Irrigation Alternatives for Avocado (Persea americana Mill.) in the Mediterranean Subtropical Region in the Context of Climate Change: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review article entitled Irrigation alternatives for avocado (Persea americana Mill.) in the Mediterranean subtropical region in the context of climate change: A review is, in my opinion, well written and can be published with minor revisions. The authors described in detail aspects such as the water needs of avocados, the irrigation of this fruit, the effect of irrigation deficit on various avocado parameters. I very much like the conclusions section. The authors clearly presented the main results obtained from the review. Moreover, they have also indicated directions for further research, which is extremely valuable. However, I have a few comments:

I miss in this article a briefly presented methodology. For example, which articles were considered in this review? From which years? What databases did the authors use for this review? What keywords were searched for? This in my opinion, should be completed.

It is unclear to me what is the source of the data presented in the graphs and tables. Therefore, please provide the data source for each table and graph.

 

I believe that Figure 4 can be removed. This is because it does not add any value to the manuscript.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the appreciation of our manuscript, and for his comments by it, as they will undoubtedly contribute to improving it.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This review paper derives from a solid review of the previous studies related to effects of irrigation regimes on avocado biophysical responses. However, the author simply listed the literatures’ reports lacking of logic and the author’s own points and summary in most of the paragraphs. And there’s some content overlaps throughout the manuscript. I suggest the author could reorganize section 2 and 3, shorten and summarize Table 1-3. In addition, please make great effort to improve the language expression. Please consider make some schematic diagrams instead of lots of words. The manuscript requires extensive review and major revision as commented attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the appreciation of our manuscript, and for his comments by it, as they will undoubtedly contribute to improving it.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Some of the comments are not revised, e.g. Line 220-223, Line 226, Line 314, Line 373-391, Line 459. 

2. Please give responses or defense for the comments which are not revised. 

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the appreciation of our manuscript, and for his comments. Please see the attatched file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx