Performance of Cowpea under Different Water Regimes in Amazonian Conditions
, Hildo Giuseppe Garcia Caldas Nunes 1, Denilson Pontes Ferreira 1, Vandeilson Belfort Moura 1, William Lee Carrera de Aviz 1, Helane Cristina Aguiar Santos 1, João Vitor de Novoa Pinto 1, Igor Cristian de Oliveira Vieira 1, Gabriel Siqueira Tavares Fernandes 1, Ewelyn Regina Rocha Silva 1, Lucas Tavares Belém 1, Jaime Borges da Cunha Junior 1, Marcus José Alves de Lima 1, Adriano Marlisom Leão de Sousa 1, Vivian Dielly da Silva Farias 2, Joyse Tatiane Souza Santos 2 and Paulo Jorge de Oliveira Ponte de Souza 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
The manuscript under report is a poorly drawn depiction of a good research work mainly marred by poor presentation and content style. i am giving some representative suggestions:
Comments
Title: Performance of cowpea submitted to (under) different water regimes in Amazonian conditions
Highlights
Line 31: Cowpea (Vigna ungüiculata L.) is a prominent feature in an important component of farming systems in the North and Northeast 36 regions of Brazil.
Introduction
Line 61-62: Studies in which water availability is a crucial factor in the final yield of cowpea have 61 been developed conducted in different regions of Brazil
Methods
Line 88: Two samples of soil samples were taken, one undisturbed for the physical character- 8
Line 126-27: which was obtained considering based on
Results
Line 196: It was verified the occurrence of water deficiency (?)
Table 2
The sources of variation be rearranged by placing main effects first followed by interaction and residuals
Author Response
GENERAL COMMENTS:
All the recommendations from all the reviewers, as well as the corrections suggested were accepted and inserted in the article.
REVIEWER #1:
The general comments and suggested corrections have been accepted.
- Title: Performance of cowpea submitted to (under) different water regimes in Amazonian conditions.
R: We accepted the reviewer's recommendation and we have done the correction in the text.
- Highlights: Line 31: Cowpea (Vigna ungüiculata L.) is a prominent feature in an important component of farming systems in the North and Northeast 36 regions of Brazil.
R: We accepted the reviewer's recommendation and so we have done the correction in the text.
– Introduction: Line 61-62: Studies in which water availability is a crucial factor in the final yield of cowpea have 61 been developed conducted in different regions of Brazil.
R: We accepted the reviewer's recommendation and so we have done the correction in the text.
- Methods: Line 88: Two samples of soil samples were taken, one undisturbed for the physical character- 8.
R: We accepted the reviewer's recommendation and so we have done the correction in the text.
- Methods: Line 126-27: which was obtained considering based on.
R: We accepted the reviewer's recommendation and so we have done the correction in the text.
- Results: Line 196: It was verified the occurrence of water deficiency (?)
R: In the mentioned period, line 196, there was no water deficiency, but the occurrence of lower water availability in the soil in treatments T0, T25 and T50. Thus, the paragraph was corrected with this information.
- Results: Table 2: The sources of variation be rearranged by placing main effects first followed by interaction and residuals.
R: Table 2 was corrected as suggested by the reviewer: The sources of variation were reorganized, placing the main effects first, followed by interaction and residuals.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor, Dear Authors,
I am pleased that I was able to review the manuscript entitled: "Performance of cowpea submitted to different water regimes in Amazonian conditions". The manuscript presents studies on the assessment of the impact of irrigation depth of cowpea plants on the development of such traits as the growth, production components and productivity of the species. The research was carried out in the climatic conditions of the Northeast of Para in Brazil, where only in the first semester of the year the amount of precipitation allows the cultivation of the studied species under.
Undoubtedly, cowpea is a well-known and important plant, both for fodder and vegetable, and the research conducted by the authors contributes to broadening the knowledge about the development and yielding of this species. Research of this type is particularly important in the era of dynamic climate changes related mainly to its warming.
However, I have some important comments that should be taken into account prior to the possible publication of this manuscript:
1) In the Abstract chapter, you should formulate a hypothesis based on the current knowledge on this topic. It is also necessary to add the summary of the research combined with the conclusions.
2) The Introduction chapter must be expanded. Please write more about the importance of the studied species also in the world, please provide the scale of production and the importance of the species. It is imperative to specify the climatic requirements, and in particular the water requirements of the studied species under. And above all, a paragraph should be developed in which research on supplementary irrigation used in the cultivation of cowpea (and / or other crops) will be presented. Please concentrate on the influence of irrigation on the yield and development. I hope that the expansion of this chapter will allow me to quote a few recent publications, because most of the publications used in the Introduction are more than 5 years old. I also propose to combine and merge the last two paragraphs of the Introduction chapter.
3) Figure 1 lacks a, b and c.
4) In Tables 2 and 3, replace commas with dots.
5) References should be numbered in order of appearance.
6) The entire manuscript is very poorly aligned with the current Template of Horticulturae journal, especially the References chapter!
7) The literature cited in the manuscript is very poor, it should be expanded especially with the latest publications!
The manuscript still requires a lot of work, both substantive and technical, but I believe that after thorough revision, it is suitable for publication in the journal Horticulture.
Author Response
GENERAL COMMENTS:
All the recommendations from all the reviewers, as well as the corrections suggested were accepted and inserted in the article.
REVIEWER #2:
- In the Abstract chapter, you should formulate a hypothesis based on the current knowledge on this topic. It is also necessary to add the summary of the research combined with the conclusions.
R: The hypothesis (Water availability is a crucial factor in the final productivity of cowpea) was added in the abstract and the conclusion was adjusted with the abstract, as suggested by the reviewer.
- The Introduction chapter must be expanded. Please write more about the importance of the studied species also in the world, please provide the scale of production and the importance of the species. It is imperative to specify the climatic requirements, and in particular the water requirements of the studied species under. And above all, a paragraph should be developed in which research on supplementary irrigation used in the cultivation of cowpea (and / or other crops) will be presented. Please concentrate on the influence of irrigation on the yield and development. I hope that the expansion of this chapter will allow me to quote a few recent publications, because most of the publications used in the Introduction are more than 5 years old. I also propose to combine and merge the last two paragraphs of the Introduction chapter.
R: The introduction was rewritten following the reviewer's recommendations, as well as adding more current references.
- Figure 1 lacks a, b and c.
R: a, b and c were added in Figure 1, as well as in its legend, as recommended by the reviewer.
- In Tables 2 and 3, replace commas with dots.
R: In tables 2 and 3 the commas were replaced by dots
- References should be numbered in order of appearance.
R: We have corrected the manuscript in accordance with the journal's rules.
- The entire manuscript is very poorly aligned with the current Template of Horticulturae journal, especially the References chapter!
R: We have corrected the manuscript in accordance with the journal's rules.
- The literature cited in the manuscript is very poor, it should be expanded especially with the latest publications!
R: The literature has been updated with the most recent publications cited below:
Martey E, Etwire ,P.M Mockshell J. 2021. Climate-smart cowpea adoption and welfare effects of comprehensive agricultural training programs. Technology in Society. (64) 1-13
Nunes, H.G.G.C. Farias, V.D.S. Sousa, D.P. Costa, D.L.P. Pinto, J.V.N.. Moura, V.B Teixeira, E.O. Lima, M.J.A. Ortega-Farias, S. Souza, P.J.O.P.(2021) Parameterization of the AquaCrop model for cowpea and assessing the impact of sowing dates normally used on yield, Agricultural Water Management. (252).
Kanda, E.K., Senzanje,A. Mabhaudhi,T. 2021 Calibration and validation of the AquaCrop model for full and deficit irrigated cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp). Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, (124),
Omomowo, O. I., & Babalola, O. O. 2021. Constraints and Prospects of Improving Cowpea Productivity to Ensure Food, Nutritional Security and Environmental Sustainability. Frontiers in plant science, 12, 751731. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.751731.
Singh, S. P., Mahapatra, B. S., Pramanick, B., & Yadav, V. R. (2021). Effect of irrigation levels, planting methods and mulching on nutrient uptake, yield, quality, water and fertilizer productivity of field mustard (Brassica rapa L.) under sandy loam soil. Agricultural Water Manage-ment, 244, 106539. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106539
Das, P.; Pramanick, B.; Goswami, S.B.; Maitra, S.; Ibrahim, S.M.; Laing, A.M.; Hossain, A. Innovative Land Arrangement in Combination with Irrigation Methods Improves the Crop and Water Productivity of Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Grown with Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) under Raised and Sunken Bed Systems. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2087. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11102087
Dharminder; Singh, R.K.; Kumar, V.; Pramanick, B.; Alsanie, W.F.; Gaber, A.; Hossain, A. The Use of Municipal Solid Waste Compost in Combination with Proper Irrigation Scheduling Influences the Productivity, Microbial Activity and Water Use Efficiency of Direct Seeded Rice. Agriculture 2021, 11, 941. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100941
Ferreira, D.P.; Sousa, D.P.; Nunes, H.G.G.C.; Pinto, J.V.N.; Farias, V.D.S.; Costa, D.L.P.; Moura, V.B.; Teixeira, E.; Sousa, A.M.L.; Pinheiro, H.A.; Souza, P.J.d.O.P. Cowpea Ecophysiological Responses to Accumulated Water Deficiency during the Reproductive Phase in Northeastern Pará, Brazil. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7050116
Nunes, H.G.G.C.; Sousa, D.P.; Moura, V.B.; Ferreira, D.P.; Pinto, J.V.N.; Vieira, I.C.O.; Silva, V.D.S.; Oliveira, E.C.; Souza, P.J.O.P. Perfomance of the AquaCrop model in the climate risk analysis and yield prediction of cowpea (Vigna unguiculatta L. Walp). Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2019, 13, 1105–1112.
Boukar, O.; Belko, N.; Chamarthi, S.; Togola, A.; Batieno, J.; Owusu, E. 2018. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata): Genetics, genomics and breeding. Plant Breeding, (137) 1-10.
Jacoby, R.; Peukert, M.; Sucurro, A.; Koprivova, A.; Kopriva, S. O papel dos microrganismos do solo na nutrição mineral de plantas—Conhecimento atual e direções futuras. Frente. Planta Sci. 2017 , 8 , 1617.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Present manuscript describes a very simple row of experiments dealing with the production of cowpea under different irrigation depths in Amazonia. The introduction is well done, the research design appropriate. The description of the methods is also well done. For me the presentation of the results and their discussion is a little bit chaotic, I suggest for the authors to rewrite it to be more simple and logical in order to better understanding. This experiment is a simple testing, without any originality, but it seems useful and important on local level. The potential readers of this work seems to be the local practitioners.
After the reviews mentioned above the manuscript will be suitable for publication.
Author Response
GENERAL COMMENTS:
All the recommendations from all the reviewers, as well as the corrections suggested were accepted and inserted in the article.
REVIEWER #3:
- The introduction is well done, the research design appropriate. The description of the methods is also well done. For me the presentation of the results and their discussion is a little bit chaotic, I suggest for the authors to rewrite it to be more simple and logical in order to better understanding. This experiment is a simple testing, without any originality, but it seems useful and important on local level. The potential readers of this work seems to be the local practitioners.
R: We accepted the reviewer's recommendation and therefore corrected the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The research paper entitled, "Performance of cowpea submitted to different water regimes in Amazonian conditions" is a nicely written one having all the required materials. However, in my view, this paper may be accepted after incorporation of the following considerations:
- Author need to mention a clear information about the treatments in abstract. What is the meaning of irrigation slides? Is it a technical term!
- There must be some quantified values in the abstract part.
- Abstract part must have a clear -cut recommendation from the three years long study.
- First highlight is useless. Delete it.
- Introduction part is poorly written. Author must include why the study was designed. What are the research gaps?
- What are the hypothesis of the study?
- At the end of the introduction part, authors must include the novelty statement.
- Authors are advised to see the following papers and use these as reference in introduction part and discussion part: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106539; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11102087; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100941
- In methodology part, author should mention the weather parameters viz. max. and min. temperature; max. and min. RH; rainfall etc.
- Authors are also advised to make some sub-headings in the methodology part.
- There no such clear-cut mention of the treatment details.
- Statistical design is not correct. RBD design with six blocks and 4 treatments means what? only 4 treatments in RBD is not sufficient. Please clarify this part.
- Authors need to make sub-headings in the results and discussion part.
- Discussion part is poor. Authors need to mention why the different irrigation regimes altered the growth and yield attributing characters of the crop. Authors are suggested to read the above mentioned papers to learn how to write the discussion for the results obtained.
- Results part is well written. Improvement in the discussion part will make this paper more stronger.
- In table 3, authors are advised to include the Standard Deviation.
- Authors should make some correlation between soil moisture availability and yield attributing characters.
- What is the recommendation from this 3 years long study?
Finally, in my view, this is a good work. The authors need to write the paper more scientifically considering the above mentioned suggestions.
Author Response
GENERAL COMMENTS:
All the recommendations from all the reviewers, as well as the corrections suggested were accepted and inserted in the article.
REVIEWER #4:
- Author need to mention a clear information about the treatments in abstract.
R: We rewrote the mention of treatments in the abstract as suggested by the reviewer.
- What is the meaning of irrigation slides? Is it a technical term!
R: In this case, there was a problem in the writing, we meant “irrigation depths”. We have done the correction and, as suggested by the reviewer, sent the manuscript for a English review.
- There must be some quantified values in the abstract part.
R: The recommendation suggested by the reviewer was added to the abstract.
- Abstract part must have a clear -cut recommendation from the three years long study.
R: The recommendation suggested by the reviewer was added to the abstract.
- First highlight is useless. Delete it.
R: Highlight was kept in the article and rewritten as recommended by the 2nd reviewer.
- Introduction part is poorly written. Author must include why the study was designed. What are the research gaps?
R: Information was included in the article as recommended by the reviewer. The study was designed to answer whether cowpea can be cultivated during the dry season in the Amazon region and how total and partial water supplementation would influence the parameters of growth, production and productivity of the crop.
- What are the hypothesis of the study?
R: The hypothesis of this study is that over the period of lower rainfall in the Amazon region, its cultivation can reach production parameters and yields above the national average when total and deficient water supplementation is carried out through irrigation.
- At the end of the introduction part, authors must include the novelty statement.
R: The recommendation was inserted in the manuscript as requested by the reviewer.
- Authors are advised to see the following papers and use these as reference in introduction part and discussion part: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106539; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11102087; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100941
R: The recommendation suggested by the reviewer was accepted.
- In methodology part, author should mention the weather parameters viz. max. and min. temperature; max. and min. RH; rainfall etc.
R: Information entered as recommended by the reviewer
- Authors are also advised to make some sub-headings in the methodology part.
R: Sub-headings were inserted in the methodology chapter.
- There no such clear-cut mention of the treatment details.
R: The text was modified to provide more details on treatments.
- Statistical design is not correct. RBD design with six blocks and 4 treatments means what? only 4 treatments in RBD is not sufficient. Please clarify this part.
R: The 6-block, 4-treatment RBD design was used (n=24) in order to provide the best homogeneous division between treatments in each block. The experimental design is correct, as the statistical requirements of repetition, randomization and local control are obeyed.
- Authors need to make sub-headings in the results and discussion part.
R: Sub-headings were inserted in the Results and discussion topics
- Discussion part is poor. Authors need to mention why the different irrigation regimes altered the growth and yield attributing characters of the crop. Authors are suggested to read the above mentioned papers to learn how to write the discussion for the results obtained.
R: Suggestions by the reviewer were added to the manuscript.
- Results part is well written. Improvement in the discussion part will make this paper more stronger.
R: Suggestions by the reviewer were added to the manuscript.
- In table 3, authors are advised to include the Standard Deviation.
R: Inserted in the table as recommended by the reviewer.
- Authors should make some correlation between soil moisture availability and yield attributing characters.
R: Suggestions by the reviewer were added to the manuscript.
- What is the recommendation from this 3 years long study?
R: The research recommendation is that producers cultivate cowpea at times when the water deficit does not exceed 33 mm during the reproductive phase and that they do rainfed cultivation using water supplementation through irrigation.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript improved substantially
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors incorporated all the revisions required. Now, the paper may be accepted for the publication.
