Influence of Irrigation Frequency on Radicchio (Cichorium Intybus L.) Yield

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Formal aspects
line 84 Reference lost. Maybe it's table1
Aspects of the content
a location map of the experimental area should appear from line 80 onwards

Given the rainfall and soil data it is very difficult to ensure that WP can be achieved. On the other hand rainfall is an appreciable fraction of the crop's water needs. Under these conditions. On the other hand precipitation is sometimes greater than evapotranspiration. Under these conditions it can be expected that the differences between treatments are not significant.

Table 3 is difficult to understand. The groups marked refer to differences between different years or refer to differences between treatments in each year?. On the other hand, table 5 does not make clear whether or not there were differences between treatments. Please clarify.
Regarding the IWP data, I think it should be accompanied by the WP, since rainwater masks the result (irrigation is only half of the crop water use).
The first conclusion (lines 265 to 267) is, in my opinion, not sufficiently explained in the discussion. Please clarify this a little more.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her contribution.

We have addressed the reviewer concerns below. Please note that the number of tables, figures, references and lines has been updated.

 

line 84 Reference lost. Maybe it's table1

The reference was updated (new line 125)

a location map of the experimental area should appear from line 80 onwards

A map (new Figure 1) was added to visualize the extent of the cultivation area of Radicchio di Treviso and the location of the experimental farm

Given the rainfall and soil data it is very difficult to ensure that WP can be achieved. On the other hand rainfall is an appreciable fraction of the crop's water needs. Under these conditions. On the other hand precipitation is sometimes greater than evapotranspiration. Under these conditions it can be expected that the differences between treatments are not significant.

The new Table 4 was integrated with a water productivity index (WP) to account also for the rainfall contribution as now specified in the new lines 156-157 of the methodology section, and statistical analysis was performed (independent pairwise t-test, as now specified in the new line 183). The discussion on IWP and WP was further developed (new lines 317-332).

Table 3 is difficult to understand. The groups marked refer to differences between different years or refer to differences between treatments in each year?

The Table was substituted with histograms (new Figure 5), that visually represents our results in a clearer way. The meaning of the letters is now specified in the figure captions and is also clarified in the new lines 184-186 of the methodology section.

On the other hand, table 5 does not make clear whether or not there were differences between treatments. Please clarify.

We added statistical analysis results (letters) to the new Table 4. The statistical test used the same of the new Figure 5, as now specified in the Table caption and in the new lines 182-186 of the methodology section.

Regarding the IWP data, I think it should be accompanied by the WP, since rainwater masks the result (irrigation is only half of the crop water use).

We have now provided a WP index too, as previously reported.

The first conclusion (lines 265 to 267) is, in my opinion, not sufficiently explained in the discussion. Please clarify this a little more.

We added more information in the results section (new lines 253-268) to support more this conclusion. The paragraph was rephrased.

 

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her suggestions, as we think our paper improved after the corrections.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

GENERAL COMMENTS

This paper is well presented from the methodological point of view and the results are, in general, clearly exposed and well discussed.

However, a better analysis of water and energy savings would have been obtained by comparing it with the usual irrigation procedure by gun sprinklers.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Line 53: It would be very interesting to provide data on the yield and water consumption under irrigation with gun sprinklers Line 80: What is the farm area? Line 86: Table 1 is not cited in the text Lines 112-113: irrigation water volume is lower in high-frequency irrigation schedule (see table 2), not in low-frequency irrigation schedule as you say Line 124: How many plot do you have?. What is the size of the plots?. What is the size of the sample areas? Lines 170-171: “Average head …”. This phrase is wrong (see table 3). The numbers are changed with each other Line 202: 2016 is not the year with the greatest rainfall (see table 2) Lines 207-208: I do not understand the phrase “However, this was not reflected by a significant…” (see table3). Line 214: Table 3 and Figure 4 contain very similar data. One of them could be eliminated Lines 272-275: The conclusion about the formation of soil crust has not been discussed in the results section

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her contribution.

We have addressed the reviewer concerns below. Please note that the number of tables, figures, references and lines has been updated.

 

Line 53: It would be very interesting to provide data on the yield and water consumption under irrigation with gun sprinklers

We added some information about the irrigation, but we decided to do so in the results section (new lines 320-332). Please note that the new Table 4 and the related discussion was also updated to accommodate the request of another reviewer.

Line 80: What is the farm area?

We added that in the new line 80.

Line 86: Table 1 is not cited in the text

We added that in the new line 125.

Lines 112-113: irrigation water volume is lower in high-frequency irrigation schedule (see table 2), not in low-frequency irrigation schedule as you say

We corrected the mistake (new line 151).

Line 124: How many plot do you have?. What is the size of the plots?. What is the size of the sample areas?

We added more information in the new lines 166-168 and 173-174.

Lines 170-171: “Average head …”. This phrase is wrong (see table 3). The numbers are changed with each other

We corrected the mistake (new line 217).

Line 202: 2016 is not the year with the greatest rainfall (see table 2)

We corrected the mistake (new lines 248-249).

Lines 207-208: I do not understand the phrase “However, this was not reflected by a significant…” (see table3).

We rephrased the paragraph, also adding more information at the request of another reviewer (new lines 253-268)

Line 214: Table 3 and Figure 4 contain very similar data. One of them could be eliminated

We decided to keep both the versions. The Table is now converted to a graph (new Figure 5) to answer some concerns of another reviewer. The figure was not modified, but the number was updated (now it is Figure 6). However, we kept both the versions as we think that the kind of data represented provides different information to the reader: the data in the new Figure 5 is a summary of the results obtained on the yield factors and of the significant differences between the two irrigation frequencies, while the new Figure 6 is used to visually and statistically explore the relationship between yield-related variables (using all the data from the sample areas and without separating for the irrigation frequencies). We think that the aim of the two figures is different and that this type of organization is well intertwined with the sequential logical path in which the reader is guided by the discussion.

Lines 272-275: The conclusion about the formation of soil crust has not been discussed in the results section

We removed that.

 

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her suggestions, as we think our paper improved after the corrections.