Physiological and Productive Characteristics of Castanea sativa Mill. Under Irrigation Regimes in Mediterranean Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important topic for agribusiness in the Mediterranean region, proposing different irrigation regimes for chestnut production, offering ways to mitigate the effects of climate change. The manuscript touches on thematic areas related to the scope of the journal Water, such as water scarcity and water-food. Below are some suggestions and questions.

 

Suggestions

 

Title

I have the following suggestion for the title focusing on irrigation regimes and region: "Physiological and productive characteristics of Castanea sativa Mill. under irrigation regimes in Mediterranean regions"

 

Abstract

Summarize your abstract to 200 words according to the journal's guidelines.

 

Keywords

We suggest using keywords that will increase the visibility of your work in the Web of Science.

 

Introduction

The introduction is very well written and organized, clearly stating the problem to be solved and the intended insights. I have two suggestions for this section:

- On line 43, adjust "Dengiz et al. [8]" to "[8]".

- Insert your hypothesis after the objective of the work.

 

Material and Methods

Insert irrigation water quality information (pH, electrical conductivity, and ions) in the sub-item "2.1 Experimental orchard".

Unify the information between lines 111 and 119, using only one subtitle "2.3 Climatic measurements". Merge repeated information.

 

Results

 

In sub-item 3.1 Climatic conditions, I suggest improving the visual quality of Figure 1 by removing the horizontal lines within the graph and using brighter colors for the maximum and minimum temperature lines.

 

In sub-item 3.2 Leaf physiological parameters, the results for the Fv/Fm parameter were not presented in Table 1 or Table 2. Please insert the results for this parameter into one of these tables and include the table number for Fv/Fm in the text.

 

In lines 268 and 269, insert the abbreviation "TotChl" in place of "leaf total chlorophyll content" to standardize it with the other parameters.

 

In sub-item 3.3. Fruit set, burr growth rate per day and nut yield, I suggest removing the horizontal lines within Figure 2.

On line 306, the suggestion is to replace "Burr" with "Chestnut burr".

 

Discussion

 

On line 342, adjust according to [27].

On line 352, adjust as reported by [3].

On line 377, adjustment observations of [34].

Line 411 adjusts [38] demonstrated that.

On line 456, please review if the citation is missing: ""Second [??], it is possible that trees progressively adapted to water".

On line 482, adjust findings of [21].

On line 505, adjust This observation is consistent with [3, 4].

On lines 512 and 513, adjust. Similarly, [6] and [18] reported that water..

On lines 514 and 515, adjust Furthermore, [18].

On lines 526 and 527, adjust observations of [3].

On lines 527 and 528, adjust Similarly, [9] also found.

On line 531, adjust reported by [50], who found.

On line 532, adjust and by [18].

On lines 532 and 533, described by [51].

On line 534, adjust by [52], who recorded 43.3% DM. Similarly, [3].

 

 

Conclusions

The conclusions meet the objectives of work.

 

References

The references are adequate.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

Your manuscript is well written and falls within the scope of the journal.
I have only two comments to make
1) line 88. I notice that the difference between the field capacity and the wilting point is very small. Is there something wrong? If not, please explain this phenomenon
2) lines 111-120. Paragraph 2.3 is written twice. Please correct it.

Author Response

Comments 1: line 88. I notice that the difference between the field capacity and the wilting point is very small. Is there something wrong? If not, please explain this phenomenon.

Response 1: Thank you very much for this insightful comment, which indeed raises an important point for discussion. Based on the existing literature, the following clarification can be provided: At the upper limit of soil water availability, the maximum water content that soil can retain without rapid drainage is referred to as field capacity. Although soils are capable of holding water above this level, any excess typically drains within approximately 24 hours, returning the soil to its field capacity. Conversely, the water content at which plants can no longer extract sufficient moisture to maintain physiological processes is known as the wilting point. Both field capacity and wilting point values are strongly influenced by soil texture, particularly clay content and soil structure, including pore space characteristics. Our soil contained low quantities of clay; thus, the difference between the above is small.

Comments 2: lines 111-120. Paragraph 2.3 is written twice. Please correct it.

Response 2: We greatly appreciate for this helpful observation. All relevant information from lines 116 to 120 has been consolidated under this unified subsection, "2.3 Climatic measurements", page 3, in the revised manuscript ν2.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author presented a valuable two-year dataset and investigated the effects of three irrigation regimes on nut plant physiological and production in Greece. I have carefully read the entire manuscript and provide the following comments for your consideration:

1. "The use of the term 'climate change' in the abstract is misleading. Climate change refers to long-term shifts in climate patterns, typically over decades. The two-year duration of this study is insufficient to investigate such long-term trends. The authors should revise the language throughout the abstract.
2. The introduction sets the stage well by highlighting the importance of chestnut and the general challenges posed by climate. However, the literature review on the specific effects of irrigation on plant physiology and yield ofchestnut is somewhat underdeveloped.
3. There is a redundant description of the Climatic measurements in the 'Materials and Methods' section.
4. The 'Discussion' section is currently lengthy and would benefit from restructuring to enhance its impact and clarity. A significant portionis presently dedicated to restating the results.

Author Response

Comments 1: The use of the term 'climate change' in the abstract is misleading. Climate change refers to long-term shifts in climate patterns, typically over decades. The two-year duration of this study is insufficient to investigate such long-term trends. The authors should revise the language throughout the abstract.

Response 1: Thank you for your rigorous and helpful observations. We absolute agree. We have, accordingly revised the abstract. We have changed the lines 12, 13 and 14.

“Irrigation is critical for maintaining orchard productivity, especially under Mediterranean conditions where present climate conditions intensify heat stress and late-summer drought”.

Comments 2: The introduction sets the stage well by highlighting the importance of chestnut and the general challenges posed by climate. However, the literature review on the specific effects of irrigation on plant physiology and yield of chestnut is somewhat underdeveloped

Response 2: Thank you very much for this constructive comment. We must point out that the literature on the specific physiological and yield-related responses of chestnut to irrigation remains quite limited, thus not much more could be added as literature review at Introduction. Indeed, addressing this gap was a primary motivation of the present study. Beyond the well-documented effects of irrigation on nut yield per tree and nut size, our research aimed to investigate how the absence or reduction of irrigation influences or not physiological leaf traits as well as important fruit characteristics in chestnut. By incorporating these additional parameters, we sought to contribute new evidence to the existing body of knowledge and to strengthen the understanding of how water availability affects chestnut tree performance under varying irrigation regimes. 

Comments 3: There is a redundant description of the Climatic measurements in the 'Materials and Methods' section.

Response 3: We greatly appreciate for this helpful observation. All relevant information from lines 116 to 120 has been consolidated under this unified subsection, "2.3 Climatic measurements", page 3, in the revised manuscript ν2.

Comments 4: The 'Discussion' section is currently lengthy and would benefit from restructuring to enhance its impact and clarity. A significant portionis presently dedicated to restating the results.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion. We have made the appropriate modifications in the Discussion section, along with several additional corrections throughout the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main objective of the present study was to investigate the effects of restricted or no irrigation on chestnut cultivation and its characteristic features.

The experiment appears to have been well designed and conducted. The results consistent with previous research and experience. I have only some minor suggestions:

L208. It is possible that an earlier onset of stress reduced leaf number and/or size so the trees used less soil water was able to maintain photosynthesis under moderate stress. Did the authors note any obvious differences in leaf number and size between treatments and years?

The discussion is quite long and repeats a lot of the results so it could be made more concise.

Author Response

Comments 1: L208. It is possible that an earlier onset of stress reduced leaf number and/or size so the trees used less soil water was able to maintain photosynthesis under moderate stress. Did the authors note any obvious differences in leaf number and size between treatments and years?

Response 1: Thank you very much for this thoughtful and pertinent question, which indeed raises an interesting point for further discussion. In the present study, morphological characteristics of chestnut leaves were not investigated, as this parameter fell outside the scope of our research objectives. Your observation, however, highlights a valuable direction for future work. To our knowledge, there is a notable lack of published data regarding leaf morphological responses of Castanea sativa under different irrigation regimes or environmental conditions. Consequently, exploring these traits could contribute substantially to the existing body of knowledge and provide important insights into the species’ physiological adaptation mechanisms.

Comments 2: The discussion is quite long and repeats a lot of the results so it could be made more concise.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion. We have made the appropriate modifications in the Discussion section, along with the several additional corrections throughout the revised manuscript

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, I would like to thank the authors for their efforts and time in addressing the comments from the first round of review. The authors have responded to most of the issues I raised and have made corresponding revisions to the manuscript. Some minor typographical errors in citation formatting were noted (e.g., line 43 and line 108). The authors should verify and correct all in-text citations against the reference list.

Author Response

Comment 1: First, I would like to thank the authors for their efforts and time in addressing the comments from the first round of review. The authors have responded to most of the issues I raised and have made corresponding revisions to the manuscript. Some minor typographical errors in citation formatting were noted (e.g., line 43 and line 108). The authors should verify and correct all in-text citations against the reference list.

Response 1: We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript once again. We are pleased to hear that the revisions addressed the majority of the issues you previously raised. Thank you very much for the additional remarks and recommendations. We have accordingly revised the line 43, page 2, in the second paragraph of the Introduction section. Also, we have done the appropriate chances in line 108, page 3. We have carefully reviewed all in-text citations and cross-checked them against the reference list.