Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article, based on a production environment, investigates the application of sensor technology in irrigation and fertilization for Nagpur mandarin production, offering practical guidance and holding certain production value. The study results indicate that employing sensor technology can significantly enhance the efficiency of water and fertilizer usage while boosting crop yield and quality. This advancement is crucial for propelling agricultural modernization and sustainable development. However, there are several areas in the article that require improvement. Major suggestions are as follows:

1. Introduction Section

- In the research background, the application of sensor-based irrigation and fertilization techniques in citrus crops is not mentioned. What have previous studies mainly focused on in this area? And what are the innovative aspects of this study compared to prior research? These points should be supplemented.

- The research objectives and questions are not clearly defined. Although the article mentions the necessity of implementing sensor-based IoT technology and modern agricultural techniques, the research goals and specific questions are not explicitly described. It is inferred that the first objective might be related to water use patterns and fertilizer formulations, while the second could be the development of a citrus irrigation and fertilization management system and software based on the study results.

2. Experimental Methods Section

- The explanation of experimental treatment combinations is unclear. The article mentions 36 experimental units but does not elaborate on how these combinations were generated or what the specific treatment combinations are. Based on the table, only 12 treatments can be inferred, and it is unclear what the other treatments are. Additionally, the labeling of fertilizer treatments is ambiguous and hard to understand.

3. Results and Discussion

- On Page 11, Line 386, it states, "The information captures the plant's developmental trajectory, aligning closely across years 2021 to 2023." However, in Line 415, it mentions "both years studied," which creates confusion. The actual years of the study should be clearly and consistently stated.

- In Figure 1, the abbreviation "SP-Stress" is used in the chart but not defined in the main text, which may lead to misunderstandings for readers. Please provide a clear explanation. Also, there is an inconsistency in the description of the new leaf flush period (NLP). The main text describes it as "60 days" (January to February), but the chart labels it as "NLP(50 days)." Moreover, the use of commas in the numerical values on the y-axis of the charts seems incorrect, as they appear to be decimal points (e.g., 0.2, 0.4). This issue is present in Figure 1, Figure 2, and all subsequent charts.

- In Section 3.3, "Effect of sensor-based fertigation scheduling on plant growth characteristics," the discussion mainly focuses on describing the results without providing relevant analysis. There must be prior research on water and fertilizer management that can be compared and contrasted with the findings of this study.

- In Section 3.4, "Effect of sensor-based (IoT) fertigation on fruit quality parameters," there is a lack of thoughtful discussion regarding the study results. Numerous previous studies have demonstrated that moderate drought stress can enhance fruit quality. It would be beneficial to compare and analyze the reasons for similarities or differences between these studies and the current research findings.

- The same issue persists in the following sections. The "Results and Discussion" section lacks in-depth analysis and comparison with previous research, both longitudinally and laterally. There is also a lack of reference to relevant theoretical studies that might support the results of this research. This section needs to be reorganized and thoroughly discussed. It is quite unusual that there are almost no references cited in the discussion.

- In Section 3.9, "Correlation between fruit yield and other plant-based variables," the article employs principal component analysis (PCA) to identify the key variables affecting plant growth, fruit quality, and nutrient content, such as leaf nutrient status (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) and physiological parameters (e.g., photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate). Based on these key variables, it is unclear whether an optimal irrigation combination can be derived. There is a substantial body of research in this area that should be explored.

4. Conclusion

It is recommended to include more specific suggestions on how to apply the research findings to actual production in the conclusion section to enhance the practical value of the article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Thank you so much dear reviewers for taking up your precious time and efforts in reviewing our work and giving some good comments for improvement of our manuscript. We are hereby responding to all the comments one-by-one as below:

Reviewer-1 ( Authors response and text modifications made in red color )

Thank you for the insightful article on the application of sensor based technology in water and fertilizer for Nagpur mandarin optimum production. The investigation into how sensor technology can optimize water and fertilizer use while improving crop yield and quality is highly relevant for the horticultural sector. As you rightly pointed out, this advancement is a crucial step towards horticultural modernization and sustainable development.

 

Reviewer Comment 1: In the research background, the application of sensor-based irrigation and fertilization techniques in citrus crops is not mentioned. What have previous studies mainly focused on in this area? And what are the innovative aspects of this study compared to prior research?  These points should be supplemented.

Authors Response 1: Thank you very much for picking up the issue so nicely. In the background, we have highlighted the previous studies mainly focussing on sensor-based micro-irrigation systems for optimizing water and fertilizer in citrus. However, the  innovation of our study lies in its tailored approach using readjustments in different types of nutrients across crop phenological growth stages, using advanced sensor technologies and real-time data analytics addressing localized challenges. As rightly pointed out , we have now added the advancements in our study over previous studies. Background information is almost newly written.   

  

Reviewers Comment 2: The research objectives and questions are not clearly defined. Although the article mentions the necessity of implementing sensor-based IoT technology and modern agricultural techniques, the research goals and specific questions are not explicitly described. It is inferred that the first objective might be related to water use patterns and fertilizer formulations, while the second could be the development of a citrus irrigation and fertilization management system and software based on the study results.

Authors Response 2: We appreciate your observation regarding the clarity of the research objectives and questions. To address these, we explicitly defined the research objectives: i) To enhance water productivity and nutrients -use- efficiency in Nagpur mandarin and ii) To develop a sensor-based fertigation schedule across phenological stages of Nagpur mandarin. These objectives align with the study’s goals of improving water and nutrient efficiency along side improvements in fruit  yield.

Reviewer Comment 3: The explanation of experimental treatment combinations is unclear. The article mentions 36 experimental units but does not elaborate on how these combinations were generated or what the specific treatment combinations are. Based on the Table, only 12 treatments can be inferred, and it is unclear what the other treatments are. Additionally, the labeling of fertilizer treatments is ambiguous and hard to understand.

Authors Response 3: We provided a more detailed explanation of how the 48 experimental units were generated and clarified the specific treatment combinations in the revised version. The fertilizer treatments have now labeled for better clarity , as desired.

 

Reviewer Comment 4: On Page 11, Line 386, it states, "The information captures the plant's developmental trajectory, aligning closely across years 2021 to 2023." However, in Line 415, it mentions "both years studied," which creates confusion. The actual years of the study should be clearly and consistently stated.

Authors Response 4: Thank you very much for pointing it out so nicely. As suggested , now we  have revised the manuscript to ensure that  the years of the study are clearly and consistently stated throughout the text to avoid any confusion, especially in reference to the developmental trajectory from 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 (i.e. Two years studies , each having  one crop production cycle of 9-10 months from new leaf initiation to final harvesting of fruits ).

 

Reviewer Comment 5: In Figure 1, the abbreviation "SP-Stress" is used in the chart but not defined in the main text, which may lead to misunderstandings for readers. Please provide a clear explanation. Also, there is an inconsistency in the description of the new leaf flush period (NLP). The main text describes it as "60 days" (January to February), but the chart labels it as "NLP (50 days)." Moreover, the use of commas in the numerical values on the y-axis of the charts seems incorrect, as they appear to be decimal points (e.g., 0.2, 0.4). This issue is present in Figure 1, Figure 2, and all subsequent charts.

Authors Response 5: Thank you so much  , we do agree with your observations. We have now clarified the abbreviation "WS-Water Stress" in the main text to avoid confusion. Additionally, we corrected in the NLP description and the chart labels to align with the main text. The comma issue in numerical values (the ranged of k_c values is 0.10 to 1.1) and K_c is to be developed in fraction and therefore, it shows in Y axis is 0.1-1.1 and is not a comma. Hope , you agree with our statement 

Reviewer Comment 6: In Section 3.3, "Effect of sensor-based fertigation scheduling on plant growth characteristics," the discussion mainly focuses on describing the results without providing relevant analysis. There must be prior research on water and fertilizer management that can be compared and contrasted with the findings of this study.

Authors Response 6: We agree , thank you . We have now enhanced the discussion in Section 3.3 by incorporating relevant prior research on water and fertilizer management for Nagpur mandarin. Resultantly,  a  thorough analysis could be seen by comparing and contrasting our findings with existing studies, to provide greater context and insights into the results.

Reviewer Comment 7: In Section 3.4, "Effect of sensor-based (IoT) fertigation on fruit quality parameters," there is a lack of thoughtful discussion regarding the study results. Numerous previous studies have demonstrated that moderate drought stress can enhance fruit quality. It would be beneficial to compare and analyze the reasons for similarities or differences between these studies and the current research findings.

Authors Response 7: Thank you for the nice suggestion .We have now revised  the Section 3.4 to include a more thoughtful discussion of the study results. By comparing our findings with previous studies on moderate drought stress and its impact on fruit quality, we aimed to  analyze similarities and differences, providing deeper insight into our results. Hopefully , we succeeded in addressing your observations.

Reviewer Comment 8: The "Results and Discussion" section lacks in-depth analysis and comparison with previous research, both longitudinally and laterally. There is also a lack of reference to relevant theoretical studies that might support the results of this research. This section needs to be reorganized and thoroughly discussed. It is quite unusual that there are almost no references cited in the discussion.

Authors Response 8:  Agreed. We have now incorporated the relevant theoretical studies to support our findings and ensure proper citations are included throughout the discussion. Additionally, we reorganized this section to provide a more comprehensive and well-supported analysis, enhancing its clarity and depth.

 

Reviewer Comment 9: In Section 3.9, "Correlation between fruit yield and other plant-based variables," the article employs principal component analysis (PCA) to identify the key variables affecting plant growth, fruit quality, and nutrient content, such as leaf nutrient status (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) and physiological parameters (e.g., photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate). Based on these key variables, it is unclear whether an optimal irrigation combination can be derived. There is a substantial body of research in this area that should be explored.

Authors Response 9: Thank you . We have now clarified in Section 3.9 whether an optimal irrigation combination can be derived based on the key variables identified through PCA. Additionally, we incorporated a discussion of relevant research on irrigation management and how  our observations relate to the variables affecting plant growth, fruit quality, and nutrient content. This provides a more comprehensive understanding of the findings and their implications in the context of existing studies.

Reviewer comment 10: It is recommended to include more specific suggestions on how to apply the research findings to actual production in the conclusion section to enhance the practical value of the article.

Authors Response 10: Nice suggestion , thank you We have now revised the conclusion to include more specific recommendations for applying the research findings in actual production settings. By outlining practical strategies and potential applications, we have aimed to enhance the value of the study for practitioners in the field and ensure that the research has a tangible impact on real-world practices.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors MS: Response of Sensors-based Fertigation in Nagpur Mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) on Vertisol of Central India   I have carefully read the entire manuscript and provide the following comments for your consideration:   -It is crucial to have a native English speaker review and edit the language throughout the MS   -This study involves a substantial amount of work and is very comprehensive. However, I suggest that the authors reorganize the abstract and introduction, particularly by clearly defining the research objective. Otherwise, the current version is highly confusing to read.   -The abstract is unclear. Initially, I assumed that the study aimed to investigate the impact of sensor-based IoT citrus cultivation. However, the experimental design focuses on water and fertilizer management. If this is the case, the authors should not emphasize sensor-based IoT management excessively, especially since there is no blank control.   -The levels of water and fertilizer management should be clearly stated in the abstract, along with the total number of treatments.   -The keywords should not include "soil moisture sensors." Shouldn't "IoT" and "water and fertilizer management" be the most relevant keywords?   -L105-108: The research objectives are inaccurate and need to be refined.   -Very important! Based on the research background and objectives described by the authors, I do not understand the rationale behind the experimental design. If the study aims to explore the application of sensor-based (IoT) precision fertigation technology, the logical comparison should be with conventional fertilization techniques, rather than different water and fertilizer treatments. The current design appears to focus more on optimizing water and fertilizer management strategies that align with sensor-based (IoT) precision management technology.   -The experimental design is also confusing. What is the basis for setting the irrigation and fertilization schemes? How many replicates are there for each treatment, and why are there 36 treatment units?   -What are the specific types of liquid fertilizers used? What are the forms of each nutrient?   -Figure 2 should include actual photos, and Figures 2 and 3 might be combined.   -There are still track-change markings in the main text.   -Section 2.4 should be placed before the description of measurement indicators.   -The results and discussion sections must be separated into two distinct sections. The current information flow is highly disorganized, making it difficult to distinguish between key findings and critical discussions of the results.   -References. It would be best to consult the specific guidelines provided by the journal for instructions on formatting and referencing.   Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Reviewer-2 ( Authors response and text modifications made in blue color )

Reviewer Comment 1: It is crucial to have a native English speaker review and edit the language throughout the MS. This study involves a substantial amount of work and is very comprehensive. However, I suggest that the authors reorganize the abstract and introduction, particularly by clearly defining the research objective. Otherwise, the current version is highly confusing to read. -The abstract is unclear.

Authors Response 1:  Thank you for appreciating our work. We have revised these sections to enhance coherence and ensured that the study’s purpose is clearly communicated, making it easier to understand for readers. Hopefully, we succeeded in our efforts.

Reviewer Comment 2: I assumed that the study aimed to investigate the impact of sensor-based IoT citrus cultivation. However, the experimental design focuses on water and fertilizer management. If this is the case, the authors should not emphasize sensor-based IoT management excessively, especially since there is no blank control.   

Authors Response 2: We have revised the manuscript to clarify that the primary aim is to enhanced water productivity and nutrient density of Nagpur mandarin by using sensor based (IoT) fertigation scheduling. We have adjusted the language to better align with the study's objectives. Thanks for suggestion.

Reviewer Comment 3: The levels of water and fertilizer management should be clearly stated in the abstract, along with the total number of treatments. -The keywords should not include "soil moisture sensors." Shouldn't "IoT" and "water and fertilizer management" be the most relevant keywords?   

Authors Response 3: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the abstract to clearly state the levels of water and fertilizer management, as well as the total number of treatments, to provide a clearer overview of the study. Regarding the keywords, as suggested, the words like "IoT" and  "water and fertilizer management" have been added and updated them accordingly.

Reviewer Comment 4: L105-108: The research objectives are inaccurate and need to be refined. -Very important! Based on the research background and objectives described by the authors, I do not understand the rationale behind the experimental design. If the study aims to explore the application of sensor-based (IoT) precision fertigation technology, the logical comparison should be with conventional fertilization techniques, rather than different water and fertilizer treatments.

Authors Response 4: We have refined them to ensure they accurately reflect the study's focus. We have revised the details of experimental design to align better with the stated objectives and provided a clearer rationale for the study.

Reviewer Comment 5: The current design appears to focus more on optimizing water and fertilizer management strategies that align with sensor-based (IoT) precision management technology. The experimental design is also confusing. What is the basis for setting the irrigation and fertilization schemes? How many replicates are there for each treatment, and why are there 36 treatment units?  

Authors Response 5: We clarified the experimental design to better explain the basis for setting the irrigation and fertilization schemes. Additionally, we have provided more details on the number of replicates for each treatment and the rationale for using 48 experimental units.

Reviewer Comment 6: What are the specific types of liquid fertilizers used? What are the forms of each nutrient?  

Authors Response 6: We have provided more detailed information on the specific types of liquid fertilizers used in the study, along with the forms of each nutrient. This clarification enhanced the manuscript’s transparency and ensured a better understanding of the materials utilized in the experiment. In this experiment, 100% water-soluble fertilizers were used to ensure efficient nutrient uptake by the Nagpur mandarin plants. The specific types of fertilizers applied included urea(46:0:0), urea phosphate (18:44:0), potassium sulphate  (0:0:50) , ferrous sulfate, manganese sulfate, zinc sulfate, and boric acid. We have added they details  about recommended doses of fertilizersasRDF:600N:400P₂O₅:200K₂O:50Boricacid:100FeSO₄:100MnSO₄:100ZnSO₄,gkg¹tree¹(166.0N:11.2P₂O₅55.4K₂O:13.9Boric acid:27.8FeSO₄ :27.8MnSO₄ :27.8ZnSO_4, kgha^-1).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Each of these fertilizers provided essential nutrients in a form that is easily dissolved in water, allowing for immediate absorption by the plant roots.

Reviewer Comment 7: Figure 2 should include actual photos, and Figures 2 and 3 might be combined.   

Authors Response 7: We have updated Figure 2 to include actual photos, as this enhanced the visual clarity of the data. Additionally, we make the necessary revisions accordingly. Figure 2 and Figure 3 have been combined  and designated as Figure 2.

Reviewer Comment 8: There are still track-change markings in the main text.

Authors Response 8: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and removed all track-change markings to ensure a clean and polished version by addressing all of them.

Reviewer Comment 9: Section 2.4 should be placed before the description of measurement indicators

Authors  Response 9: Thank you for the suggestion . As desired, we have now rearranged  the Section 2.4, before Section 2.2 and appeared before the description of measurement indicators, improving the logical flow of the manuscript.

Reviewer Comment 10: The results and discussion sections must be separated into two distinct sections. The current information flow is highly disorganized, making it difficult to distinguish between key findings and critical discussions of the results.   

Authors Response 10:  The previous publications used Results and Discussion together , so we followed the same. However, we have reorganized this section to ensure that the key findings are clearly distinguished from the analysis, enhancing the overall flow and readability of the paper.

Reviewer Comment 11: References. It would be best to consult the specific guidelines provided by the journal for instructions on formatting and referencing.

Authors Response 11: We have carefully reviewed the journal’s specific guidelines and ensured that all references are formatted correctly according to their instructions. This improved the manuscript’s consistency and ensures it meets the journal's requirements. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and suggestions for Authors

 

Title: Response of Sensors-based Fertigation in Nagpur Mandarin (Citrus
reticulata Blanco) on Vertisol of Central India

Dear Authors and Editors

The research results presented in the manuscript fit into the publishing profile of Horticulturae journal.

The objective of the experiment was to investigate sensor-based (IoT) fertigation scheduling for sustainable water and fertilizer management in Nagpur mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) in Indian Vertisols.

The results presented in the manuscript are interesting, but there is a need for corrections, additions and refinement of the descriptions. Major corrections are needed in the Results and Discussion section.

In order to increase the usefulness of the article, Authors must refer to the following points. Additions should be made to increase the scientific value of the manuscript.

Remarks

1. Abstract – Full names should also be provided for abbreviations used for the first time. Please add more details when providing research factors. Letter and number designations are not enough for a researcher who reads the abstract. This is very little information.
2. Introduction – A research hypothesis must be added.
3. Materials and Methods – Subsection 2.1 The soil type according to WRB 2022 should be added....clay loam...this is a granulometric group. Which year of research does the data in Figure 1 refer to? Explanations of abbreviations should be added below the chart, and further in the text of the manuscript, explanations of abbreviations can be removed. Please improve the descriptions in Figure 1 (e.g.: & - remove, indexes, font). Please add doses of fertilizer components, names of fertilizers, chemical composition of fertilizers. Table 1 - add explanations of abbreviations below the table. Line 225 the source should be added [17]. Table 2 - the entry in the References column should be unified, Ayars et al., Srivastava and Malhotra - not in the References list. Line 338 – Ranganna (2001) not in the References list. Subsubsection 2.8.2 - Please add a short description of the rules for determining macro- and micronutrients and the apparatus.
4. Results and Discussion – Lines 378-380 to remove. There are no references to research by other authors. Line 413 - years of research must be added. Line 440 years of research and explanation of abbreviations should be added. Subsection 3.3 Units should be placed with numerical data concerning research results, not with SD. This remark applies to the entire manuscript. In the following subsections, there is poor discussion of results, there are repetitions of numerical data from tables. Line 492 and 519 It should be: ....SD.... Add explanations of abbreviations under Table 5. Figure 6a - Ca and Mg should be added and units in Figures 6a and 6b should be corrected. Line 553 - remove: i.e., & and add years of study. Subsection 3.7 - the title should be corrected. Figure 7 macronutriens – unit g kg^-1, micronutrients – unit mg kg^-1. Line 575 - Na and years of research should be added. Very low macro and micronutrient contents. Please provide the reason, or maybe pH had a significant impact on this. Line 634 - years of research should be added.
5. Conclusions – In this section, levels of the fertilizing factor F1, F2, F3 should also be included. Please indicate directions for further research.

Best regards

Comments and suggestions for Authors

 

Title: Response of Sensors-based Fertigation in Nagpur Mandarin (Citrus
reticulata Blanco) on Vertisol of Central India

Dear Authors and Editors

The research results presented in the manuscript fit into the publishing profile of Horticulturae journal.

The objective of the experiment was to investigate sensor-based (IoT) fertigation scheduling for sustainable water and fertilizer management in Nagpur mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) in Indian Vertisols.

The results presented in the manuscript are interesting, but there is a need for corrections, additions and refinement of the descriptions. Major corrections are needed in the Results and Discussion section.

In order to increase the usefulness of the article, Authors must refer to the following points. Additions should be made to increase the scientific value of the manuscript.

Remarks

1. Abstract – Full names should also be provided for abbreviations used for the first time. Please add more details when providing research factors. Letter and number designations are not enough for a researcher who reads the abstract. This is very little information.
2. Introduction – A research hypothesis must be added.
3. Materials and Methods – Subsection 2.1 The soil type according to WRB 2022 should be added....clay loam...this is a granulometric group. Which year of research does the data in Figure 1 refer to? Explanations of abbreviations should be added below the chart, and further in the text of the manuscript, explanations of abbreviations can be removed. Please improve the descriptions in Figure 1 (e.g.: & - remove, indexes, font). Please add doses of fertilizer components, names of fertilizers, chemical composition of fertilizers. Table 1 - add explanations of abbreviations below the table. Line 225 the source should be added [17]. Table 2 - the entry in the References column should be unified, Ayars et al., Srivastava and Malhotra - not in the References list. Line 338 – Ranganna (2001) not in the References list. Subsubsection 2.8.2 - Please add a short description of the rules for determining macro- and micronutrients and the apparatus.
4. Results and Discussion – Lines 378-380 to remove. There are no references to research by other authors. Line 413 - years of research must be added. Line 440 years of research and explanation of abbreviations should be added. Subsection 3.3 Units should be placed with numerical data concerning research results, not with SD. This remark applies to the entire manuscript. In the following subsections, there is poor discussion of results, there are repetitions of numerical data from tables. Line 492 and 519 It should be: ....SD.... Add explanations of abbreviations under Table 5. Figure 6a - Ca and Mg should be added and units in Figures 6a and 6b should be corrected. Line 553 - remove: i.e., & and add years of study. Subsection 3.7 - the title should be corrected. Figure 7 macronutriens – unit g kg^-1, micronutrients – unit mg kg^-1. Line 575 - Na and years of research should be added. Very low macro and micronutrient contents. Please provide the reason, or maybe pH had a significant impact on this. Line 634 - years of research should be added.
5. Conclusions – In this section, levels of the fertilizing factor F1, F2, F3 should also be included. Please indicate directions for further research.

Best regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires proofreading by a Native Speaker.

Author Response

Thank you so much dear reviewers for taking up your precious time and efforts in reviewing our work and giving some good comments for improvement of our manuscript. We are hereby responding to all the comments one-by-one as below:

Reviewer-3 ( Authors response and text modifications made in violet  color )

We are glad to hear that the research fits within the publishing profile of Horticulturae. We agree that the Results and Discussion sections need refinement for greater clarity and scientific value. We made the necessary corrections, ensuring that findings are clearly presented and better aligned with the research objectives. Additionally, we incorporated the suggested additions to enhance the manuscript’s scientific rigor and usefulness.

Reviewer Comment 1: Abstract – Full names should also be provided for abbreviations used for the first time. Please add more details when providing research factors. Letter and number designations are not enough for a researcher who reads the abstract. This is very little information

Authors Response 1: We have revised the abstract to provide full names for abbreviations used for the first time and included more detailed information on the research factors. Your suggestions will enhance the abstract’s effectiveness.

Reviewer Comment 2: Introduction – A research hypothesis must be added.

Authors Response 2: We have revised this section to include a well-defined hypothesis that aligns with the study's objectives. 

Reviewer Comment 3: Materials and Methods-Subsection 2.1, The soil type according to WRB 2022 should be added....clay loam...this is a granulometric group. Which year of research does the data in Figure 1 refer to? Explanations of abbreviations should be added below the chart, and further in the text of the manuscript, explanations of abbreviations can be removed. Please improve the descriptions in Figure 1 (e.g.: & - remove, indexes, font). Please add doses of fertilizer components, names of fertilizers, chemical composition of fertilizers. Table 1 - add explanations of abbreviations below the table. Line 225 the source should be added [17]. Table 2 - the entry in the References column should be unified, Ayars et al., Srivastava and Malhotra - not in the References list. Line 338 - Ranganna (2001) not in the References list. subsection 2.8.2 - Please add a short description of the rules for determining macro- and micro-nutrients and the apparatus.

Authors Response 3: In the Materials and Methods section, we have included the soil type according to WRB 2022. We also specified the year of research in Figure 1. Abbreviations have explained below the chart, and  unnecessary abbreviation in the text have been removed. We refined the descriptions in Figure 1, adjusting the font and indexes, and included the doses, names, and chemical composition of the fertilizers used. For Table 1, we added explanations of abbreviations below the table, and corrected the entries in Table 2 to unify with the references. The missing source [17] has been cited in the reference, and new reference added to the References list. Lastly, we included a short description of the methods for determining macro- and micronutrients and the associated apparatus in Subsection 2.8.2. We have now added all th missing references . Thank you so much for your constructive feedback.

Reviewer Comment 4: Results and Discussion – Lines 378-380 to remove. There are no references to research by other authors. Line 413 - years of research must be added. Line 440 years of research and explanation of abbreviations should be added. Subsection 3.3 Units should be placed with numerical data concerning research results, not with SD. This remark applies to the entire manuscript. In the following subsections, there is poor discussion of results; there are repetitions of numerical data from tables. Line 492 and 519 It should be: ....SD.... Add explanations of abbreviations under Table 5. Figure 6a - Ca and Mg should be added and units in Figures 6a and 6b should be corrected. Line 553 - remove: i.e., & and add years of study. Subsection 3.7 - the title should be corrected. Figure 7 macro-nutrients – unit g kg^-1, micronutrients – unit mg kg^-1. Line 575 - Na and years of research should be added. Very low macro- and micro-nutrient contents. Please provide the reason, or may be pH had a significant impact on this. Line 634 - years of research should be added.

Authors Response 4: We removed Lines 378-380. For Line 413 and Line 440, we added the years of research and include explanations for the abbreviations used. In Subsection 3.3, we ensured that units are placed alongside the numerical data related to research results, rather than with standard deviation (SD), and this adjustment has applied throughout the manuscript. We also revised the discussion of results in subsequent subsections to reduce repetition of numerical data and improve clarity. In Lines 492 and 519, we replaced "SD" with the correct formatting. Additionally, we added explanations for abbreviations under Table 5 and corrected the units in Figures 5a and 5b, including adding Ca and Mg where necessary. For Line 553, we removed “i.e.” and included the years of study. We corrected the title of Subsection 3.7 and adjusted the units in Figure 7 (macronutrients: g kg⁻¹, micronutrients: mg kg⁻¹). Finally, in Line 575, we have added Na ( it is originally Ca , mistake admitted and corrected accordingly)  and the years of research. Regarding the low macro- and micronutrient contents, we discussed the potential impact of pH or other factors that may have influenced these results. We also added the years of research to Line 634. Your suggestions are invaluable in refining the manuscript.

 

Reviewer Comment 5: Conclusions – In this section, levels of the fertilizing factor F₁, F₂, F₃ should also be included. Please indicate directions for further research.

Authors Response 5: We revised the conclusions section to include the best level of the fertilizing factors . Additionally, we have outlined the directions for further research to provide a more comprehensive perspective on the study's implications and future avenues for exploration.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript contains interesting results from fertigation in production of Nagpur Mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) on vertisol of Central India. The Authors showed that the sensor-based irrigation system was superior to traditional methods in many aspects. Please indicate the limitations of using this system in practice, as well as directions for upcoming research.

Unfortunately, the authors did not include information on which year the experiment was conducted. If it was a one-year experiment, the value of the results is lower. It is only in the title of Table 5 that it states that it contains averages for the years 2021-2023. Why is it that the figures in Figure 5 do not show the data for the individual years of the study. What do they represent?

Materials and Methods

Please complete the manuscript with a figure showing the location of the study site.

In what years was the experiment carried out?

What were the soil conditions? pH? macro- and micronutrient abundance?

Phosphorus and potassium application rates should be given in kg P ha^-1 and K ha^-1

Please provide details of the producer of the equipment used in the study and the statistical software used to analyse the data.

Result

In Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 it is not clear from which years the results presented are fromPlease explain the abbreviations under the figure

Table 3, 4, 5,

Please explain below the table abbreviations

References

Some publications were published more than 10 years ago, these I suggest to remove. Some are from the 20th century.

Author Response

Thank you so much dear reviewers for taking up your precious time and efforts in reviewing our work and giving some good comments for improvement of our manuscript. We are hereby responding to all the comments one-by-one as below:

Reviewer -4 ( Authors response and text modifications made in green color )   

We are glad that you found the results interesting. We continued to refine the manuscript to enhance its clarity and presentation, ensuring that the significance of fertigation in Nagpur mandarin production on Vertisol is effectively communicated. Your all the feedback is greatly appreciated.

Reviewer Comment 1: The Authors showed that the sensor-based irrigation system was superior to traditional methods in many aspects. Please indicate the limitations of using this system in practice, as well as directions for upcoming research.

Authors Response 1: We have included a discussion on the limitations of using the sensor-based (IoT) irrigation system in practice, such as cost, maintenance, and technical challenges. Additionally, we have outlined directions for future research included in conclusion, focusing on improving  the system accessibility, scalability, and integration with other technologies.

 Reviewer Comment 2: Unfortunately, the authors did not include information on which year the experiment was conducted. If it was a one-year experiment, the value of the results is lower. It is only in the title of Table 5 that it states that it contains averages for the years 2021-2023. Why is it that the figures in Figure 5 do not show the data for the individual years of the study? What do they represent?

Authors Response 2: We have clarified the years of the experimentation in the manuscript, specifying it was two years study. Therefore, in Figure 5, we have given pooled data (Average) of two years of experiments. We have also ensured that Table 5 is clearly aligned with the study's timeline and properly reflects the averages for 2021-2023.

 

Reviewer Comment 3: Materials and Methods section -Please complete the manuscript with a figure showing the location of the study site. In what years was the experiment carried out? What were the soil conditions? pH? macro-and micro-nutrient abundance? Phosphorus and potassium application rates should be given in kg P ha^-1 and K ha^-1 and Please provide details of the producer of the equipment used in the study and the statistical software used to analyze the data.

Authors Response 3: We have revised the Materials and Methods section to include a figure showing the location of the study site for better context. We have also clarified the years the experiment conducted and provided the detailed information on the soil conditions, including pH and macro- and micronutrient levels.      We have added they details  about recommended doses of fertilizers as RDF:600N:400P₂O₅:200K₂O:50Boricacid:100FeSO₄:100MnSO₄:100ZnSO₄,gkg¹tree¹(166.0N:11.2P₂O₅55.4K₂O:13.9Boric acid:27.8FeSO₄ :27.8MnSO₄ :27.8ZnSO_4, kgha^-1).Additionally, we have  included the name of the equipment producer and the IBM-SPSS statistical software (version 27) used for data analysis has already mentioned in materials and methods.

 

Reviewer Comment 4: In Results section- In Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 it is not clear from which years the results presented are from Please explain the abbreviations under the figure and Table 3, 4, 5, please explain below the table abbreviations.

Authors Response 4: We have revised the Results section to clearly indicate that the pooled (Average) data of two years (2021-2023) has presented in Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Additionally, we have added the required explanation of abbreviations below these figures, as well as below Tables 3, 4, and 5. Sincerely hoped that these modifications are accepted.

Reviewer Comment 5: References-Some publications were published more than 10 years ago, these I suggest to remove the references which  are from the 20^th century.

Authors Response 5: We have carefully reviewed the references and removed those published more than 10 years ago, unless they are foundational or highly relevant to the study. Thank you for the nice feedback

We sincerely hope that the revised manuscript  is now considered for next phase of evaluation . Our thanks beyond words to all our reviewers for giving their precious time and improving the quality of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed previous concerns. BUT, the abstract remains overly verbose and requires refinement. The authors need to clearly distinguish between the abstract, results analysis, and conclusions sections. Currently, these components are conflated, compromising clarity. Additionally, the keywords section contains excessive terms. This should be streamlined to 4-6 keywords that most accurately reflect the study's core focus.

Author Response

Dear reviewer: Accept our heartfelt appreciations for so constructive comments. Here are our resposnes:

Reviewers comments: : The authors have addressed previous concerns. BUT, the abstract remains overly verbose and requires refinement. 

Authors response: Thank you very much for your valuable time and efforts. As suggested , we have made the abstract aligned with the objectives of the study and more refined.

Reviewers comments: The authors need to clearly distinguish between the abstract, results analysis, and conclusions sections. 

Authors comments :  Thank you for your suggestion . We have now made abstract more clearly distinguishable to conclusion 

Reviewers comments: Currently, these components are conflated, compromising clarity. 

Authors response: Thanks . We have tried to make these quite well differentiated to each other.

Reviewers comments: Additionally, the keywords section contains excessive terms. This should be streamlined to 4-6 keywords that most accurately reflect the  of the study . study's core focus.

Authors response: We have now reduced the number of keywords without compromising the core focus of the study. Thank you for suggestion.

We sincerely hope , manuscript sees through some decision . Thank you 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and suggestions for Authors

 

Title: Response of Sensors-based Fertigation in Nagpur Mandarin (Citrus
reticulata Blanco) on Vertisol of Central India

Dear Authors and Editors

 

The manuscript has been improved according to my comments, but the discussion of the results is still weak.

 

Comments:

1. The numbering of tables should be improved.
2. Please add a caption Figure 11.
3. In the entire manuscript, remove the "&" sign.
4. The entire manuscript should be improved technically, in accordance with the publishing requirements (e.g. very often words are combined, spaces are missing).

 

Best regards

Author Response

Thank you so much for your time and efforts, authors appreciate your suggestions. Our responses are as follows : 

Reviewers comments: The numbering of tables should be improved.

Authors response: Thank you . We have now addressed.  

Reviewers comments : Please add a caption Figure 11.

Authors response: We have deleted the Fig.11 as per suggestion by previous two reviewers. Thank you  for understanding.

Reviewers comments : In the entire manuscript, remove the "&" sign.

Authors response: Thank you . We have now removed this sign throughout the text

Reviewers comments: The entire manuscript should be improved technically, in accordance with the publishing requirements (e.g. very often words are combined, spaces are missing).

Authors response: As suggested , we have tried to address your concerns. Thank you .

Sincerely hoped that manuscript would now find a favorable decision .