39] and [40] in the list. Corrected

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

many thanks for your kind responses

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your time and effort in reviewing this manuscript. We are sure that your contributions have helped to improve the final result of the manuscript, providing a higher quality in the presentation of the results and their discussion. We understand how difficult it is to carry out quality reviews in recent times, and it is always appreciated to have the assistance of reviewers who make objective contributions in the writing of scientific papers.

Kind Regards,

Iván Francisco García-Tejero

(on behalf of the authors)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The answer to the previous question "It is recommended to clarify the status of 'lack of multi-factor dynamic analysis' to strengthen the innovation of this study. " is too one-sided
• For the previous point "The expression of the significance of the study is rather vague and lacks focus and depth. It is suggested to supplement the research significance. ", the revision is not very clear.
• The format of the secondary headings in the results and discussion is inconsistent, such as lines 271, 348, and 460. Please carefully review and revise such issues in the manuscript.
• The format of reference 7 is incorrect.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your continued feedback and for this second round of review. In our initial response, we aimed to address all comments and suggestions thoroughly; however, we recognize that some aspects may require further clarification or elaboration. Below, we provide detailed responses to your latest observations and recommendations.

COMMENT 1

• The answer to the previous question "It is recommended to clarify the status of 'lack of multi-factor dynamic analysis' to strengthen the innovation of this study. " is too one-side.

Dear reviewer,

In the previous revision, you indicated the following comment: "The introduction mentions that "young trees and mature trees respond differently to water stress," but it only broadly refers to differences in root development without specifically indicating whether there are studies comparing the quality differences of the same variety under different tree ages and organic production systems. It is recommended to clarify the current situation of "lack of multifactorial dynamic analysis" to strengthen the innovation of this research". 

As response to your previous comment, we included the following text at the end of the introduction: "To our knowledge, there are no studies focused on the response of almond trees to deficit irrigation at different stages of development, and there are even less on how the age of the tree can cause different responses both in production values and in the quality of production"

In our case, and to the best of our knowledge, there are no studies that have analyzed the response of almond trees under multiple scenarios and conditions such as those discussed here. Studies of almond quality under different management strategies or irrigation strategies are relatively new, many of them carried out by co-authors of this manuscript. However, most have been focused on studying the effects of water stress, or the effects of production systems, without delving into what happens when different production factors are introduced, let alone crop age. It is true that the work could be much broader, for example by introducing additional irrigation strategies, or more study campaigns (older trees), but the complexity of the data would not allow their analysis in a single scientific paper.

On the other hand, it is true that we could have included a comparison by age, but this would not make sense since the age or state of development of the tree is not something that we can modify or vary, such as irrigation or crop management, but a natural element that changes over time in the production system. This is why it makes no sense to include a third factor in the analysis, in this case age.

COMMENT 2

• For the previous point "The expression of the significance of the study is rather vague and lacks focus and depth. It is suggested to supplement the research significance. ", the revision is not very clear.

Dear reviewer, in the previous version you indicated the following "The expression of the research significance is rather vague, lacking pertinence and depth. It is suggested to supplement the research significance". Yo indicated this comment for the Abstract section. 

As response to your previous comment, we included the following response: "Thanks, we have included the p value (p<0.05, p<0.01 or p<0.001) when we mention the significant differences between treatments. Also, additional changes have been included throughout of the text".  Perhaps we misunderstood the comment, and should have made a modification in the Abstract to mention the significance of the work. For this reason, we have included an additional comment at the beginning of the Abstract.

COMMENT 3

• The format of the secondary headings in the results and discussion is inconsistent, such as lines 271, 348, and 460. Please carefully review and revise such issues in the manuscript.

Thanks. It has been revised.

COMMENT 4.

• The format of reference 7 is incorrect

Thanks. It has been revised.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have applied most of the suggestions done

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your time and effort in reviewing this manuscript. We are sure that your contributions have helped to improve the final result of the manuscript, providing a higher quality in the presentation of the results and their discussion. We understand how difficult it is to carry out quality reviews in recent times, and it is always appreciated to have the assistance of reviewers who make objective contributions in the writing of scientific papers.

Kind Regards,

Iván Francisco García-Tejero

(on behalf of the authors)