Evaluation of the Crop Water Stress Index as an Indicator for the Diagnosis of Grapevine Water Deficiency in Greenhouses
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review: horticulturae-990166
The overall objective this study was "evaluating the applicability of the CSWI in monitoring grapevine growth growth and diagnosing the water deficiency status." However, most of the manuscript was involved in examining the variability of leaf temperature difference and CSWI in response to environmental conditions, that is sub-objectives 1-3. Since much of this analysis was empirical for the specific circumstances of this study, it is not at all clear what is the novel results from this component of the study. It seems to me a major revision is required to greatly abbreviate this part of the manuscript to only the new perspectives for this analysis, or essentially delete it completely.
For me, the novel aspects of the study are sub-objectives 4 & 5 and these topics should be the great bulk of the presentation. That is, is the temperature information relevant to understanding the performance of the grapevines? Does the temperature offer any insight that improves grapevine management in terms of irrigation management or increasing yield?
There are several ambiguities in the presentation that need to be resolved.
(1) Line 48, "If the water supply is insufficient": What is "insufficient"? In fact, this phrase contains a summary of the key aspect of this mansucript in regards to water supply and plant response. This phrase needs to be fully developed so it is clear what are the critical measures to indicate supply sufficiency. The issue seems to be the ability of various plant variables to reflect the current status of sufficiency in water supply.
(2) Line 65:, NWSB: This variable is not defined in the text. This variable needs to be discussed at the point where it is introduced.
(3) Line 105, irrigation treatments: The reader is left with uncertainty about the irrigation treatments unitl "M" is ultimately described in Eqn (1). The value for each of the variable in this equation must be explicitly given. It does not appear that the use of percentage for some of the variables is appropriate.
(4) Line 118, irrigation amounts: The irrigation amounts among treatments do not line up with the stated 100%, 80%, and 60%. What is the basis for the discrepancy?
(5) Line 125, measurement every 30 minutes: Data are presented for measurements more frequent than 30 minutes.
(6) Line 155, fruit diameter: Precision of measurment?
(7) Line 160, leaf chlorophyll content: SPAD does not measurement chlorophyll but only color.
(8) Line 162, stem water potential: It is not clear how stem water potential was measured using the pressure chamber.
(9) Table 2: It is not clear what were the data used to determine the correlations. Where these using the 30 min values? If not, how were the data average across whatever time interval was used? Also, it is likely not appropriate to simply use average VPD since it changes over time. How many and what days were used in the analysis of each development stage?
(10) Table 3: Must indicate that the regressions were done as a function of temperature difference (I think). What data were used to do these regressions? How was the time frame in the measurement of the "Indicators" matched up with the temperature difference. Since all "Indicators" were not taken at the same time, how is it justified to compare the regressions when they are based on different time frames?
(11) Table 5: Same problems as for Table 3. CSWI the independent variable?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer's comments concerning our manuscript entitled " Evaluation of the crop water stress index as an indicator for the diagnosis of grapevine water deficiency in greenhouses" (ID: horticulturae-990166). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
The overall objective this study was "evaluating the applicability of the CSWI in monitoring grapevine growth growth and diagnosing the water deficiency status." However, most of the manuscript was involved in examining the variability of leaf temperature difference and CSWI in response to environmental conditions, that is sub-objectives 1-3. Since much of this analysis was empirical for the specific circumstances of this study, it is not at all clear what is the novel results from this component of the study. It seems to me a major revision is required to greatly abbreviate this part of the manuscript to only the new perspectives for this analysis, or essentially delete it completely.
Response: It is really ture as Reviewer suggested that the analysis of sub-objectives 1-3 was empirical for the specific circumstances of this study. We have rewritten this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion, content of sub-objectives 1-3 have been partially deleted and simplified. Please refer to the manuscript for detailed revision.
Point 1: Line 48, "If the water supply is insufficient": What is "insufficient"? In fact, this phrase contains a summary of the key aspect of this mansucript in regards to water supply and plant response. This phrase needs to be fully developed so it is clear what are the critical measures to indicate supply sufficiency. The issue seems to be the ability of various plant variables to reflect the current status of sufficiency in water supply.
Response 1: We have rewritten this part according to the Reviewer’s comments in L53-58 , (in red)
Point 2: Line 65:, NWSB: This variable is not defined in the text. This variable needs to be discussed at the point where it is introduced.
Response 2: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments, NWSB has been defined in L204. (in red)
Point 3: Line 105, irrigation treatments: The reader is left with uncertainty about the irrigation treatments unitl "M" is ultimately described in Eqn (1). The value for each of the variable in this equation must be explicitly given. It does not appear that the use of percentage for some of the variables is appropriate.
Response 3: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments in L138-141. (in red)
Point 4： Line 118, irrigation amounts: The irrigation amounts among treatments do not line up with the stated 100%, 80%, and 60%. What is the basis for the discrepancy?
Response 4：Thank you very much for your comments. I'd like to make some explanations on this issue. Three water treatments were set up in the experiment, two of which were regulated deficit irrigation. The purpose of the experiment is to study the change of leaf temperature when grapevines suffer from water deficit of different levels, and diagnose the grapevine water status based on the leaf temperature. The single irrigation amount of the three treatments during the whole growing season is shown in Table 3 of the manuscript. Because the grapevines are irrigated manually each time, small errors will inevitably be caused in the actual irrigation process. Although there are small errors, the accumulated difference is only about one thousandth during the whole growth season, which should be considered as negligible.
Point 5： Line 125, measurement every 30 minutes: Data are presented for measurements more frequent than 30 minutes.
Response 5： After checking the data, we found that data are presented for measurements every 30 minutes.
Point 6：Line 155, fruit diameter: Precision of measurment?
Response 6：We have made supplement according to the Reviewer’s comments in L181-182. (in red)
Point 7: Line 160, leaf chlorophyll content: SPAD does not measurement chlorophyll but only color.
Response 7：We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments in L187. (in red)
Point 8: Line 162, stem water potential: It is not clear how stem water potential was measured using the pressure chamber.
Response 8： Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have made supplement in L192-196. (in red)
Point 9: Table 2: It is not clear what were the data used to determine the correlations. Where these using the 30 min values? If not, how were the data average across whatever time interval was used? Also, it is likely not appropriate to simply use average VPD since it changes over time. How many and what days were used in the analysis of each development stage?
Response 9: Table 4 shows the correlation coefficients between Tc-Ta and Ta, Ra, RH, VPD and Tc. Meteorological date and leaf temperature data of 7 days are selected in each growth stage, and Tc-Ta is calculated every 30 minutes by using meteorological and leaf temperature data every 30 minutes. Therefore, there are 336 values for each variable in 7 days, then the correlation of meteorological factors, leaf temperature and Tc-Ta is shown in Table 4. The frequency of meteorological data is once every 30 minutes, then VPD is obtained every 30 minutes. We have made supplement in L232-233.(in red)
Point 10: Table 3: Must indicate that the regressions were done as a function of temperature difference (I think). What data were used to do these regressions? How was the time frame in the measurement of the "Indicators" matched up with the temperature difference. Since all "Indicators" were not taken at the same time, how is it justified to compare the regressions when they are based on different time frames?
Response 10: As mentioned by the reviewers, the measurement time of leaf water potential is at noon, and there are some differences in the measurement period of stem water potential, stomatal conductance, transpiration rate and leaf temperature. Therefore, it is considered to delete the leaf water potential from the plant water status indicators, and establish a regression equation between the leaf air temperature difference and the plant water status indicators (leaf water potential, stomatal conductance and transpiration rate) at the same time,
Because CWSI is calculated based on leaf air temperature difference, the regression equation of CWSI with stem water potential, stomatal conductance and transpiration rate is also established at the same time. Please refer to the manuscript for details.
Point 11:Table 5: Same problems as for Table 3. CWSI the independent variable?
Response 11: CWSI is the independent variable, plant water status indicators are dependent variables. We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments in L430-431. (in red)
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors provided a detailed experimental design and well-explained results. I would suggest accepting and publish.
I only suggest that the authors conclude the article with an outline of the concept of controlling the irrigation of grapevines based on the CMKS indicator.
I also propose to include in the legend of Figures 2,3,4 and 8 an explanation of the marks T1, T2, and T3. It should facilitate the reception of information.
Besides, in formula three on the coefficient CWSI, please remove the unnecessary bracket.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer's comments concerning our manuscript entitled " Evaluation of the crop water stress index as an indicator for the diagnosis of grapevine water deficiency in greenhouses" (ID: horticulturae-990166). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
Point 1: I only suggest that the authors conclude the article with an outline of the concept of controlling the irrigation of grapevines based on the CMKS indicator.
Response 1: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have concluded the article with an outline of the concept of controlling the irrigation of grapevines based on the CWSI indicator in L442-450. (in red)
Point 2: I also propose to include in the legend of Figures 2,3,4 and 8 an explanation of the marks T1, T2, and T3. It should facilitate the reception of information.
Response 2: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have increased an explanation of the marks T1, T2, and T3 in Figures 2,3,4 and 8. (in red)
Point 3: Besides, in formula three on the coefficient CWSI, please remove the unnecessary bracket.
Response 3: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments in L211. (in red)
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to authors
The research article is of high value because of the experimental results that are of interest to the research community and especially for technology development.
This is an interesting and well done and carefully research paper that provides some good initial research results and a lot of information about the evaluation of the crop water stress index.
I am delighted to see that such extensive research is still carried out.
The question arises, how this result translates into practice? Can you please explain briefly in conclusions?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer's comments concerning our manuscript entitled " Evaluation of the crop water stress index as an indicator for the diagnosis of grapevine water deficiency in greenhouses" (ID: horticulturae-990166). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
This is an interesting and well done and carefully research paper that provides some good initial research results and a lot of information about the evaluation of the crop water stress index.
I am delighted to see that such extensive research is still carried out.
The question arises, how this result translates into practice? Can you please explain briefly in conclusions?
Response: We have briefly explained it in the conclusion according to the Reviewer’s comments in L442-450.(in red). The explanation is as follows: Plant water status can be diagnosed by monitoring leaf temperature data. Meanwhile, CWSI is closely related to soil moisture content, it can be combined with plant water status and soil moisture content to guide crop irrigation based on CWSI. The response of plants to CWSI is affected by many factors under water stress, to carry out a successful irrigation schedule based on CWSI, the future research should also consider the influence of cultivation methods, climate conditions and other factors on CWSI, and the threshold of CWSI is further obtained when plants need irrigation under water stress. At present, CWSI has been widely used in satellite remote sensing technology. The study of CWSI measured in the field can provide reference for CWSI based on satellite thermal infrared, the combination of CWSI by the two methods can diagnose plant water deficienty more accurately and predict irrigation schedule in future
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised manuscript is an improvement in resolving many of the issues originally identified. There are several cases where there is confusion in presentation of the independent variable vs. dependent variable. Temperature is the dependent variable and as such in the figures (2 & 9) the presentation of the axis should be reversed. It appears this problem also exists in the regressions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer's comments concerning our manuscript entitled " Evaluation of the crop water stress index as an indicator for the diagnosis of grapevine water deficiency in greenhouses" (ID: horticulturae-990166). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
The revised manuscript is an improvement in resolving many of the issues originally identified. There are several cases where there is confusion in presentation of the independent variable vs. dependent variable. Temperature is the dependent variable and as such in the figures (2 & 9) the presentation of the axis should be reversed. It appears this problem also exists in the regressions.
Response: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments in the figures (2 & 9) and tables (5 & 7). (in red)
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
