Impact of Drip Irrigation Levels on the Growth, Production, and Water Productivity of Quinoa Grown in Arid Climate Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to Authors
The authors conducted two field experiments in two different locations (Mulei County in 2020 and in Bole City in 2021) to evaluate the effects of different irrigation amounts on the growth, yield, and water productivity of quinoa using a mulched drip irrigation technique.
My comments on the manuscript are as follows:
- The abstract requires revision to eliminate redundancy, particularly in relation to plant parameters like plant height, stem diameter, leaf area index, aboveground biomass, and yield.
- Experiments are usually conducted in two consecutive seasons at the same site or in two different locations during the same season. However, in this study, the experiments were conducted at two different locations in two different seasons, making it challenging to distinguish between the effects of the sites and the seasons.
- The x-axis of Figure 2, depicting days after sowing, is ambiguous and challenging to understand.
- The footnote in Table 2 duplicates the information already present in the table. Kindly provide clarification on the abbreviations YM1, YM2, YM3, YM11, YM12, and YM13 used in the footnote. Please check all tables.
- In Table 3, please replace "Fruiting" with "Grain filling stage" to align with the text.
- Lines 301-317, please verify the values in the text to ensure they correspond to the values in Table 3.
no comments
Author Response
Comments 1: The abstract requires revision to eliminate redundancy, particularly in relation to plant parameters like plant height, stem diameter, leaf area index, aboveground biomass, and yield.
Response 1: Regarding your feedback, we've revised the abstract of the paper. Thanks for pointing that out. We agree with this suggestion. Accordingly, we've replaced the redundant plant parameters in the abstract, such as plant height, stem diameter, leaf area index, above-ground biomass, and yield, with "growth indicators."
Comments 2: Experiments are usually conducted in two consecutive seasons at the same site or in two different locations during the same season. However, in this study, the experiments were conducted at two different locations in two different seasons, making it challenging to distinguish between the effects of the sites and the seasons.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out.This experiment was conducted in Mulei County for two years, in 2019 and 2020, and then in Bole City for one year in 2021. Due to the pandemic, we encountered various difficulties during the experiment, and the results did not quite reach our ideal state. However, the results of the plastic film mulched drip irrigation in Mulei County in 2020 and Bole City in 2021 are still highly valuable for reference. Although the climatic environments in the two locations are not significantly different, the growth status of quinoa varied under the same irrigation volume. This paper will describe the growth and development of quinoa at these two experimental sites in detail.
Comments 3: The x-axis of Figure 2, depicting days after sowing, is ambiguous and challenging to understand.
Response 3: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. In the experiment, the quinoa growing season was 145 days. For visual clarity, we only selected meteorological parameters from the quinoa growing season to create Figure 2.
Comments 4: The footnote in Table 2 duplicates the information already present in the table. Kindly provide clarification on the abbreviations YM1, YM2, YM3, YM11, YM12, and YM13 used in the footnote. Please check all tables.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. In light of your valuable feedback regarding the table notes, we have made corresponding revisions to all tables throughout the manuscript. After careful consideration, and given that the experimental design section of the main text already details the meaning of treatments YM1, YM2, YM3, YM11, YM12, and YM13, we have removed the explanations for these treatments from all table notes to avoid redundancy.
Comments 5: In Table 3, please replace "Fruiting" with "Grain filling stage" to align with the text.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out.we have replaced "Fruiting" with "Grain filling stage" in table 3 and others.
Comments 6: Lines 301-317, please verify the values in the text to ensure they correspond to the values in Table 3.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out.Regarding lines 301-317, we've verified the numerical values in the text. Previously, the text displayed integers, but we've now revised them to match the data in Table 3, as per your suggestion.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper correctly follows the standard structure expected of a scientific paper. The Title clearly indicates the content of the paper. The Abstract summarizes the study well, and the Introduction describes the reasons for cultivating quinoa in arid regions such as the region of northwestern China. This is written in clear language that is understandable to readers who are unfamiliar with the topic. The Materials and Methods describe the study area, data collection and analyses. The Results are well described. The Discussion further analyzes the results with support from the literature. Studies are referenced throughout the paper to support the authors’ findings. The Conclusions summarized the main findings,namely that, under limited water resources, irrigation can help conserve water resources while maintaining yield stability. However, there are a few minor issues in the text, so the authors are asked to revise it carefully.
- The font formatting of important parameters such as ET0, ETC, and KC is inconsistent throughout the text. For example, the ET0 in Figure 3 (2020 Mulei) has a different font format than the ET0 in equations (2) and (3). Furthermore, the ETC format is inconsistent between these two equations. The KC font in "3.3. Quinoa Crop Coefficient KC" is also inconsistent. The authors are requested to review and revise the font formatting of important parameters throughout the text.
- To better align with scientific writing conventions, please remove pronouns like "we" from the text. For example, the content in "4.3 The Impact of Different Irrigation Amounts on the Variation in Growth and Yield in Quinoa" on line 564 includes "we".
- In the notes for Table 7, it says "Different letters (a, b, c, and d) in the columns indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05)." However, the letter 'd' doesn't appear in the table. Should we consider removing 'd' from the note?
Author Response
Comments 1:The font formatting of important parameters such as ET0, ETC, and KC is inconsistent throughout the text. For example, the ET0 in Figure 3 (2020 Mulei) has a different font format than the ET0 in equations (2) and (3). Furthermore, the ETC format is inconsistent between these two equations. The KC font in "3.3. Quinoa Crop Coefficient KC" is also inconsistent. The authors are requested to review and revise the font formatting of important parameters throughout the text.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out.The document had formatting inconsistencies due to different abbreviation input methods. We've reviewed and corrected all abbreviations throughout.
Comments 2:To better align with scientific writing conventions, please remove pronouns like "we" from the text. For example, the content in "4.3 The Impact of Different Irrigation Amounts on the Variation in Growth and Yield in Quinoa" on line 564 includes "we".
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out.We've reviewed the entire text and have changed instances of pronouns like "we" wherever possible.
Comments 3: In the notes for Table 7, it says "Different letters (a, b, c, and d) in the columns indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05)." However, the letter 'd' doesn't appear in the table. Should we consider removing 'd' from the note?
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out.We've removed the letter "d" from the note in Table 7.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript, Impact of Drip Irrigation Levels on the Growth, Production, and Water Productivity of Quinoa Grown in Arid Climate Conditions, presents the findings of field trials on mulched drip irrigation conducted in Mulei County and Bole City. It evaluates the effects of different irrigation regimes on quinoa’s growth and development, dry matter accumulation, and yield. The study aims to assess quinoa’s adaptability to arid conditions in northwestern regions, as well as its water requirements and sensitivity, providing a theoretical basis for enhancing food security in these areas.
While the study's originality is somewhat limited, the manuscript thoroughly addresses all relevant factors and provides a comprehensive discussion of field experiment results, effectively comparing them with previous literature. As a result, the paper offers valuable insights for practical applications.
Based on my general assessment, I have the following comments and concerns:
1. The abstract should begin with a sentence highlighting the importance of the research topic addressed in this study.
2. Line 14: Plant species naming protocol—At the first mention of a plant species outside the abstract, the full Genus species name should be provided, including the naming authority. In subsequent mentions, only the abbreviated G. species should be used, without the naming authority. In the abstract, the full Genus species name should be given without the naming authority.
3. Lines 87–96: The differences between this study and the cited Article 33 should be clarified. Both appear to address the same topic—what does this study contribute beyond what is presented in Article 33?
4. Figure 1: Directions (north, south, east, and west) should be added to the map for better clarity.
5. Lines 111–112: The reported values for the average annual temperature and accumulated temperature above 10°C in Mulei County (2567 to 3100°C) should be checked for consistency, as Bole City is listed with only 3100°C (Line 137). Please verify and clarify this discrepancy.
6. The x-axis labels in Figure 2 are difficult to read—consider improving their legibility.
7. A list of abbreviations should be added to the manuscript.
8. The abbreviations in Equations 4 and 5 should be explained immediately after the equations. Additionally, the difference between Ya and biological yield should be clearly defined.
9. Table 4: The treatments and results of the statistical analysis are missing and should be included.
10. Additional explanations should be provided for the photos in Figure 5 to clarify their relevance and interpretation.
11. I suggest presenting P-values instead of F-values in Table 6. However, I leave this to the authors' discretion—both can be included if preferred.
12. Line 357: Prefer the notation (P < 0.05) instead of "with a p-value of less than 0.05" for clarity and conciseness.
13. It is unclear whether the data for Mulei 2020 and Bole 2021 were statistically compared. In its current presentation of tables, it appears as if they were compared; however, since each experiment was conducted independently, they should not be statistically compared. This should be clarified in the tables.
minor revision
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have carefully examined the revised version of your manuscript, reference number water-3501586.
Thank you for addressing my previous comments with thorough and thoughtful responses. I am pleased to see that all my concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Your revisions and replies demonstrate a clear understanding of the issues raised, and the changes made have improved the overall quality of the manuscript.
minor revision
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the paper. Under your guidance, the quality of this papers has improved significantly. Thank you again.
Sincerely,
all of authors.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to Authors
The authors conducted two field experiments in different locations to evaluate the effects of four irrigation levels on the growth, yield, and water use efficiency of quinoa in arid climates. Authors must address several key questions before research is accepted for publication.
1- The research does not find any treatment related to mulching, despite its mention in the title. Why?
2- The experimental design and the size of the experimental unit are not clearly defined.
3- The irrigation quotas vary slightly between treatments (YM1 and YM2, YM2 and YM3) with a difference of only 375 m3/ha. By implementing efficient management practices, we can easily save this amount without affecting the growth and production of quinoa.
4- If the experiment was conducted on an area of 6700 m2 (0.67 hectares) and the area allocated for each treatment in this case was 1675 m2, how is the seed yield calculated per hectare based on an average yield of only 9 plants (lines 160-162)? Seed yield per hectare should be calculated based on at least 10 m2 area. Also, the data on biological yield and harvest index are not accurate as well.
5- Table 5 displays the Pearson correlation coefficients between quinoa growth indicators and water consumption. Correlations are usually calculated between specific parameters, not between parameters and the amount of water consumption.
6- The methods of measurement for most parameters listed in Table 5 are not specified in the materials and methods section.
7- The data for most parameters listed in Table 5 are not specified in the result section as well.
8- In Table, the values of harvest index is not correct if you divided seed yield by dry mass accumulation
Other comments
1- Change the title into: Impact of Drip Irrigation Levels on Growth, Production, and Water Use efficiency of Quinoa grown in Arid Climate Conditions
2- Line 15: change thousand grain weight into thousand-seed weight and all manuscript
3- Key words: quinoa, drip irrigation, and water consumption were already mentioned in the title, please choices another key words instead of them.
4- In line 99, the abbreviations YM1, YM2, and YM3 are introduced without prior explanation.
5- Lines 98 and 99 indicate that the differences in irrigation quotas between each treatment and others (YM1 and YM2, as well as YM2 and YM3) are minimal, with only a 375 m3/ha difference.
6- The authors should provide the monthly weather data for both locations.
7- Table 1 should be revised to eliminate redundancy. The irrigation quotas for the three treatments are consistent across locations, so the table should be redrawn to present the treatments without redundancy.
8- In the Result section, ensure that all units of measurement are clearly stated in all tables.
9- Explanations in the Tables should be placed as notes underneath the Table, not in the title of the Table. Please check all Tables in the manuscript.
10- Please remove the numbers mentioned in the first line of each paragraph in the results section.
11- In Table 6, replace "Dry mass accumulation" with "biological yield."
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
More detailed comments:
1- Abstract needs to re-write again to include the main treatments (in brief), the main findings, and the further research.
2- Keywords:
Please do not repeat any word already mentioned in the title
3- Introduction:
In general, it should include 3 paragraphs depending on the title of the MS
one on the mulching and its potential, second on quinoa and its importance, third on the water scarcity and possible solution in agriculture like mulching or others
also, many refs. in introduction should be very up to date (mainly 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021)
4- Materials and Methods:
What does mean “Mulching Drip Irrigation”
I checked this section several time to see anything about the mulching, but I did not find any
Where the soil properties (mainly EC, pH, CEC, SOM) even the basic parameters including the soil moisture parameters?
Is the selected cultivated area that this study was carried out has a salinity or drought, please more parameters are needed, please
5- It is very recommended to add a flowchart including some photos on this study, main treatments and main measurements, please
6- All tables please write the title first correctly, then after the table write the proper footnote
Like this one, please
“Table 2. Water consumption in different quinoa growth stages (mm).YM1: treatment with an irri- 233 gation quota of 2550 m3 ha-1 ; YM2: treatment with an irrigation quota of 2925 m3 ha-1 ; YM3: treatment 234 with an irrigation quota of 3300 m3 ha-1 ; YM11: treatment with an irrigation quota of 2550 m3 ha-11; 235 YM12: treatment with an irrigation quota of 2925 m3 ha-1 ; YM13: treatment with an irrigation quota 236 of 3300 m3 ha-1 ; CK and CK1: treatment with an irrigation quota of 3675 m3 ha-1 . Tables show different 237 letters (a, b, c, d) indicating significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Please try as following:
The title
Table 2. Water consumption in different quinoa growth stages (mm).
The foot note will be:
YM1: treatment with an irri- 233 gation quota of 2550 m3 ha-1 ; YM2: treatment with an irrigation quota of 2925 m3 ha-1 ; YM3: treatment 234 with an irrigation quota of 3300 m3 ha-1 ; YM11: treatment with an irrigation quota of 2550 m3 ha-11; 235 YM12: treatment with an irrigation quota of 2925 m3 ha-1 ; YM13: treatment with an irrigation quota 236 of 3300 m3 ha-1 ; CK and CK1: treatment with an irrigation quota of 3675 m3 ha-1 . Tables show different 237 letters (a, b, c, d) indicating significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
7- The authors mentioned that
“In the experiment conducted in 2020, the irrigation quotas for treatments YM1, YM2, and YM3 were set to 2550, 2925, and 3300 m³·ha-1, respectively. This was the first time that quinoa had been introduced to the region, so irrigation experiments conducted in different regions both domestically and internationally were referenced, and a control group (CK) with an irrigation quota of 3675 m³·ha-1 was established.
What does mean “This was the first time that quinoa had been introduced to the region” where the authors studied this crop from 2019 and published their article that mentioned in the previous comments
Also, what does mean: “a control group (CK) with an irrigation quota of 3675 m³·ha-1 was established”, where the treatments were 2550, 2925, and 3300 m³·ha-1?
Please clarify, and explain.
8- please concerning the “Dry mass accumulation (kg·ha-1) or similar like yield as very big number to reduce by mention as ton or Mg ha-1 such as 6385 kg ha-1 to 6.38 Mg ha-1
9- the discussion section and conclusion are similar to published article
10- To accept this MS to publish, I think it is better to study the change in quinoa production by time from 2019 to 2021 under this drip irrigation or something like that
Sorry to say that this MS should be rejected
thanks
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review concerned an original research article. The authors touched on an important aspect related to sustainable water management in areas where it is insufficient.
The abstract is written correctly and contains a general outline and purpose of the work.
As for the introduction chapter, in my opinion this chapter could be extended because the topic concerns a really important problem.
Material and methods chapter described in detail. In subsection 2.2. please use superscript in units.
The research results chapter has been divided into sections, which greatly facilitates the interpretation of research results and their presentation. But what is the purpose of numbering under subsections? I think it's a mistake when editing the text. Please correct it. In my opinion, the research results were also presented precisely in the form of tables and charts, as well as interpretations. The discussion and conclusions chapter was written in accordance with the research results chapter. I have no major reservations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- The introduction should include more details on how quinoa responds to various irrigation levels.
2- The authors should provide a detailed explanation of how plastic mulching is installed in conjunction with drip irrigation. This should include the process of installing the drip line under the plastic film and sowing Quinoa seeds under the plastic film.
3- Where is the experiment design located in the Materials and Methods section? Was the experiment conducted as a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD)?
4- Lines 70-71, "In Mulei County, the average annual temperature ranges from 5 to 6°C, with temperatures above 10°C rising to between 2567 and 3100°C" the temperature rising to between 2567 and 3100°C or 25.67 and 31.00 °C. please check it.
5- Lines 193-195: It is illogical to calculate the yield per hectare based on only 9 plants. If each small plot covers an area of ​​33-36 m2, the final seed yield per hectare should be calculated on the basis of at least 10 m2.
6- In my previous comment on Table 5, I noted that correlation analysis is typically used to determine the relationship between specific parameters, not between parameters and water consumption. Regression analysis is commonly employed to establish this relationship.
7- Line 325 " Table 5. Plant height, stem diameter, and leaf area of quinoa during different growth stages". This is a Figure not a Table.
8- Please include the standard error and treatment differences (alphabet or letter) in Figure 5.
9- There is confusion regarding the years (2020 and 2021) and locations (Mulei County and Bole City) in the experiment. It would be more logical to conduct the experiment in the same location over two years or in each location for two years. It is unclear how the authors addressed this comment.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language requires further editing.
Author Response
Please check the attached file:
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs I mentioned in the previous round that this MS has not a novelty, and the authors already published this topic in their last publication
(Awa, M.; Zhao, J.; Tumaerbai, H. Deficit Irrigation-Based Improvement in Growth and Yield of Quinoa in the Northwestern Arid Region in China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4136. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104136),
Along with the un-accepted experimental design as I mentioned in my comment no. 10
I think this MS should be rejected
thanks
Author Response
Please check attached file:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
