Irrigation and Planting Density Effects on Apple–Peanut Intercropping System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores optimal water management and planting density strategies in an apple–peanut agroforestry system in the loess region of western Shanxi. Three planting densities and two irrigation thresholds were implemented, evaluating their effects on water use, physiological growth, and yield of both crops. The results show that medium density and irrigation maximize efficiency and yield, supported by advanced statistical analyses. However, several points require attention before publication.

Abstract

• The abstract is lengthy and dense, making quick understanding difficult.
• It is suggested to synthesize the main results and avoid repetitions.
• Include the novelty of the study and briefly mention limitations or scope.

Introduction

• The introduction contains long and complex sentences that hinder reader comprehension.
• The overall structure could be improved for a smoother reading experience.
• The research gap addressed by the study needs to be stated more clearly.
• Please break up long sentences, reorganize the text structure, and explicitly emphasize the novel contribution of the study.

Example (lines 65-72):

"Regarding water regulation in orchard-crop intercropping, our research team has determined through multi-year experiments that during the water-demand period of intercrops, implementing plastic film mulching combined with irrigation regimes using different field capacities as upper thresholds can maximize the comprehensive utilization efficiency of alley cropping systems; however, previous studies primarily targeted water-nutrient-heat management under single density conditions, lacking discussion on how density gradients affect root-soil water interactions in alley cropping system density configurations[11-13]."

Methodology

• The study is based on a single growing season (May–September 2024), which limits the generalization of the findings. This should be discussed and justified in the results and analysis section.
• This section lacks a scientific foundation. Experimental and methodological criteria should be explained in greater detail. For example, on what standard or author were the moisture thresholds and plant densities based?
• Justify why the methods were chosen, citing literature or previous studies.
• Figure 2 is missing and lacks an explanation in the text.
• The figures are of low resolution, making it difficult to read details. Please improve the quality of the figures.
• The presentation of soil moisture sampling depths and frequencies is confusing. The water balance equation (lines 168-179) requires further explanation.

Results and Discussion

• Some relevant findings are not fully contextualized with international research on agroforestry in arid or semi-arid conditions.
• Interannual variation in water availability or extreme climatic conditions is not considered in data interpretation, which may affect the stability of the proposed system.
• Explain how the results help address the knowledge gap identified in the introduction.
• Analyze in detail the physiological or ecological mechanisms that explain the observed effects.
• Expand the limitations section and suggest concrete lines for future research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to express our deepest gratitude for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and providing such insightful comments. Your rigorous academic standards and profound expertise have not only helped us improve this paper but also inspired us to reflect deeply on our research approach. We truly appreciate the invaluable role of peer review in advancing scholarly work, and we have approached every suggestion with the utmost seriousness.

 

Upon receiving your feedback, all authors collaboratively discussed each point in detail to fully understand your concerns. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to address these issues, and in doing so, we have significantly enhanced the logical flow, clarity, and overall quality of the paper.

 

We hereby provide our point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments, detailing all modifications made and the rationale behind each change. All revisions have been clearly highlighted in yellow throughout the manuscript for your convenience. We sincerely hope these revisions meet your expectations and would be most grateful for any additional feedback you may have.

 

Abstract

Comment1: The abstract is lengthy and dense, making quick understanding difficult.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. I have now revised the length of the paper’s abstract to make it more concise and easier to understand. 

Comment2: It is suggested to synthesize the main results and avoid repetitions.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. I have rewritten the key results and placed them in lines 19-22. 

Comment3:Include the novelty of the study and briefly mention limitations or scope.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestions. Given that the trial duration was limited to one year, I have explicitly stated the study's limitations in the final part of the abstract.

Introduction

Comment1：The introduction contains long and complex sentences that hinder reader comprehension.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. I've come to realize that overly long and complex sentences hinder readability, so I've removed some non-essential sections.

Comment2：The overall structure could be improved for a smoother reading experience.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. Accordingly, I have restructured the paper's content into three distinct paragraphs.

Comment3：The research gap addressed by the study needs to be stated more clearly.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. I have now clearly outlined the three key issues to be addressed in lines 84-85 of the manuscript.

Comment4：Please break up long sentences, reorganize the text structure, and explicitly emphasize the novel contribution of the study.

Example (lines 65-72):

"Regarding water regulation in orchard-crop intercropping, our research team has determined through multi-year experiments that during the water-demand period of intercrops, implementing plastic film mulching combined with irrigation regimes using different field capacities as upper thresholds can maximize the comprehensive utilization efficiency of alley cropping systems; however, previous studies primarily targeted water-nutrient-heat management under single density conditions, lacking discussion on how density gradients affect root-soil water interactions in alley cropping system density configurations[11-13]."

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. As you rightly pointed out, this section contained excessively long and complex sentences. After careful consideration, I have removed it entirely to improve readability.

Methodology

Comment1：The study is based on a single growing season (May–September 2024), which limits the generalization of the findings. This should be discussed and justified in the results and analysis section.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. As the current study is based on data from a single growing season, we have explicitly addressed this limitation in the discussion, conclusions, and abstract sections, noting that multi-year trials are needed to verify our findings.

Comment2：This section lacks a scientific foundation. Experimental and methodological criteria should be explained in greater detail. For example, on what standard or author were the moisture thresholds and plant densities based?

Response: Thank you for your correction. I have explained more details about the experiment. So I added section 2.2 'Experimental materials' to better describe the apple orchard's sample plot features. Also, the moisture thresholds and plant densities were calculated and verified based on:

1.local land characteristics

2.field water capacity

3.rainfall

4.our team's long-term research results.

Comment3：Justify why the methods were chosen, citing literature or previous studies.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. References 6, 7, 9 and 12 are from our previous research

Comment4：Figure 2 is missing and lacks an explanation in the text.

Response: Thank you for your correction. Figure 2 is actually an explanation of section 2.2 'Experimental materials'. It helps to understand this part.

Comment5：The figures are of low resolution, making it difficult to read details. Please improve the quality of the figures.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have now adjusted the size and quality of the numbers in the figures.

Comment6：The presentation of soil moisture sampling depths and frequencies is confusing. The water balance equation (lines 168-179) requires further explanation.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions!

1.Rainfall data: I have added this information below Figure 1. The data was collected hourly and daily from the weather station.

​2.Soil moisture: Measured every 7 days for each treatment, at depths of 0–120 cm, with 5 measurement points per tree.

​3.Water balance equation: I have revised the description to make it clearer, removing confusing sentences (see Lines 176–177 and 181–186).

 

Discussion and Result

Comment1：Some relevant findings are not fully contextualized with international research on agroforestry in arid or semi-arid conditions.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. This advice is very important for the paper. So, I have added studies and findings from other regions in different subsections of the discussion part. These are now combined with our research findings.

Comment2：Interannual variation in water availability or extreme climatic conditions is not considered in data interpretation, which may affect the stability of the proposed system.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In the conclusion, I have added:

"Future studies should combine multi-growth-stage field experiments with model simulations to fully test this model's stability in both drought and wet years."

I will continue this research to verify its stability.

Comment3：Explain how the results help address the knowledge gap identified in the introduction.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have rewritten the conclusion section of the paper and provided corresponding explanations in lines 592-599.

Comment4：Analyze in detail the physiological or ecological mechanisms that explain the observed effects.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have now added detailed explanations in the discussion section to make the paper more convincing.

Comment5：Expand the limitations section and suggest concrete lines for future research.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Since this study is only based on one year's data, I will include this year's research results in another paper.

 

We hope these revisions meet your expectations. Thank you again for your valuable input, which has strengthened our paper. Please let us know if further modifications are needed.

Best regards,

Feiyang Yu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see my comments in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to express our deepest gratitude for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and providing such insightful comments. Your rigorous academic standards and profound expertise have not only helped us improve this paper but also inspired us to reflect deeply on our research approach. We truly appreciate the invaluable role of peer review in advancing scholarly work, and we have approached every suggestion with the utmost seriousness.

 

Upon receiving your feedback, all authors collaboratively discussed each point in detail to fully understand your concerns. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to address these issues, and in doing so, we have significantly enhanced the logical flow, clarity, and overall quality of the paper.

 

We hereby provide our point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments, detailing all modifications made and the rationale behind each change. All revisions have been clearly highlighted in yellow throughout the manuscript for your convenience. We sincerely hope these revisions meet your expectations and would be most grateful for any additional feedback you may have.

 

Comment 1:Regarding the title, it must communicate effectively the focus of the research. Then, I think the current title is a bit long and uses generic terms (e.g., comprehensive). I suggest replacing “water regulation” with “irrigation” to avoid repeating the word “water” in a short space (it becomes redundant). I think the word “comprehensive” is unnecessary, and I recommend removing it. The word “system” at the end of the title is also optional. With this, the reader quickly understands what was evaluated and in what type of system.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I agree that a long title makes it hard for readers to find key information. Following your advice, I have changed my paper title to:Irrigation and Planting Density Effects on Apple-Peanut Intercropping System

 

Comment 2：The abstract section requires special attention. It starts directly with the objective, without prior contextualization of the problem, and dedicates most of the text to numerical results. This tires the reader and makes it difficult to understand the study's real contribution. I recommend that you restructure the abstract, starting with one or two sentences that introduce the context of the research (production in dry areas, relevance of intercropping management, etc.), then present the objective, briefly describe the methodology, highlight the main trends of the results (in an interpretative way, and not as a list of numbers), and conclude with a final sentence about the practical application of the study. In the results, prioritize the statistically significant data (did W2 and D2 stand out? Did W1 use a lot of water?). Considering that only one rotation was evaluated (a limitation of the study), a recommendation for long-term studies is included at the end. It is also essential to review the keywords, avoiding repetition of terms already in the title, such as “intercropping density” or “water regulation”.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion! I have revised the abstract based on your advice:

1.Added background about semi-arid regions

2.Followed your suggested writing structure

3.Adjusted the length to make it clearer

4.Focused on key information for readers

The new abstract is now more concise and easier to understand.

 

Comment 3：The introduction begins by characterizing the study region, but it does not clearly explain why this research is necessary. It is essential to first present the problem in general terms, emphasizing the challenges of production in semiarid regions, the importance of intercropping systems, and why evaluating density and irrigation in this type of system is pertinent. Then, you can bring up the gap identified in the literature and justify the choice of the apple–peanut model.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Now I have revised the introduction part again, adding emphasis on the challenges of production in semi-arid areas and the importance of intercropping systems, etc. The revised abstract has been marked with yellow highlighting in the paper. Special thanks to you for such careful review and suggestions!

 

Comment 4：In the section “previous studies primarily targeted water-nutrient-heat management under single density conditions, lacking discussion on how density gradients affect root-soil water interactions in alley cropping system density configurations,” you list the gap that the work aims to fill. However, you have not yet explained what alley cropping is. Before proceeding to this section, it is essential to clarify what alley cropping is and why it is interesting. What is the advantage, especially in dry regions? And why evaluate this combination of planting density and irrigation?

Response: Thank you for your suggestion! I noticed that in the previous version of the article, I did not mention alley cropping very well. Now I have added descriptions related to alley cropping to make it connect better with the following text. See lines 55-58.

 

Comment 5：I noticed that at some points, it can be confusing to understand what you mean when you talk about density. Make it clear that when you speak about densities and density gradients, you are referring to plantings at different spacings, especially in the introduction, which is when the reader is understanding what the work is about.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion! This article talks about different planting densities of peanuts, and the different planting densities are controlled by sowing at different distances from the trees. Sorry, my expression was not precise enough.

 

Comment6： The objective appears at the end of the introduction, which is appropriate, but could be formulated a little more directly.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Now I have rewritten this part (see lines 82-85) and presented it in three points to help readers understand quickly.

 

Comment7: In line 114, Figure 1 does not specify the source of the meteorological data, so include it. Or did you collect the data yourself? How was this collection done? And what was the period of collection of this data?

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added the meteorological data collection method, collection time, and collection equipment below the description of Figure 1. Please refer to lines 102-104.

 

Comment 8:line 144, the equation was not numbered, as were lines 170, 171, 182, and 215. Please review all the equations and number them.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Now I have renumbered all the equations.

 

Comment9：Lines 152-154 talk about the application of fertilizer: “Prior to peanut sowing, a compound fertilizer (N:P:K = 26:12:7) was uniformly applied as base fertilizer at 817 kg/ha across all plots”, but it does not specify how the fertilizer was applied. Was it manual, mechanized, or by incorporation? This is crucial information, allowing for the replication of the methodology in other research.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have now made the revisions, please refer to lines 157-158.

 

Comment10：For example, when SPAD and LAI data become available, it would be interesting to comment on how these relate to plant performance or final productivity. The same goes for planting density, where there was no discussion of whether the increase in density could be causing competition for light, space, or even harming crop development.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added corresponding information in this part, just like the newly added lines 500-502: "However, Even with a higher leaf area index (LAI), excessively high planting density may lead to shading of lower leaves, thereby reducing photosynthetic efficiency.

 

Comment11：In the section on water use efficiency, I missed a more direct reflection on the balance between producing more and using more water, which is a central issue in this type of study.

Response: Thank you for your comments! In this section, I have thought further and added relevant descriptions. Please refer to lines 553-556 and 563-566.

 

Comment12：Between lines 246 and 265, you present the results of soil moisture at different planting densities, but the text only repeats what is in the graph. Instead of just pointing out an increase or decrease in moisture, you need to say what this means. If moisture increased 0.8 m from the planting line, wouldn't this suggest that the roots are exploring this area more or less? Does this favor or hinder the development of peanuts? Make this type of comment.

Response: Thank you for your comments! Regarding the soil moisture part, I have rewritten it. You can refer to lines 456-458 and 461-464. Also, I have deleted some unimportant text.

 

Comment13：Between lines 312 and 332, you describe the SPAD values, but do not discuss what they indicate in practice. Instead of just pointing out that SPAD was higher in D2, explain what this implies, such as its relationship with the higher chlorophyll content and probable increase in nutritional value, especially Nitrogen (N), as demonstrated by I. Johnkutty and SP. Palaniappan

Response：Thank you for your comments. As mentioned in the above review, I have rephrased this part in lines 492-493: "Higher SPAD values indicate enhanced nutritional value, particularly nitrogen content." The literature you recommended has also expanded my knowledge.

 

Comment14：You state that LAI was higher in D1, but it does not indicate whether this is a positive or negative result. You can include a sentence explaining that even if it has a higher leaf area index, very high planting densities can cause shading on the lower leaves, which can cause a reduction in photosynthetic efficiency.

Response：Thank you for your comments. I have added relevant discussion in lines 500-502: "However, Even with a higher leaf area index (LAI), excessively high planting density may lead to shading of lower leaves, thereby reducing photosynthetic efficiency."

 

Comment15: Between lines 412 and 433, you mention principal component analysis (PCA), but you only briefly mention that the data clustered. But you don't explain what that means. Which variables best describe the performance of the treatments? What does this help us understand about how the system works? A sentence or two explaining what the clustering represents is enough.

Response：Thank you for your comments. Now I have re-described this part. Please refer to lines 569-574 for more explanation of the PCA analysis.

 

Comment16：The conclusion presents the research findings in a disorganized manner, failing to highlight the main findings of the study clearly. Start by talking about the best combination of planting density and irrigation (W2D2?), then briefly review other vital results and include practical implications. It is essential to emphasize the importance of conducting further research cycles to validate the data with greater reliability, as you evaluated it for only one year.

Response：Thank you for your comments. Regarding the conclusion of the experiment, I followed your advice and revised/rewrote the experimental conclusion, emphasizing the impact of using only one year's data.

 

We hope these revisions meet your expectations. Thank you again for your valuable input, which has strengthened our paper. Please let us know if further modifications are needed.

Best regards,

Feiyang Yu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting research and manuscript which can help growers and researchers to improve this intercropping system. You have to include the name of the apple variety, spacing and density of these trees in Abstract and Material and methods. The Introduction has too long paragraphs. In the first paragraph of Material and Methods, please include also the medium maximum and the medium minimum temperature of the study site. Line 126-127: The fertilization and the soil fertility in this intercropping and irrigation system is very important. You have to explain some details on it. The figures 5 and 6 are not legible. You have to improve these two figures. In two occasions (lines 448-449; and lines 485-490) you have to cite authors as noted. In the reference list please avoid write words and texts in complete capital letters.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to express our deepest gratitude for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and providing such insightful comments. Your rigorous academic standards and profound expertise have not only helped us improve this paper but also inspired us to reflect deeply on our research approach. We truly appreciate the invaluable role of peer review in advancing scholarly work, and we have approached every suggestion with the utmost seriousness.

 

Upon receiving your feedback, all authors collaboratively discussed each point in detail to fully understand your concerns. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to address these issues, and in doing so, we have significantly enhanced the logical flow, clarity, and overall quality of the paper.

 

We hereby provide our point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments, detailing all modifications made and the rationale behind each change. All revisions have been clearly highlighted in yellow throughout the manuscript for your convenience. We sincerely hope these revisions meet your expectations and would be most grateful for any additional feedback you may have.

 

Comment:

It is an interesting research and manuscript which can help growers and researchers to improve this intercropping system. You have to include the name of the apple variety, spacing and density of these trees in Abstract and Material and methods. The Introduction has too long paragraphs. In the first paragraph of Material and Methods, please include also the medium maximum and the medium minimum temperature of the study site. Line 126-127: The fertilization and the soil fertility in this intercropping and irrigation system is very important. You have to explain some details on it. The figures 5 and 6 are not legible. You have to improve these two figures. In two occasions (lines 448-449; and lines 485-490) you have to cite authors as noted. In the reference list please avoid write words and texts in complete capital letters.

Response:

Thank you very much for your careful review and all comments and suggestions. I have carefully read and checked all the annotations in the PDF and made word-by-word revisions. Here are some details of the modifications:

 

1.In the abstract section, I have rewritten it and added the varieties of apple and peanut, which can be seen in lines 14-15.

2.In the introduction section, I divided the paragraphs into three parts to improve readability. The yellow highlighted parts show the revised version. Please see lines 30-38, 55-61, and 82-85 for details.

3.In the materials and methods section, I added the highest and lowest temperatures in lines 95-96.

4.I added a new section 2.2 "Experimental Materials" to provide further description of the apple orchard, in lines 108-109.

5.Added details about fertilization in line 157.

6.Changed the title of Table 1 to "Planting Densities of the Peanuts Across Treatments".

7.Added some references, visible in line 530.

8.Revised the title of Figure 8 to: "Illustration of regression".

9.Modified the journal names in the references to avoid all capital letters.

We hope these revisions meet your expectations. Thank you again for your valuable input, which has strengthened our paper. Please let us know if further modifications are needed.

Best regards,

Feiyang Yu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the paper entitled Impacts of Intercropping Density and Water Regulation Strategies on Water Use and Comprehensive Performance in an Apple-Peanut Alley Cropping System

General comments

In the present manuscript the Authors analyse impact of varying planting density peanut in orchard. Field experiments included three water levels: 85%, 65% FC, and not irrigated and three planting density: 27 500; 18 333 and 10 333 plants ha-1.

A paper topic that fits the purpose of the journal may be of interest to the scientific community. However, in my opinion the paper does not meet academic standards in terms of the main problems.

The manuscript is unclear and the reader does not have a clear idea of the experimental design.

The conducted research is not very reliable.The main question is: how did the Authors configure the phenological phases of a perennial plant (apple) with an annual plant (peanut).

The research is academic in nature, without practical application.How to protect different species from pathogens and pests in practice?

The text is too long with many repetitions.

The introduction section is very weak. The Introduction section should be a review of the literature on the research problem. In this issue, it is a description of the climatic and soil conditions of western Shanxi Province. Authors did not show what the novelty and specific findings which can attract the readers.

The M&M section. The research was conducted only in one year, which is too short to exclude the influence of the environment. Was cultivation only carried out from May to September as presented by the Authors? There is no basic information about the apple orchard: planting date, age of trees, how the fruit was harvested.

It is not clear for what purpose the ET parameters were calculated, how the WUE for the orchard and the nut yield were calculated.

Incorrect statistical procedure.

The results section.completely incomprehensible chapter 3.1.1.and 3.1.2.Assumptions and measurements are illogical.

The description of the results is imprecise, e.g. Line 390-391 ‘Maximum and minimum apple yields occurred under W2D2 and CK3 treatments, respectively, with W2D2 increasing yield by 4.9%–36.2% versus others’. What does ‘versus others’ mean - should be described.

The Authors completely ignore the interactions between the factors and do not explain them, which is an error. The regression analysis between the studied factors raises doubts about their reliability and veracity.

The discussion in confused and difficult to read.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to express our deepest gratitude for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and providing such insightful comments. Your rigorous academic standards and profound expertise have not only helped us improve this paper but also inspired us to reflect deeply on our research approach. We truly appreciate the invaluable role of peer review in advancing scholarly work, and we have approached every suggestion with the utmost seriousness.

 

Upon receiving your feedback, all authors collaboratively discussed each point in detail to fully understand your concerns. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to address these issues, and in doing so, we have significantly enhanced the logical flow, clarity, and overall quality of the paper.

 

We hereby provide our point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments, detailing all modifications made and the rationale behind each change. All revisions have been clearly highlighted in yellow throughout the manuscript for your convenience. We sincerely hope these revisions meet your expectations and would be most grateful for any additional feedback you may have.

 

Comment：A paper topic that fits the purpose of the journal may be of interest to the scientific community. However, in my opinion the paper does not meet academic standards in terms of the main problems.

Response：I'm very sorry for giving you a poor reading experience. I sincerely ask you to give me one chance to revise it, so I can share the improved version with you. Next, I will show you my revised content.

 

Comment：The manuscript is unclear and the reader does not have a clear idea of the experimental design.

Response：Thank you very much for your suggestions. I have marked the revised content in yellow highlight and added a new section, such as 2.2 Experimental Materials, which contains detailed information about the apple orchard for your reference.

 

Comment：The conducted research is not very reliable.The main question is: how did the Authors configure the phenological phases of a perennial plant (apple) with an annual plant (peanut).

Response：Regarding this part, I have explained in detail in the article: "Given the overlapping growing seasons of apple and peanut (May–September) and their aligned phenological stages[23]" can be found in lines 139-140.

Comment：The research is academic in nature, without practical application.How to protect different species from pathogens and pests in practice?

 

Response：Thank you very much for your question. In 2024, our research team has been making efforts in pest and disease control through long-term experiments, such as regularly weeding in the experimental plots and spraying pesticides to prevent pests and diseases. For this study, we have been working hard.

 

Comment：The text is too long with many repetitions.

Response：Thank you for your comments. I sincerely apologize that this article did not provide you with a good reading experience. In the coming days, I will carefully revise every detail. I sincerely hope you can give me another opportunity to present better content to you.

 

Comment：The introduction section is very weak. The Introduction section should be a review of the literature on the research problem. In this issue, it is a description of the climatic and soil conditions of western Shanxi Province. Authors did not show what the novelty and specific findings which can attract the readers.

Response：You are absolutely right! I carefully reviewed your suggestions and revised my introduction section. I rewrote different parts of the introduction and divided them into three paragraphs for description. In the first paragraph, I added descriptions about the semi-arid region situation and the conditions of our experimental plots (see lines 30-38). Meanwhile, in lines 82-85, I included the limitations of the study, as it is based on only one year's experimental data, requiring multi-year trial results to verify my conclusions.

 

Comment：The M&M section. The research was conducted only in one year, which is too short to exclude the influence of the environment. Was cultivation only carried out from May to September as presented by the Authors? There is no basic information about the apple orchard: planting date, age of trees, how the fruit was harvested.

Response：Thank you for your comments. I have rewritten and revised this section, adding the 2.2 Experimental Materials part. The specific detailed information about the apple orchard is available for your review in lines 107-122.

Comment：It is not clear for what purpose the ET parameters were calculated, how the WUE for the orchard and the nut yield were calculated.

 

Response：Thank you for your comments.ET is used to calculate water consumption in the intercropping system and WUE requires yield and water consumption parameters for calculation.

Comment：Incorrect statistical procedure.

 

Response：Thank you for your comments. Regarding the results analysis part, before creating tables and graphs, I used SPSS software to conduct analysis between different factors. The results are absolutely reliable. Please trust me.

Comment：The results section.completely incomprehensible chapter 3.1.1.and 3.1.2.Assumptions and measurements are illogical.

Response：Thank you for your suggestion. In this section, I described soil moisture by dividing it into horizontal depth and vertical depth. You can refer to the TDR position in Figure 3 to understand why we measured it this way. Additionally, the soil moisture measurement method in this experiment was determined based on our team's long-term experimental results. Please rest assured!

 

Comment：The description of the results is imprecise, e.g. Line 390-391 ‘Maximum and minimum apple yields occurred under W2D2 and CK3 treatments, respectively, with W2D2 increasing yield by 4.9%–36.2% versus others’. What does ‘versus others’ mean - should be described.

Response：Thank you very much for your comments. I sincerely apologize that this part did not provide you with a clear understanding. I have revised the description of this section, which can be found in lines 396-397.

 

Comment：The Authors completely ignore the interactions between the factors and do not explain them, which is an error. The regression analysis between the studied factors raises doubts about their reliability and veracity.

Response：Thank you for your question. Regarding this part, as mentioned above, I used SPSS software to analyze and carefully check the interactions between different factors. The results are definitely reliable, and the multiple regression analysis has also been verified multiple times. Please rest assured.

 

Comment：The discussion in confused and difficult to read.

Response：I sincerely apologize. I have rewritten and re-described this section, and also supplemented the conclusion with the adverse effects of using only one year's data. Thank you.

 

Modified the journal names in the references to avoid all capital letters.We hope these revisions meet your expectations. Thank you again for your valuable input, which has strengthened our paper. Please let us know if further modifications are needed.

Best regards,

Feiyang Yu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Notes on the manuscript:

Impacts of Intercropping Density and Water Regulation Strategies on Water Use and Comprehensive Performance in an Apple-Peanut Alley Cropping System

After careful examination of the Authors' responses to my comments, offer I find that the manuscript could be submitted for publication.