Next Article in Journal
Statistical and Hydrological Evaluations of Multiple Satellite Precipitation Products in the Yellow River Source Region of China
Next Article in Special Issue
The Impacts of Arable Land per Farmer on Water Markets in China
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial and Temporal Distribution Characteristics of Water Requirements for Maize in Inner Mongolia from 1959 to 2018
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Gate Selection on the Non-Cohesive Sedimentation in Irrigation Schemes
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Grapevine Sap Flow in Response to Physio-Environmental Factors under Solar Greenhouse Conditions

Water 2020, 12(11), 3081; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113081
by Xinguang Wei 1,2, Shining Fu 2, Dianyu Chen 3,*, Siyu Zheng 2, Tieliang Wang 2 and Yikui Bai 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2020, 12(11), 3081; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113081
Submission received: 17 September 2020 / Revised: 29 October 2020 / Accepted: 30 October 2020 / Published: 3 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Management for Agricultural, Environmental and Urban Uses)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Wei et al. collected a neat data set with the objective of identifying the physiological and environmental factors driving vine sap flow in a greenhouse. Overall it is a well-writen paper but besides some minor corrections and comments I annotated in the text and some major ones reported below, my major concern is that the manuscript in its current state is too descriptive, with too general objectives and lack of a hypothesis which make the authors fail to highlight the novelty of their work. I suggest them to re-write the objectives to make them more specific and show only the results necessary to acknowledge their objectives. For example, they show the meteorological data outside the greenhouse and inside but in their objectives there is not such comparison. However, they do not show the stomatal conductance values even if they say in M&M they measure it and could be important for their objectives.

Major comments:

In the M&M the authors must specify in which trees some of the measurements they report are conducted (see my notes in the pdf), are they measured in the monitored trees?.

I suggest the authors to read the paper by Lemeur et al. Acta Horticulturae 846: 21- 34 (2009) to use correctly the sap flow-related terms. Specifically, with the stem heat balance method you measure sap flow and not sap flux density, which is measured with the single-point methods, as for example the Heat Pulse methods.

In M&M they must include a Statistical section.

Also, the authors report transpiration in mm in Fig. 1. As the stem heat balance reports data on g/h, those mm must be calculated using an area but it is not specified in M&M. Please, specify those calculations and clarify if it is transpiration per sapwood area, leaf area, canopy projection area, etc. In the rest of the figures SFD is given in g/h so I wonder if the transpiration from fig. 1 is calculated differently? Please, specify.

Importantly, in Fig. 3, the authors claim they are showing a relationship between SFD and LAI but they do not report the equation, R2 or p-value. I think what they are showing is a boundary line and then they should correct the text.

In Fig. 4 they say there is a relationship between SWC and SFD but the p shows this is not significant.

In the results, the authors mention the results of other works as well as speculate about them. I suggest them to move these parts to discussion. I started to indicate in the text what parts they must move to Discussion but there are several so I stopped.

In fig. 4 and the rest of the figures they report VPD, T and RH which is redundant. With VPD is enough because it is calculated using T and RH.

The conclusions are basically a summary of their results. Try to write the implications of your study and how it helps to advance in the science of vine transpiration in greenhouses.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Minor editorial suggestions are attached.

The manuscript is occasionally a bit wordy.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accepted the manuscript but I still suggest the authors to delete the summary of results from the conclusions and just leave the last paragraph the wrote in this last version which are the real conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop