Interactive Effects of Genotype, Irrigation, and Fertilization on Physiological, Biometric, and Biochemical Traits of Runner Bean (Phaseolus coccineus L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors:

I have reviewed the manuscript horticulturae-3819045-peer-review-v1 titled "Interactive Effects of Genotype, Irrigation, and Fertilization on Physiological, Biometric, and Biochemical Traits of Runner Bean (Phaseolus coccineus L.)”, and I think it is a very interesting research work that provides original data. However, there are some relevant aspects that deserve to be revised before the article can be published. My comments on this manuscript are the following:

 

INTRODUCTION

In this section it is necessary to include more information/literature associated with Ranner Bean or similar species in the different topics presented in the manuscript (irrigation and fertilization/nutrition responses or physiological characteristics) to sustain better the hypothesis of work

 

ABSTRACT:

The authors should incorporate all objectives and aspects associated to target of the study and biometric result. Also, the results must be written more quantitatively. Further, it is necessary to include the location and when the experiment was implemented (include geographical coordinates). In the keywords the words or phrases must be different from those that appear in the title. So, it is necessary to incorporate one or more final conclusions.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

In general, the authors should add more information about experimental design used (Randomized Block Design: RCBD), was there a source of variation for affecting the final aim of the study?, it is necessary to add a layout of the experiment in a figure to understand better the distribution of the factors and the levels of each factor. Also, how were irrigation frequency and timing determined (irrigation scheduling for each treatment)? Did the authors include rainfall in the irrigation scheduling? How did they do this?. Do the irrigations applied in IR1 and IR2 include effective precipitation?. To understand better how the authors realized the irrigation scheduling, it is necessary to know the basal information of physical soil properties or plant water demand. (soil texture, bulk density, field capacity, permanent wilting point, effective root zone, readily available moisture (RAM), or plant information like crop coefficient (Kc), reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo), etc.. Furthermore, to ensure that soil moisture reaches the roots, it is necessary to monitor or measure that moisture... Did the authors use a TDR, FDR, or similar volumetric soil moisture sensor for this? Were the sensors calibrated for the soil texture type? It would be helpful if the authors could elaborate on this. It would be helpful if the authors could provide more information on the agricultural work they performed in the trial (disease and pest management, soil preparation, etc.). In section 2.3, it is suggested that authors include the experimental design here and call it: 2.3 Experimental design and statistical analysis. Figure 2 is not clear with black background color; it is suggested to change to white. Authors are encouraged to review figures and tables, as there are acronyms, abbreviations, and other undefined terms. Remember that each figure and table must contain all the information without needing to refer to the manuscript text.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The information contained in the results and discussions is adequate, but the authors are encouraged to be more concise when presenting the results.

 

CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested that the conclusions must be more in concordance with the specific objectives set... It is necessary to review. Were the authors able to identify best management practices to improve yield and quality?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable recommendations and comments. We have carefully considered all your comments and recommendations and we have made changes in the manuscript.

All modifications were highlighted in red color.

Dear Authors:

I have reviewed the manuscript horticulturae-3819045-peer-review-v1 titled "Interactive Effects of Genotype, Irrigation, and Fertilization on Physiological, Biometric, and Biochemical Traits of Runner Bean (Phaseolus coccineus L.)”, and I think it is a very interesting research work that provides original data. However, there are some relevant aspects that deserve to be revised before the article can be published. My comments on this manuscript are the following:

Answer: We thank you for your constructive comments and for recognizing the value of our study. We appreciate your suggestions to improve the clarity of the manuscript and have carefully addressed all the points raised to enhance readability and ensure that the presentation of the experimental design, results, and interpretations is clear and coherent.

• INTRODUCTION

In this section it is necessary to include more information/literature associated with Ranner Bean or similar species in the different topics presented in the manuscript (irrigation and fertilization/nutrition responses or physiological characteristics) to sustain better the hypothesis of work

 Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. The following information was added in introduction section:

“For example, Saleh et al. [27] reported that the green bean cultivars, Bronco and Paulista, grown in an environmentally controlled greenhouse achieved the highest productivity and pod quality under the irrigation regime of 209 L m^-2, value representing 80% of evapotranspiration. In contrast, El-Noemani et al. [28] found that the maximum pod yield of Paulista and Bronco green beans grown in an open field in Egypt was reached with an irrigation regime of 3705 m³ ha^-1. This highlights that irrigation regimes can vary significantly depending on the region and growing conditions. In another study conducted in the Tarsus region of Turkey, was determined that an irrigation regime of 4280 m³/ha is adequate to achieve the highest yield of green beans in an open field [29]. Taken together, these findings highlight that integrated irrigation strategies, selection of drought-tolerant genotypes, and soil moisture monitoring technologies are essential for sustainable and resilient agricultural practices [30].

For example, Teliban et al. [31] found that the yield of runner beans  from chemically fertilized variants was significantly higher compared to those fertilized with biosolids, microorganisms, or left unfertilized. In contrast, Sachan and Krishna [35] reported the highest yield of French bean in the variant fertilized with poultry manure, followed by NPK and farm yard manure.”

• ABSTRACT:

The authors should incorporate all objectives and aspects associated to target of the study and biometric result. Also, the results must be written more quantitatively. Further, it is necessary to include the location and when the experiment was implemented (include geographical coordinates). In the keywords the words or phrases must be different from those that appear in the title. So, it is necessary to incorporate one or more final conclusions.

Answer: Following your comments, and in combination with suggestions from the other reviewers, we have made the following changes:

• The Abstract has been revised to clarify the rationale for studying the combined effects of genotype, irrigation, and fertilization, and to include practical recommendations for cultivation.
• The location of the experiment has been added, but in the Materials and Methods section, geographical coordinates were also provided.
• Keywords have been revised to differ from those in the title.
• Final conclusions have been added to summarize the main findings and practical implications.

 

• MATERIALS AND METHODS:

In general, the authors should add more information about experimental design used (Randomized Block Design: RCBD), was there a source of variation for affecting the final aim of the study?, it is necessary to add a layout of the experiment in a figure to understand better the distribution of the factors and the levels of each factor. Also, how were irrigation frequency and timing determined (irrigation scheduling for each treatment)? Did the authors include rainfall in the irrigation scheduling? How did they do this?. Do the irrigations applied in IR1 and IR2 include effective precipitation?. To understand better how the authors realized the irrigation scheduling, it is necessary to know the basal information of physical soil properties or plant water demand. (soil texture, bulk density, field capacity, permanent wilting point, effective root zone, readily available moisture (RAM), or plant information like crop coefficient (Kc), reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo), etc.. Furthermore, to ensure that soil moisture reaches the roots, it is necessary to monitor or measure that moisture... Did the authors use a TDR, FDR, or similar volumetric soil moisture sensor for this? Were the sensors calibrated for the soil texture type? It would be helpful if the authors could elaborate on this. It would be helpful if the authors could provide more information on the agricultural work they performed in the trial (disease and pest management, soil preparation, etc.). In section 2.3, it is suggested that authors include the experimental design here and call it: 2.3 Experimental design and statistical analysis. Figure 2 is not clear with black background color; it is suggested to change to white. Authors are encouraged to review figures and tables, as there are acronyms, abbreviations, and other undefined terms. Remember that each figure and table must contain all the information without needing to refer to the manuscript text.

Answer: We thank you for these detailed and valuable comments. In response, we have introduced a figure illustrating the experimental design in the Supplementary Materials (Figure S1), clearly showing the Randomized Split-Split Plot layout and the distribution of factors and their levels. The figure has been cited in Section 2.1. Additionally, we have added detailed information for each table and figure, including full descriptions and definitions of all terms and abbreviations, to ensure they are self-explanatory.

We have clarified the irrigation scheduling for IR1 and IR2 treatments, including consideration of rainfall and effective precipitation (lines 183-189). Information on soil physical properties has been provided at line 166 .

Furthermore, information on agricultural practices performed during the trial, such as disease and pest management and soil preparation, has been added (see line 211-218). Figure 2 has been modified with a white background for improved clarity, and all tables and figures have been reviewed to ensure consistency, completeness, and clarity without requiring reference to the main text.

• RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The information contained in the results and discussions is adequate, but the authors are encouraged to be more concise when presenting the results.

 Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have restructured the Discussion section into several subsections with clear subheadings to improve hierarchy, logical flow, and readability. Additionally, we have condensed the text and reduced repetitive descriptions of the results while ensuring that all relevant information is retained.

• CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested that the conclusions must be more in concordance with the specific objectives set... It is necessary to review. Were the authors able to identify best management practices to improve yield and quality?

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the conclusions in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions to better reflect the study objectives and highlight the significance and practical relevance of the findings.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research investigated the interactive effects of genotype, irrigation, and fertilization on physiological, biometric, and biochemical traits of runner Bean. Implementing integrated water and nutrient management strategies alongside drought-tolerant P. coccineus genotypes is particularly important in the face of climate change and increasing water scarcity, ensuring the sustainability and productivity of cultivation systems. However, the current manuscript needs further revisions before it can be considered for publication in this journal.

1, The Abstract needs to briefly and clearly elaborate on the reasons for studying the comprehensive impacts of the three factors on the physiology, morphology, and biochemistry of runner bean. Besides, based on the conclusions drawn from this study, what suggestions does the authors have for the practical cultivation of runner bean in the field?

2, Line 145, what is the basis for setting these two irrigation amounts? Is one of these treatments related to drought?

3, Line 414-426, write the units (kg-ha-1) correctly, with special attention to superscripts.

4, The Discussion section is overly tedious and lengthy. It is suggested to condense and delete the repetitive descriptions of the results. Meanwhile, add subheadings to divide the Discussion section into several subsections, so as to enhance the hierarchy, logicality and readability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable recommendations and comments. We have carefully considered all your comments and recommendations and we have made changes in the manuscript.

All modifications were highlighted in red color.

The research investigated the interactive effects of genotype, irrigation, and fertilization on physiological, biometric, and biochemical traits of runner Bean. Implementing integrated water and nutrient management strategies alongside drought-tolerant P. coccineus genotypes is particularly important in the face of climate change and increasing water scarcity, ensuring the sustainability and productivity of cultivation systems. However, the current manuscript needs further revisions before it can be considered for publication in this journal.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable comments and for highlighting the relevance of our research. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to the suggestions provided, improving clarity and ensuring that all interactive effects of genotype, irrigation, and fertilization are clearly presented.

1. The Abstract needs to briefly and clearly elaborate on the reasons for studying the comprehensive impacts of the three factors on the physiology, morphology, and biochemistry of runner bean. Besides, based on the conclusions drawn from this study, what suggestions does the authors have for the practical cultivation of runner bean in the field?

Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Following your comment, we revised the Abstract to address your points. The updated Abstract is as follows:

“Climate change, marked by increasing temperatures and unpredictable rainfall, presents a significant challenge to the sustainable cultivation of runner beans (Phaseolus coccineus L.). These conditions underscore the urgent need for efficient resource management. Therefore, it is crucial to establish suitable irrigation regimes and nutritional conditions for runner bean cultivars. Furthermore, since genotype performance is strongly influenced by water availability and nutrient supply, understanding their interactive effects is essential for developing technologies that are adapted to climate change and sustain high yields of garden beans. In this context, the individual and combined effects of three runner bean cultivars (Cozia1, Cozia2, and Cozia3), two irrigation regimes (2000 and 2500 m³·ha⁻¹), and three fertilisation strategies (chemical, organic, and unfertilised) on some physiological, morphological, and biochemical parameters were assessed in this study. The field experiment was conducted in the north-eastern part of Romania, over two consecutive growing seasons, following a randomized split–split plot design with three replications. The results showed that genotype had the most significant influence on the majority of traits, highlighting its dominant role over fertilization and irrigation. Under chemical fertilization and 2500 m³·ha⁻¹ irrigation, Cozia2 achieved the highest grain yield (3427.60 kg·ha⁻¹) and pod number (48.13), while Cozia1 combined with chemical fertilization under 2000 m³·ha⁻¹ irrigation recorded the highest total phenolic content (0.47 mg GAE·100 g⁻¹ d.w.). Among cultivars, Cozia2 was highly responsive to fertilisation and irrigation variation, showing both the highest and lowest values for pod number, seed weight, and seeds per pod depending on treatment. Notably, the highest photosynthetic assimilation rates were observed in Cozia2 × IR2 × UF and Cozia3 × IR1 × OR combinations. Based on the results of this study, Cozia3 under chemical fertilization is best suited for high yields under limited water (2000 m³·ha⁻¹), while Cozia2 is best suited when chemical fertilization is combined with higher irrigation (2500 m³·ha⁻¹). However, in the context of organic cultivation, Cozia3 is identified as the most suitable option.”

2. Line 145, what is the basis for setting these two irrigation amounts? Is one of these treatments related to drought?

Answer: We thank you for this question. We have added the following paragraph at lines 183-187 to explain the basis for selecting the two irrigation regimes: “Irrigation was applied at two levels: 2000 m³·ha⁻¹ (IR1) and 2500 m³·ha⁻¹ (IR2) through a drip irrigation system, without taking precipitation into account. The two irrigation regimes were established considering the climatic conditions of the area, evidence from the literature [27–29], and previous research conducted in the same experimental field by Teliban et al. [31].”

3. Line 414-426, write the units (kg-ha-1) correctly, with special attention to superscripts.

Answer: We thank you for your observation. We have corrected the units to ensure they are written correctly with proper superscripts throughout the manuscript.

4. The Discussion section is overly tedious and lengthy. It is suggested to condense and delete the repetitive descriptions of the results. Meanwhile, add subheadings to divide the Discussion section into several subsections, so as to enhance the hierarchy, logicality and readability.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have restructured the Discussion section into several subsections with clear subheadings to improve hierarchy, logical flow, and readability. Additionally, we have condensed the text and reduced repetitive descriptions of the results while ensuring that all relevant information is retained.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the individual and interactive effects of genotype Cozia1, Cozia2, Cozia3), irrigation regime (IR1: 2000 m³·ha⁻¹, IR2: 2500 m³·ha⁻¹), and fertilization strategy (chemical, organic, unfertilized) on physiological, biometric, and biochemical  parameters of runner bean  over two growing seasons in Romania. Overall, the ms presents valuable empirical data on a relevant agronomic topic using a well-designed multifactorial experiment. I have several comments that might improve the clarity of the ms.

 

1 The rationale for the specific irrigation volumes (2000 vs 2500 m³·ha⁻¹) is unclear. Might better to clarify the water stress level intended for IR1 relative to crop requirements.

2 While ANOVA and PCA are appropriate, consider adding a three-way ANOVA table for key response variables (e.g., yield, TPC, assimilation rate) to explicitly show the significance levels of the main effects and all interactions (G, I, F, G×I, G×F, I×F, G×I×F). This may strengthen the interpretation of interaction dominance.

3 Line 613: the inverse correlation between photosynthetic traits (assimilation rate, CCI) and antioxidant activity (DPPH/ABTS) is noted but not mechanistically explained. Better to discuss potential biological mechanisms driving this trade-off

4 Check the ms and ensure all figures/tables are cited in numerical order in the text. for example, line149 and line 75, duplicated Fig2

5 Use consistent terms (e.g., "seed weight percentage" vs. "seeds weight percent"; "grain yield" vs. "grain mass"). Define abbreviations at first use (e.g., TPC, CCI, TGW) and use them consistently.

6 Line 179: better to clarify the timing of "midway through the growing season" for physiological measurements.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable recommendations and comments. We have carefully considered all your comments and recommendations and we have made changes in the manuscript.

All modifications were highlighted in red color.

This study investigates the individual and interactive effects of genotype Cozia1, Cozia2, Cozia3), irrigation regime (IR1: 2000 m³·ha⁻¹, IR2: 2500 m³·ha⁻¹), and fertilization strategy (chemical, organic, unfertilized) on physiological, biometric, and biochemical parameters of runner bean over two growing seasons in Romania. Overall, the ms presents valuable empirical data on a relevant agronomic topic using a well-designed multifactorial experiment. I have several comments that might improve the clarity of the ms.

Answer: We thank you for your constructive comments and for recognizing the value of our study. We appreciate your suggestions to improve the clarity of the manuscript and have carefully addressed all the points raised to enhance readability and ensure that the presentation of the experimental design, results, and interpretations is clear and coherent.

1 The rationale for the specific irrigation volumes (2000 vs 2500 m³·ha⁻¹) is unclear. Might better to clarify the water stress level intended for IR1 relative to crop requirements.

Answer: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have added the following paragraph at lines 183-187 to explain the basis for selecting the two irrigation regimes: “Irrigation was applied at two levels: 2000 m³·ha⁻¹ (IR1) and 2500 m³·ha⁻¹ (IR2) through a drip irrigation system, without taking precipitation into account. The two irrigation regimes were established considering the climatic conditions of the area, evidence from the literature [27–29], and previous research conducted in the same experimental field by Teliban et al. [31].”

2 While ANOVA and PCA are appropriate, consider adding a three-way ANOVA table for key response variables (e.g., yield, TPC, assimilation rate) to explicitly show the significance levels of the main effects and all interactions (G, I, F, G×I, G×F, I×F, G×I×F). This may strengthen the interpretation of interaction dominance.

Answer: We thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have added a table presenting the results of the three-way ANOVA for the runner bean traits in the Supplementary Materials (Table S2). This table is now referenced in the Discussion section to clearly illustrate the significance levels of the main effects and all interactions (G, I, F, G×I, G×F, I×F, G×I×F).

“4.1. General overview of factor effects

This study demonstrated that cultivar, irrigation regime, and fertilization strategy influenced the physiological, biometric, and biochemical traits of runner beans, both independently and interactively. The three-way ANOVA (Table S2) showed that the individual effect of genotype was significant for nearly all parameters considered, with the exception of the chlorophyll content index (CCI) and the number of seeds per pod. By contrast, fertilization had a non-significant effect only on CCI and bean length, while irrigation did not significantly affect assimilation rate, bean length, thousand grain weight (TGW), total phenolic content (TPC), DPPH, and ABTS. The interaction between genotype and irrigation was significant for most of the analyzed traits, except number of seeds per pod, seed weight percentage, pericarp weight percentage, bean thickness, and ABTS. In contrast, the interaction between genotype and fertilization was non-significant only for ABTS. The interaction between irrigation and fertilization significantly affected most analyzed characteristics. However, the three-way interaction was significant for the majority of the assessed traits, with pod width being the only exception.”

3 Line 613: the inverse correlation between photosynthetic traits (assimilation rate, CCI) and antioxidant activity (DPPH/ABTS) is noted but not mechanistically explained. Better to discuss potential biological mechanisms driving this trade-off

Answer: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have addressed this point in the revised manuscript (lines 867–871), where we now discuss possible mechanisms explaining the observed inverse correlation between photosynthetic traits and antioxidant activity.

4 Check the ms and ensure all figures/tables are cited in numerical order in the text. for example, line149 and line 75, duplicated Fig2 Use consistent terms (e.g., "seed weight percentage" vs. "seeds weight percent"; "grain yield" vs. "grain mass"). Define abbreviations at first use (e.g., TPC, CCI, TGW) and use them consistently.

Answer: We thank you for your valuable comments. We have carefully checked the manuscript and corrected the numbering of all figures and tables to ensure they are cited in numerical order. We have also standardized terminology throughout the text (e.g., ‘seed weight percentage’ and ‘grain yield’) and added the full names of all abbreviations (e.g., TPC, CCI, TGW) as subnotes to the respective tables and figures to ensure consistency and clarity.

6 Line 179: better to clarify the timing of "midway through the growing season" for physiological measurements.

Answer: Thank you for your insightful comment. The measurements were carried out more precisely during the growth stage BBCH 71. This information has been added to the manuscript at line 226.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A manuscript entitled "Interactive Effects of Genotype, Irrigation, and Fertilization on Physiological, Biometric, and Biochemical Traits of Runner Bean (Phaseolus coccineus L.)" has been submitted to the Horticulture Journal. This is a very long text, too long in my opinion, concerning the influence of some agrotechnical factors (two irrigation regimes (2000 and 2500 m³·ha⁻¹), and three fertilization  treatments (chemical, organic, and an  unfertilized control) on a number of biochemical traits and morphological traits related to the yield of three runner bean lines (coded as Cozia1, Cozia2, and Cozia3) grown under the climatic conditions of Romania. The experiments were conducted in two consecutive years, each year an experiment was set up on May 20 and finished on October 31. As organic treatment poultry manure mixed with biochar was applied, whereas chemical fertilization  involved two different types of NPK fertilizers , explained in methodology section. Statistical methods were selected appropriate for the analysis of the obtained data. The results presented in different views include 8 Figures and 10 Tables.  The line [called here cultivar],  irrigation regime, and fertilization  scheme significantly influenced the studied biochemical and morphological traits of runner bean, both individually and through interactive effects studied. Among these, genotype exerted the predominant influence under temperate conditions specific to the north-eastern region of Romania. Authors found that the highest photosynthetic assimilation rates were ascertained in Cozia2 × IR2 × UF and Cozia3 × IR1 × OR combination scheme. Furthermore, the analysis of three-factor interactions revealed that Cozia2 was more sensitive to variations in both fertilization and irrigation regimes compared to the other two lines tested.

 The Specific Comments

(1) The evaluated manuscript is consistent with the field covered by the experimental studies presented, and it is presented organized, though unclear, which present its  significant shortcoming. Nevertheless, the authors' results are original and offer some  progress in understanding the possibilities of cultivating the studied genotypes in temperate climates. The results were interpreted appropriately, and conclusions were drawn solely on their basis.

(2) Another shortcoming of the submitted text is the lack of the research hypothesis in the final paragraph of the Introduction. It's also surprising that the authors refer in the Discussion to a hypothesis (lines 838–840) that they hadn't previously formulated.

(2) It may be worth considering whether all the tables and figures in your manuscript are necessary.Perhaps some could be moved to the Supplementary Materials, even though they all present important data.However, their abundance makes it difficult for the reader to understand the text.

(3) All the cited items are important, but it may be worth making a critical selection to limit their number?

(4) In the Abstract, please replace the phrase from line 21' on key physiological .." with " chosen/ some physiological..'

(5) The Discussion subsection devotes too much space to presenting your own results and much less to proper discussion. Please completely rewrite this important section of the manuscript.

(6) It would also be beneficial to work on the Conclusions subsection. It's worth highlighting your achievements there and explaining why they're so important. Most readers will refer to this section – it can encourage them to read the entire test, or, quite the opposite, discourage them. For this reason, I suggest rewording this section of the publication

Author Response

 

attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors:

I can comment that many of the observations and suggestions made in version 1 of the manuscript have been incorporated. However, it is necessary to include how the irrigation frequency and timing were performed and calculated to justify the two irrigation levels used in the experiment, as there is no data set that represents the peak of each irrigation event (Figure) or the number of irrigation events at each irrigation level evaluated. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on both the first and second revisions of our manuscript. We carefully considered your most recent recommendation regarding the need to clarify the irrigation frequency, timing, and calculation of the two irrigation levels.

The two irrigation regimes (IR1 and IR2) were determined based on the volume of water applied per irrigation event and the total number of applications. In IR1, 100 m³·ha⁻¹ was applied per irrigation over 20 weekly applications, resulting in a total of 2000 m³·ha⁻¹. In IR2, 125 m³·ha⁻¹ was applied per irrigation over the same number of applications, resulting in 2500 m³·ha⁻¹. A 16 mm drip line with emitters spaced at 20 cm (Q = 4 L·h⁻¹ per meter) was used. An achieves the established irrigation targets, the systems operated for different durations, corresponding to the volume of water applied in each regime.

The first irrigation was applied immediately after bean sowing to ensure adequate soil moisture for seed germination and uniform emergence. The second irrigation was applied 14 days after sowing, because rainfall occurred during the first two weeks after sowing, as can be seen in the figure below. No irrigation was provided during this period to avoid excessive soil moisture, which could have negatively affected seed germination and seedling emergence. The last irrigation was carried out 15 days before harvesting.

Irrigations were scheduled at 7-day intervals; however, exceptions occurred due to heavy rainfall events during the summer period, which led to a delay of one to two days in the planned irrigation applications. In the second year, the irrigation schedule was established based on the pattern applied in the previous year, with minor adjustments due to heavy rainfall events.

Based on this data, in the revised manuscript (lines 184–186, highlighted in red), we have added the following clarification:

“A total of 20 irrigation events were performed at weekly intervals, each providing 100 m³·ha⁻¹ in IR1 and 125 m³·ha⁻¹ in IR2.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf