Agrivoltaics as a Sustainable Strategy to Enhance Food Security Under Water Scarcity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1、Is the variable mentioned in lines 195-196 a single variable? If so, please clarify it.
2、Figure 1 is not very attractive. It is recommended that (a), (b), and (c) be arranged vertically.
3、In line 239, does "exhibited signs" take into account damaged leaves?4、Why is there an extra set of photos for HWR-S in Figure 2(a)?
5、The Discussion section contains some redundant statements, such as lines 423-425. The Discussion section needs to be reduced.
6、Line 239 mentions that there are no yellow or wilted leaves, but yellow leaves are found in the leaf photos in Figure 2.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. Is the variable mentioned in lines 195-196 a single variable? If so, please clarify it.

We thank the Reviewer for highlighting this unclear aspect. To clarify, we have added the following sentence to the “Biomass analysis” section:

“Chicory plant biomass was evaluated under different light and water conditions by measuring fresh weight (fw), dry weight (dw), and total leaf surface area. Measurements were taken for plants grown in full sunlight (L) or under PV panel shade (S), with exposure to either high (HWR) or low (LWR) water regimes.”

 

2. Figure 1 is not very attractive. It is recommended that (a), (b), and (c) be arranged vertically.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have rearranged previous Figure 1 (now figure 2), placing (a), (b), and (c) vertically as recommended.

 

3. In line 239, does "exhibited signs" take into account damaged leaves?

Thank you for your observation. The visible yellowing refers to the natural aging of older leaves, a condition also observed in control plants. To prevent any misunderstanding, we have removed the term yellowing from the text and no longer consider it a sign of stress.

4. Why is there an extra set of photos for HWR-S in Figure 2(a)?

 

In the revised Figure 3 (previously Figure 2a) and the text, we clarify that the number of leaves in plants grown under different conditions did not vary significantly. However, the leaves of plants grown under the panel are considerably larger and extend beyond the image frame. We intentionally maintained the same scale bar size to accurately illustrate the effect of panel-generated shading on leaf growth.

 

The related sentence has been revised as follows for clarity:

"Morphological observations revealed no significant differences in the number of leaves among 45-day-old chicory plants across the groups (HWR-L=29 ± 7; LWR-L=26 ± 4; HWR-S=26 ± 5; LWR-S=23 ± 6; ANOVA test: df=3/32, F=2.019, p-value=0.1267)."

 

 

5. The Discussion section contains some redundant statements, such as lines 423-425. The Discussion section needs to be reduced.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have removed the redundant statement and made efforts to reduce the Discussion section while also addressing the additional revisions requested by other reviewers.

6. 6. Line 239 mentions that there are no yellow or wilted leaves, but yellow leaves are found in the leaf photos in Figure 2.

Thank you for your observation. As mentioned in our response to point 3, we have revised the text to clarify this aspect.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the manuscript “Agrivoltaic as Sustainable Solution to support Food Security in Water Scarce Environments “for possible publication in Horticulturae. The idea behind the manuscript is interesting. However, the manuscript does not meet the standards required for consideration in a well-ranked, SCI-indexed research journal like Horticulturae. The study is based on data from only a single season, and using growth parameters and some climate parameters alone is insufficient to justify the results. For a more robust analysis and to improve the manuscript’s scientific value, I strongly suggest expanding the dataset to include multiple seasons or adding physiologic parameters. The shading effect from solar panels can protect crops from extreme heat and reduce plant stress, potentially enhancing resilience to climate change. This shading from the solar panels may reduce the amount of light available to plants, potentially leading to lower yields for some crops due to reduced Photosynthesis. However, the authors have not provided the photosynthesis data. This would allow the authors to demonstrate their findings' reliability and generalizability better. Additionally, the manuscript could benefit from a deeper statistical analysis, such as variability measures or a more comprehensive comparison of growth trends over time, to support the conclusions drawn.

Author Response

Rewiever 2

I reviewed the manuscript “Agrivoltaic as Sustainable Solution to support Food Security in Water Scarce Environments “for possible publication in Horticulturae. The idea behind the manuscript is interesting. However, the manuscript does not meet the standards required for consideration in a well-ranked, SCI-indexed research journal like Horticulturae. The study is based on data from only a single season, and using growth parameters and some climate parameters alone is insufficient to justify the results. For a more robust analysis and to improve the manuscript’s scientific value, I strongly suggest expanding the dataset to include multiple seasons or adding physiologic parameters. The shading effect from solar panels can protect crops from extreme heat and reduce plant stress, potentially enhancing resilience to climate change. This shading from the solar panels may reduce the amount of light available to plants, potentially leading to lower yields for some crops due to reduced Photosynthesis. However, the authors have not provided the photosynthesis data. This would allow the authors to demonstrate their findings' reliability and generalizability better. Additionally, the manuscript could benefit from a deeper statistical analysis, such as variability measures or a more comprehensive comparison of growth trends over time, to support the conclusions drawn.

Answers.

• Request to add new expanding the dataset to include multiple seasons or adding physiologic parameters.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to expand the dataset or include physiological parameters to strengthen the study. In response, we have revised the Discussion section (4.1. Biomass Production and Water Saving) to incorporate findings from a previous experiment conducted at the same site using identical cultivation and biomass analysis methods but during a different season with higher temperatures and illuminance levels.

This additional dataset confirms that the observed increase in biomass production under shaded conditions is consistent across different seasonal conditions. The previous experiment, conducted between late spring and early summer, recorded significantly higher temperatures and illuminance than the present study, which was carried out in late winter and early spring. Despite these variations, both studies consistently demonstrated that the shading provided by the agrivoltaic system supports greater biomass production than full sunlight conditions.

 

These findings reinforce the reliability of our conclusions and highlight the agrivoltaic system’s potential to enhance plant growth under different environmental conditions.

The discussion was then modified as follows (Lines 426-442):

“Our findings align with previous research that observed higher biomass production in shaded environments compared to full sunlight, even during different seasons characterized by higher temperatures and light intensities [1]. Both experiments were conducted at the same location and employed similar cultivation and biomass measurement methods, with the primary difference being the season of cultivation.

In the present study, conducted in late winter and early spring, the mean maximum temperature in the full sunlight area was 29.2 ± 1.6°C, while in the shaded area under the panels, it was 26.9 ± 3.7°C. In contrast, the previous experiment, carried out between late spring and early summer, recorded a mean maximum temperature of 38.1 ± 5.4°C in full sunlight and 33.9 ± 2.7°C in the shaded area.

Illuminance levels also varied between the two studies. In the present experiment, the maximum illuminance under the panels was approximately 4,136 ± 693 lx, while in full sunlight, it reached 128,341 ± 7,165 lx. In the previous experiment, illuminance under the panels was 9,388 ± 1,339 lx, compared to 166,485 ± 13,037 lx in full sunlight [1].

Despite these differences in temperature and solar radiation, both studies consistently demonstrated that the shading provided by the agrivoltaic system enhances biomass production compared to full sunlight conditions.”

• The shading effect from solar panels can protect crops from extreme heat and reduce plant stress, potentially enhancing resilience to climate change. This shading from the solar panels may reduce the amount of light available to plants, potentially leading to lower yields for some crops due to reduced Photosynthesis. However, the authors have not provided the photosynthesis data. This would allow the authors to demonstrate their findings' reliability and generalizability better.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment regarding photosynthesis data, we have addressed this aspect in the Discussion section (4.2. Differences in Photosynthetic Pigment Concentrations).

We provide the following clarifications:

• Lines 479-483: “Chlorophyll content is a well-established indicator of photosynthetic capacity, supported by strong physiological and biochemical evidence. A significant correlation exists between leaf chlorophyll content and maximum carboxylation capacity, which regulates the maximum rate of CO₂ assimilation. Since chlorophyll is responsible for light capture, it directly influences the energy available for the Calvin-Benson cycle reactions [65].”
• Lines 487-488: “In shaded conditions, the lower Chl a/Chl b ratio may suggest that the plant requires more Chl b to absorb the available light.”
• Lines 492-497: Despite a lower Chl a/Chl b ratio in shaded plants, the concentrations of both Chl a and Chl b are higher compared to plants grown in full sunlight. Additionally, shaded plants accumulate more biomass (both fresh and dry), which reflects the organic matter produced and serves as a growth index. This suggests that the plants are better adapted to the limited light conditions under the panels, likely supporting enhanced growth despite reduced light intensity [69].

By discussing the chlorophyll concentrations and their correlation to plant growth, we aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the photosynthetic capacity in shaded conditions and its potential implications for crop productivity under agrivoltaic systems.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a crucial topic for contemporary agriculture, whose findings would be beneficial for both students and professionals in the sector. However, it is important to note that the topic is not novel or innovative, considering that photovoltaic technology has been implemented in agricultural applications for several years. This observation is not intended to discourage the authors, as I mentioned previously, the benefits for a specific segment of readers would be considerably advantageous. Regarding this particular study, I believe that the benefits attributed to the use of photovoltaic systems are overstated. In my opinion, the direct advantages should be attributed more specifically to the use of renewable energy in general. Additionally, it would be advisable to review certain basic data presented in the document, such as the world population figure, which currently approaches 8 billion people.

Regarding the introductory section, while the theoretical approach is adequate, it is not clearly established how the integration process between the crop and the photovoltaic system influences the water stress of the plants. On this aspect, I would recommend that the authors develop an explanatory illustration of the process, as it is fundamental in this type of study to clearly answer the "how" of the analyzed phenomenon.

The materials and methods section presents exhaustive and detailed content; however, it lacks an adequate scientific methodological structure. Although the information provided is valuable, the current organization makes it difficult to understand the investigative process followed by the authors. However, I recommend that the authors restructure this section following a conventional methodological scheme that facilitates the understanding and validation of the research process. Below, I propose a structural guide to reorganize the existing content:

1. Specification of the type and scope of the research: Begin by clearly defining whether it is a descriptive, correlational, explanatory, or exploratory study, establishing the conceptual and operational limits of the work.
2. Definition of the method used: Specify whether the methodological approach corresponds to the deductive, inductive, hypothetical-deductive, or other method, justifying its selection based on the research problem.
3. Detailed description of the techniques employed: Explain the specific procedures that allowed for obtaining information from the studied reality, including the instruments implemented such as questionnaires, observation guides, or experimentation protocols (as in this case).
4. Characterization of the data collection process: This aspect is already adequately developed in the study, but it should be coherently integrated into the reorganized structure.
5. Explanation of analysis and interpretation procedures: Detail the statistical or qualitative techniques used to process the obtained data and the criteria used for their interpretation.

It is important to highlight that several of these components are already present in the text, but require a systematic reorganization that reflects the logical sequence of the scientific process. This restructuring will not only improve the formal quality of the document but will also enhance its methodological rigor and facilitate the replicability of the study by other researchers.

The results section presents an adequate structure and a clear organization, facilitating the understanding of the findings obtained during the research. Similarly, the discussion has been developed in a pertinent manner, establishing the necessary connections between the obtained results and the previously presented theoretical framework. However, the conclusions section requires significant improvements to fulfill its essential function within the scientific manuscript. It is fundamental to remember that the conclusions constitute the space where authors should articulate their original contribution to scientific knowledge, synthesizing the most relevant findings and projecting their implications. In this sense, it is strongly recommended to avoid the inclusion of bibliographic citations in this section, as its purpose is not to contrast the results with existing literature—an aspect already addressed in the discussion—but to present the deductions derived from the study itself. To enhance this section, the authors should reformulate it focusing on expressing with clarity and precision their original contributions, the answers achieved regarding the initially proposed objectives, the limitations identified during the investigative process, and the possible future research lines that emerge from the obtained findings. This restructuring will allow the conclusions to effectively fulfill their function as a reflective synthesis of the added value that the research brings to the field of knowledge.

Finally, it is important that the authors dedicate attention to the homogenization of all visual elements of the study. The uniform and coherent presentation of tables, figures, and graphs does not constitute an aesthetic aspect but reflects the methodological rigor of the work and facilitates the reader's understanding of the information. It is recommended to standardize formats, typographies, scales, legends, and chromatic schemes to project an image of professionalism and consistency throughout the manuscript. Additionally, it is advisable that the authors incorporate more recent bibliographic references, specifically from the year 2025, from peer-reviewed scientific journals. The inclusion of these updated sources will not only enrich the theoretical framework and discussion but will demonstrate the relevance of the study within the contemporary scientific panorama, strengthening its relevance and pertinence in the current context of research in this field.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The manuscript addresses a crucial topic for contemporary agriculture, whose findings would be beneficial for both students and professionals in the sector. However, it is important to note that the topic is not novel or innovative, considering that photovoltaic technology has been implemented in agricultural applications for several years. This observation is not intended to discourage the authors, as I mentioned previously, the benefits for a specific segment of readers would be considerably advantageous. Regarding this particular study, I believe that the benefits attributed to the use of photovoltaic systems are overstated. In my opinion, the direct advantages should be attributed more specifically to the use of renewable energy in general.

Additionally, it would be advisable to review certain basic data presented in the document, such as the world population figure, which currently approaches 8 billion people.

Thank you for your insightful comments. We appreciate your feedback and have made the necessary revisions to improve the manuscript.

The outdated population estimate has been removed, and the sentence has been reformulated to provide a more accurate and relevant context to the topic.

Regarding the introductory section, while the theoretical approach is adequate, it is not clearly established how the integration process between the crop and the photovoltaic system influences the water stress of the plants. On this aspect, I would recommend that the authors develop an explanatory illustration of the process, as it is fundamental in this type of study to clearly answer the "how" of the analyzed phenomenon.

Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We agree that providing a clearer explanation of how the integration of crops with photovoltaic systems influences water stress is crucial for the manuscript. To address this, we have added a more detailed explanation in the Introduction section, specifically outlining the mechanisms by which the shading effect of the photovoltaic system can reduce heat stress and evaporation, potentially improving water retention in plants.

“Key findings highlight the environmental benefits of agrivoltaics system, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved water efficiency and improved soil quality [De Francesco et al., 2025]. Water efficiency is primarily driven by reduced water consumption, which appears to be influenced by evaporation. Mainly, the attenuation of sunlight reaching the soil surface can help reduce water loss and the risk of desertification (Figure 1). As a result, frequent droughts and intense solar radiation can be reduced [1, 34, 37, 38, 39].”

Additionally, we have included an illustrative diagram (Figure 1) that visually represents the integration process between the crop and the photovoltaic system. This diagram highlights the interaction between light availability, temperature regulation, and water stress mitigation, making it easier for readers to understand how the agrivoltaic system influences plant water stress.

We believe these revisions better clarify the process and will enhance the manuscript's readability and comprehensibility.

The materials and methods section presents exhaustive and detailed content; however, it lacks an adequate scientific methodological structure. Although the information provided is valuable, the current organization makes it difficult to understand the investigative process followed by the authors. However, I recommend that the authors restructure this section following a conventional methodological scheme that facilitates the understanding and validation of the research process. Below, I propose a structural guide to reorganize the existing content:

• Specification of the type and scope of the research: Begin by clearly defining whether it is a descriptive, correlational, explanatory, or exploratory study, establishing the conceptual and operational limits of the work.
• Definition of the method used: Specify whether the methodological approach corresponds to the deductive, inductive, hypothetical-deductive, or other method, justifying its selection based on the research problem.
• Detailed description of the techniques employed: Explain the specific procedures that allowed for obtaining information from the studied reality, including the instruments implemented such as questionnaires, observation guides, or experimentation protocols (as in this case).
• Characterization of the data collection process: This aspect is already adequately developed in the study, but it should be coherently integrated into the reorganized structure.
• Explanation of analysis and interpretation procedures: Detail the statistical or qualitative techniques used to process the obtained data and the criteria used for their interpretation.

It is important to highlight that several of these components are already present in the text, but require a systematic reorganization that reflects the logical sequence of the scientific process. This restructuring will not only improve the formal quality of the document but will also enhance its methodological rigor and facilitate the replicability of the study by other researchers.

The Materials and Methods section has been integrated and reorganised in an attempt to follow the suggested scheme.

The results section presents adequate structure and a clear organization, facilitating the understanding of the findings obtained during the research. Similarly, the discussion has been developed in a pertinent manner, establishing the necessary connections between the obtained results and the previously presented theoretical framework. However, the conclusions section requires significant improvements to fulfill its essential function within the scientific manuscript. It is fundamental to remember that the conclusions constitute the space where authors should articulate their original contribution to scientific knowledge, synthesizing the most relevant findings and projecting their implications. In this sense, it is strongly recommended to avoid the inclusion of bibliographic citations in this section, as its purpose is not to contrast the results with existing literature—an aspect already addressed in the discussion—but to present the deductions derived from the study itself. To enhance this section, the authors should reformulate it focusing on expressing with clarity and precision their original contributions, the answers achieved regarding the initially proposed objectives, the limitations identified during the investigative process, and the possible future research lines that emerge from the obtained findings. This restructuring will allow the conclusions to effectively fulfill their function as a reflective synthesis of the added value that the research brings to the field of knowledge.

The conclusion section was reduced by deleting the parts derived by inductive interpretation of the results. It was mainly focused on the direct results of this study.

In response to your suggestion, we have revised the conclusions section to better align with the essential role it plays in synthesizing the study's original contributions. The section has been restructured to focus on clearly and precisely articulating the direct outcomes of this research, while avoiding bibliographic citations, as recommended. We have removed the parts that were based on inductive interpretation and now emphasize the specific answers to the research questions posed at the outset.

Additionally, we have highlighted the limitations identified during the study and outlined potential avenues for future research that arise from our findings.

Finally, it is important that the authors dedicate attention to the homogenization of all visual elements of the study. The uniform and coherent presentation of tables, figures, and graphs does not constitute an aesthetic aspect but reflects the methodological rigor of the work and facilitates the reader's understanding of the information. It is recommended to standardize formats, typographies, scales, legends, and chromatic schemes to project an image of professionalism and consistency throughout the manuscript.

We have carefully addressed the homogenization of all visual elements in the study. We have standardized the formats, typographies, scales, legends, and color schemes across tables, figures, and graphs to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript.

Additionally, it is advisable that the authors incorporate more recent bibliographic references, specifically from the year 2025, from peer-reviewed scientific journals. The inclusion of these updated sources will not only enrich the theoretical framework and discussion but will demonstrate the relevance of the study within the contemporary scientific panorama, strengthening its relevance and pertinence in the current context of research in this field.

We have incorporated more recent bibliographic references from 2025, sourced from peer-reviewed scientific journals, to enrich the theoretical framework and discussion. The addition of these updated sources enhances the relevance and contemporary nature of the study within the current research context. Below are the references added:

• Milena Maria Tomaz de Oliveira et al., "Shade improves growth, photosynthetic performance, production and postharvest quality in red pitahaya (Hylocereus costaricensis)," Scientia Horticulturae, Volume 286, 2021, 110217. DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110217.
• De Caroli et al., "Expression of exogenous GFP-CesA6 in tobacco enhances Cell Wall biosynthesis and biomass production," Biology, 2022; 11:1139. DOI: 10.3390/biology11081139.
• Croft et al., "Leaf chlorophyll content as a proxy for leaf photosynthetic capacity," Global Change Biology, 2017, 23, 3513-3524. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13599.
• Henry J. Williams et al., "Rethinking agrivoltaic incentive programs: A science-based approach to encourage practical design solutions," Applied Energy, 377, 2025, 124272. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124272.
• Paschalis et al., "Controls of ecohydrological grassland dynamics in agrivoltaic systems," Earth's Future, 13, e2024EF005183, 2025.
• Altyeb Ali Abaker Omer et al., "Water evaporation reduction by the agrivoltaic systems development," Solar Energy, 247, 2022, Pages 13-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2022.10.022.
• Djaber Berrian et al., "Performance of land productivity with single-axis trackers and shade-intolerant crops in agrivoltaic systems," Applied Energy, 384, 2025, 125471. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125471.
• R.J. Randle-Boggis et al., "Harvesting the sun twice: Energy, food, and water benefits from agrivoltaics in East Africa," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 208, 2025, 115066. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2024.115066.
• De Francesco et al., "Opportunities, Technological Challenges and Monitoring Approaches in Agrivoltaic Systems for Sustainable Management," Sustainability, 2025, 17, 634. DOI: 10.3390/su17020634.

These additions strengthen the study's relevance within the current scientific landscape and contribute to its overall rigor.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please consider these suggestions:

1. The original title, "Agrivoltaic as a Sustainable Solution to Support Food Security in Water Scarce Environments," provides a general sense of the study’s focus, but it can be improved for greater clarity and scientific precision. The revised title, "Agrivoltaics as a Sustainable Strategy to Enhance Food Security under Water Scarcity: A Case Study with Chicory," offers a clearer and more technically sound description by using the correct term "agrivoltaics," specifying the crop studied (chicory), and highlighting the contextual challenge (water scarcity). However, the authors may also choose to frame the title based on their preferred emphasis or broader objectives, as long as it remains consistent with the core content of the study.
2. lines 70-71: [As climate change-induced droughts intensify and the world population grows, competition for water resources, particularly for agriculture, will increase.] are without the reference, you can add these to support the statement [ A) Plastic Pollution in Agriculture as a Threat to Food Security, the Ecosystem, and the Environment: An Overview. Agronomy 2024, 14, 548. B) A review of evapotranspiration estimation methods for climate-smart agriculture tools under a changing climate: vulnerabilities, consequences, and implications. Journal of Water and Climate Change 2025, 16, 249.]
3. Lines 77-79: [Ensuring sustainable food security requires careful management of natural resources while balancing the ecological and socio-economic dimensions of the landscape.] are without the reference; you can add this reference to support the statement [A Review of Precision Irrigation Water-Saving Technology under Changing Climate for Enhancing Water Use Efficiency, Crop Yield, and Environmental Footprints. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1141.
4. The information presented in Lines 148–159 appears to be repeated and adds unnecessary redundancy. Kindly revise this section to remove the duplicated content and maintain clarity and conciseness in the manuscript.
5. Line 161: In this context, “campaign” is not the best word choice. The sentence is trying to describe an experimental study or trial, so using “campaign” feels a bit out of place or too broad.
6. Please provide complete information about the instruments used to measure air temperature, including the brand, model, measurement range, accuracy, and placement of the thermometers. This information is important for ensuring the reproducibility and reliability of the experimental results.
7. Please avoid repeating abbreviations that have already been defined earlier in the manuscript. For example, terms like fw, dw, L, S, HWR, and LWR do not need to be redefined if they’ve already been introduced. This helps maintain clarity and avoid redundancy in the text.
8. Please ensure that all figures include properly labeled x- and y-axes, including units where applicable. Clear axis labels are essential for helping readers accurately interpret and understand the presented results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

1. The original title, "Agrivoltaic as a Sustainable Solution to Support Food Security in Water Scarce Environments," provides a general sense of the study’s focus, but it can be improved for greater clarity and scientific precision. The revised title, "Agrivoltaics as a Sustainable Strategy to Enhance Food Security under Water Scarcity: A Case Study with Chicory," offers a clearer and more technically sound description by using the correct term "agrivoltaics," specifying the crop studied (chicory), and highlighting the contextual challenge (water scarcity). However, the authors may also choose to frame the title based on their preferred emphasis or broader objectives, as long as it remains consistent with the core content of the study.

The title has been changed in part, as suggested by the reviewer. It is now:

Agrivoltaics as a Sustainable Strategy to Enhance Food Security under Water Scarcity

 

1. lines 70-71: [As climate change-induced droughts intensify and the world population grows, competition for water resources, particularly for agriculture, will increase.] are without the reference, you can add these to support the statement [ A) Plastic Pollution in Agriculture as a Threat to Food Security, the Ecosystem, and the Environment: An Overview. Agronomy 2024, 14, 548. B) A review of evapotranspiration estimation methods for climate-smart agriculture tools under a changing climate: vulnerabilities, consequences, and implications. Journal of Water and Climate Change 2025, 16, 249.]

it was done. These have been highlighted in yellow in references section.

Lines 77-79: [Ensuring sustainable food security requires careful management of natural resources while balancing the ecological and socio-economic dimensions of the landscape.] are without the reference; you can add this reference to support the statement [A Review of Precision Irrigation Water-Saving Technology under Changing Climate for Enhancing Water Use Efficiency, Crop Yield, and Environmental Footprints. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1141.

it was done. This has been highlighted in yellow in references section.

1. The information presented in Lines 148–159 appears to be repeated and adds unnecessary redundancy. Kindly revise this section to remove the duplicated content and maintain clarity and conciseness in the manuscript.

it was done. It was highlighted in yellow.

1. Line 161: In this context, “campaign” is not the best word choice. The sentence is trying to describe an experimental study or trial, so using “campaign” feels a bit out of place or too broad.

It has been changed to "Activities".

1. Please provide complete information about the instruments used to measure air temperature, including the brand, model, measurement range, accuracy, and placement of the thermometers. This information is important for ensuring the reproducibility and reliability of the experimental results.

The information were added from line 200 to line 204

1. Please avoid repeating abbreviations that have already been defined earlier in the manuscript. For example, terms like fw, dw, L, S, HWR, and LWR do not need to be redefined if they’ve already been introduced. This helps maintain clarity and avoid redundancy in the text.

It was done.

1. Please ensure that all figures include properly labeled x- and y-axes, including units where applicable. Clear axis labels are essential for helping readers accurately interpret and understand the presented results.

It has been done. For circularity, it is a ratio between area and perimeter² (4 × [area ÷ (perimeter)²/π), the value has no unit of measure. For Figure 6 and Figure 7, the time has been added in x axis.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf