Is the Subsurface Drip the Most Sustainable Irrigation System for Almond Orchards in Water-Scarce Areas?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The introduction of the article can be more specific. Maybe you can narrow the scope, and highlight the background and focus of the research.

2. Does the fact that the monitor is shorter in 2020 than the other two empirical years affect the test results? Can the data obtained from three different monitors support the following discussion?

3. When analyzing the test results of many years, it is suggested that all figures be marked with the year， while there only some figures were marked with the years in the manuscript.

4. Does the first part of the result mean that different irrigation methods will lead to different rainfall and improved meteorological conditions? I did not find relevant statements and reasons in the subsequent results and discussions. Is the existence of this section necessary?

5. Line 500-501: The experimental years are 2019, 2020 and 2021. What do the third and fourth crop-greening here mean?

6. There are too many abbreviations in this paper. I highly recommend adding an abbreviation list or notation after the introduction. When readers cannot recognize the meaning of abbreviations, they can easily obtain them instead of finding the place where they first appeared in the paper.

7.The emitter clogging of subsurface drip irrigation is quite prominent. Because of the negative pressure, the tiny particles in soil are inhaled into the emitters, which is easy to cause blockage. The experiment in this study lasted for three years. Had the drip irrigation system been running normally?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written manuscript dealing with the comparison of almond irrigation by drip irrigation or subsurface drip irrigation. The manuscript perfectly fits the journal scope. It is very well organized, and information provided is clear and novel. Results are hopeful and position subsurface irrigation as an agronomic sustainable alternative to maintain yield by reducing water and, hence, increasing productivity.

One of the things is not dealt with in the paper is the cost analysis of each alternative. The subsurface system has saved around 10% and 13.8% of irrigation water, which may represent an important economic value, however, the subsurface system is also more costly. A simple economic analysis emphasizing this issue should have been included into the manuscript to foster farmers to implement the change and enhance the results transference to society. I encourage authors to do so if editor agrees.

Some minor doubts and suggestions:

-          Epigraph 2.6. I would like to know if LE is computed daily or hourly and if nightly values have been discarded from the models.

-          Table 2. I would have added the mean and absolute values (for rainfall) each year.

-          Figure 4. midday steam water potential for subsurface system is, at some points, somewhat higher than normal drip irrigation what makes me think that trees under this novel system could have been overirrigated and water to save could have been much higher. What is your opinion on this?.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see attachments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Review Report Form

R1.1. The manuscript has been sufficiently improved.

Replay: We are very thankful for this evaluation.

Reviewer 3 Report

For the suggestions given, the author has basically completed the revision. However, in view of the inconsistent format of the references, the author has not revised them. Currently, the journal names of the references exist in two formats, the full name and the abbreviation. It is recommended to accept the current version after minor revisions.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Review Report Form

R3.1. For the suggestions given, the author has basically completed the revision. However, in view of the inconsistent format of the references, the author has not revised them. Currently, the journal names of the references exist in two formats, the full name and the abbreviation. It is recommended to accept the current version after minor revisions.

Replay: We are very thankful for this evaluation. About the journal names of the references, they have been modified following the recommendations given by the instruction for authors (“Abbreviated Journal Name”).