Optimizing Citrus aurantifolia (Christm. Swingle) Production Through Integrated Irrigation and Growth Regulation Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides a systematic analysis of the combined effects of irrigation levels and growth regulators on physiological traits, yield, and fruit quality of key lime (Citrus aurantifolia) in semi-arid conditions through rigorous field trials (2020–2023). The experimental design is robust, and data strongly support conclusions. However, revisions are needed to enhance publishability:

1. Title Suggestion: The title is overly lengthy. Streamlining it would enhance readability.

2. Please restructure the introduction section as it is not logically clear.

(1) Page 2 Lines 10-25 and 33-38 mainly discuss the impact of water. Lines 26-32 mainly describe plant growth regulators, but are interspersed within the paragraphs discussing the influence of water on Key lime. Please rewrite the relevant content. Additionally, Page 2 Lines 40-Page 3 Lines 8 can be considered as one paragraph.

(2) It is suggested that the cited references should be more focused on Key lime. For instance, reference 8 is not strongly relevant.

(3) In the introduction, a review on the relevant content of plant growth regulators should be added, because compared to the influence of water, this content is simply too scarce.

(4) Before explaining the content of this study, I would more expect to know if there have been any experiments and studies on the simultaneous application of irrigation and plant growth regulators in the past, what research conclusions have been achieved, and what problems and deficiencies exist. Please provide the relevant information.

3. Suggestions for revision of the Materials and Methods section are as follows:

(1) Add a description of the climatic conditions of the experimental site. For example, supplement the rainfall situation during the experiment, especially the rainfall amount, which is very important.

(2) Standardize Table 2, add row and column headers, standardize the expression of months, numerical expressions, and add corresponding units.

(3) In Section 2.4.5, supplement the indicators of fruit ripening and the conditions under which yield can be measured.

4. The opinions in the Results section are as follows:

(1) It is suggested that a result analysis should be added to explain whether different treatments affect the length of the phenological period.

(2) This study compared the differences in various indicators under different treatments, but failed to analyze how different treatments affect yield and quality by influencing physiological and growth indicators. That is, it did not well align with the research goal mentioned at the end of the introduction. Please add relevant result analysis.

5. The opinions in the Discussion section are as follows:

(1) The content in the discussion section is extensive. It is necessary to have a closer connection with the results and avoid being lengthy. It is suggested to condense several subheadings and discuss them separately.

(2) It is recommended to add discussion on the negative effects of high-dose growth regulators—gibberellic acid and 1-naphthaleneacetic acid.

6. The Conclusion section should highlight the practical value and supplement the research limitations.

Author Response

Agradecemos sinceramente esta observación. Para validar y garantizar la transparencia al abordar cada una de las sugerencias del Revisor 1, adjuntamos un documento complementario que detalla, punto por punto, todos los comentarios abordados y las respuestas correspondientes incorporadas al manuscrito.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses a highly interesting topic, as it not only seeks to optimize irrigation depth without production losses but also explores the use of growth promoters to further enhance crop responses to different cultivation practices.

The Introduction section effectively justifies the key aspects addressed in the study. The methodological procedures appear appropriate for achieving the intended results. In the Results section, the findings are well-described and clearly presented. Finally, the Discussion section provides a thorough interpretation of the results in light of relevant literature. However, the manuscript contains numerous language inaccuracies and stylistic issues that require careful revision to ensure clarity and precision. These issues can be verified in the attached material.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors should carefully review the English language usage throughout the manuscript to ensure clarity and precision. We recommend thorough proofreading by a native English speaker or professional editing service to refine grammar, syntax, and technical terminology.

Author Response

Comment: The manuscript contains numerous linguistic inaccuracies and stylistic problems that require careful revision to ensure clarity and accuracy. These can be verified in the accompanying materia

Response: We sincerely appreciate this valuable observation. In response, the entire manuscript underwent a comprehensive language and style revision. Particular attention was given to improving clarity, coherence, and scientific rigor. The text was carefully reviewed to correct grammatical issues, enhance the technical vocabulary, and ensure that the writing meets the standards of academic English appropriate for an international audience. We have integrated these improvements throughout the manuscript

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 Dear Authors,

Please work on the following comments.  

 

Abstract
The abstract summarizes key findings well but lacks quantitative clarity. Specific values (e.g., yield increases in % or kg/tree, physiological improvements) would help contextualize the impact of treatments.

Introduction

• Include a more analytical synthesis of studies applying PGRs in water-stressed citrus.
• Justify the selection of hormone concentrations based on previous work or physiological rationale.

Materials and Methods

• Experimental design: While the split-plot design is described, it’s unclear whether randomization occurred independently across both experiments. Was block effect statistically tested?
• Hormone application timing: The description uses BBCH scale but could benefit from more precise phenological indicators (e.g., actual days after flowering).
• Irrigation calculation model: The equation provided lacks derivation and reference. Its clarity can be enhanced by explicitly explaining terms (e.g., how FVR is derived).
• Include a schematic or flowchart of the irrigation model and hormone application schedule to improve reproducibility.

Results

• Trends in stomatal conductance, water potential, and chlorophyll index are discussed, but physiological interpretations (e.g., role of ABA or stress-induced signaling pathways) are underdeveloped.
• Enhance discussion on hormone × irrigation interaction—specifically why lower hormone doses outperformed higher ones, potentially linking to hormone desensitization or feedback regulation.

Discussion

• The conclusion that gₛ is independent of Ψh is speculative and not well-supported by data.
• Critically analyze why auxins performed better under moderate irrigation—was it due to enhanced cell elongation or delayed senescence?
• Discuss limitations such as the absence of measurements like endogenous hormone levels or photosynthetic rate.

Conclusions

• Outline recommendations for practical implementation in commercial lime orchards.
• Suggest further research including multi-season validation, cost-benefit analysis, or exploring other PGRs (e.g., cytokinins or ABA analogs).

Please do address following in addition to above in revised version of the manuscript.

1. Irrigation Level Rationale: Clarify why 7.77, 5.18, and 4.44 mm/day were chosen and link to key lime’s water needs.
2. Physiological Mechanisms: Discuss how low-dose NAA and GA₃ mitigate water stress at the cellular level with more references.
3. Fruit Quality Discussion: Expand on TSS and juice content results, addressing their commercial implications.
4. Limitations: Acknowledge year-to-year variability, single-site study, and manual hormone application as limitations.

Good luck !

Author Response

The comments provided by Reviewer 3 have been carefully considered and addressed. Each suggestion is explained in detail in the attached document, which presents our point-by-point responses and indicates the corresponding revisions made in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been well revised and can be accepted for publication in its current form.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort devoted to the critical review of our manuscript. Below, we present our detailed responses to each of the reviewers' comments. All suggestions and remarks have been carefully addressed and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript. These modifications are highlighted in yellow to facilitate their identification.

Furthermore, we would like to note that this revised version, along with the point-by-point responses, had already been submitted previously; however, it appears that the system did not reflect the changes accordingly.

Therefore, we are hereby resubmitting the final version of the revised manuscript, including all requested corrections and responses.

Thank you for your attention and continued support.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the authors have incorporated some suggestions from the first version, the majority of the previously noted issues remain unaddressed. I am therefore resubmitting the same previous version with all original suggestions for reconsideration.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Furthermore, there is evident neglect regarding language quality - the manuscript contains numerous Spanish text portions interspersed in what should be an English-language document. This requires careful professional English editing by qualified language specialists before further evaluation can proceed.

Author Response

En cuanto a los comentarios del Revisor 2, queremos aclarar que sus sugerencias se centraron principalmente en el estilo de redacción y el lenguaje del manuscrito. Estos aspectos se han considerado cuidadosamente y ya se abordan en el documento, ya que los Revisores 1 y 3 proporcionaron orientación detallada sobre las modificaciones necesarias, las cuales se han incorporado en su totalidad.

Por este motivo, reenviamos la versión completa y final del manuscrito, en la que se pueden observar claramente todos los cambios realizados, con destacados incluidos para facilitar el proceso de revisión.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf