Predicting water status, growth and yield of tomato under different irrigation regimes using the RGB image indices and artificial neural network model

Mohamed S. Abd El-baki; Mohamed Maher Ibrahim; Salah Elsayed; Ahmed Elbeltagi; Ali Salem; Nadia G. Abd El-Fattah

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0346503

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 16, 2025
15 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Ömer Faruk Coşkun, Editor Dear Dr. Salem, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 01 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.... We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ömer Faruk Coşkun, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: the relationship between RGB image indices and plant indices in tomato plants, along with regression analysis was investigated in this study. The two-year experimental period was involved and the experimental workload is quite heavy. Selection of image indices and plant indices were reasonable and the regression results were credible. However, several issues require clarification: 1. Sample data specifications: Providing sample size, open-field experimental area, and final tomato yield would enhance understanding of the experimental subjects. 2. Methodological rigor: While the workload was substantial, the analytical approach lacks systematic completeness. For instance, in ANOVA, presenting both significance levels and effect size metrics (e.g., correlation coefficients) would help readers assess conclusion reliability and correlation strength between variables, rather than relying solely on significance levels. 3. Methodological innovation: Established models for image-plant index regression should be compared. Does the author's model demonstrate advantages over classical approaches or state-of-the-art methodologies? Comparative analysis is warranted to validate its innovation. Reviewer #2: Manuscript is well organized. Material and methods are suitable for research purposes. This manuscript is acceptable for publication.There is one correction: In line 119 CROWAT should be corrected as CROPWAT. ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346503.r001
Revision 1
20 Feb 2026 Author Response Predicting water status, growth and yield of tomato under different irrigation regimes using the RGB image indices and artificial neural network model Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1 Comment Response Q(1) The relationship between RGB image indices and plant indices in tomato plants, along with regression analysis was investigated in this study. The two-year experimental period was involved and the experimental workload is quite heavy. Selection of image indices and plant indices were reasonable and the regression results were credible. However, several issues require clarification: Sample data specifications: Providing sample size, open-field experimental area, and final tomato yield would enhance understanding of the experimental subjects. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The sample size is detailed in lines 181-197, the open-field experimental area is specified in line 108, and the final tomato yield is presented in lines 307-310. Q(2) Methodological rigor: While the workload was substantial, the analytical approach lacks systematic completeness. For instance, in ANOVA, presenting both significance levels and effect size metrics (e.g., correlation coefficients) would help readers assess conclusion reliability and correlation strength between variables, rather than relying solely on significance levels. Thank you for your comment. In response, we have added effect sizes to clarify the impact of irrigation regimes on FB, DB, CWC, SPAD, SMC, and yield. These values have been incorporated into the manuscript (lines 261–307). To determine significant differences between means, as presented in Figure 3 and Table 5, Tukey’s post-hoc test was applied at significance levels of P ≤ 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001. Regression models were fitted to examine the relationships between plant traits and RGB image indices, as well as between actual and predicted values from the ANN models. The corresponding correlation coefficients are displayed in Figures 4-7. Q(3) Methodological innovation: Established models for image-plant index regression should be compared. Does the author's model demonstrate advantages over classical approaches or state-of-the-art methodologies? Comparative analysis is warranted to validate its innovation. Thank you for your comment. The primary objective of this study was not to compare different modeling approaches, but rather to develop a non-destructive method for assessing plant characteristics using field and laboratory measurements as reference standards. Accordingly, the accuracy of the artificial neural network model was evaluated by comparing its predictions against actual field and laboratory values, as presented in Tables 6-8. This approach aligns with our goal of providing a reliable, time-saving alternative to conventional destructive methods that can also support irrigation management decisions. Reviewer #2 Comment Response Q(1) Manuscript is well organized. Material and methods are suitable for research purposes. This manuscript is acceptable for publication. There is one correction: In line 119 CROWAT should be corrected as CROPWAT. Thank you for your comment. The necessary adjustment has been made. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments-3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346503.r002
11 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Ömer Faruk Coşkun, Editor Dear Dr. Salem, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.... We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ömer Faruk Coşkun, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Authors, Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. The study is potentially suitable for publication and the revision has addressed several of the reviewers’ earlier concerns. However, after editorial assessment of the revised manuscript, I find that a small number of issues still need to be corrected before the manuscript can be accepted. I am therefore inviting a minor revision. Please address the following points carefully in the next revision: The irrigation model name is still incorrect in the manuscript text. Although the response letter states that this was corrected, the manuscript still reads “CROWAT” in the irrigation methods section. This should be corrected to “CROPWAT” consistently throughout. Year / season information must be harmonized throughout the manuscript. The abstract refers to the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 growing seasons, the Methods section states that the field experiments were conducted during 2022 and 2023, and the biomass sampling paragraph refers to measurements in 2021 and 2022. Please revise these sections so that the experimental timeline is fully consistent everywhere. The ANN methodology requires clearer technical description. Please specify the actual correlation threshold used for feature selection, clarify exactly which scikit-learn implementation and solver(s) were used, and revise the description of training/testing versus cross-validation so that the workflow is unambiguous. At present, the method description remains difficult to follow in this respect. Please check and correct the equation given for R². The reported formula appears incorrect/incomplete as presented in the current manuscript and should be verified carefully against the actual metric used in the analysis. Please remove the remaining language and typographical errors throughout the manuscript. Examples visible in the revised version include “Re-mote,” “pcercentage,” “conent,” “soil moister,” “phybrid,” “Identify” instead of “Identity,” “These observed is,” and “DB wights.” Please perform a final careful proofreading of the full manuscript, tables, and figure legends. Please revise the interpretation regarding T75 in the Discussion. The manuscript states that T75 was favorable “with no significant reduction in the tomato crop,” whereas the preceding results section states that Tukey post-hoc testing showed significant pairwise differences between treatments for yield. Please reconcile this statement with the actual statistical results and avoid overstating the conclusion. Once these minor issues are addressed, the manuscript can be reconsidered promptly. Sincerely. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346503.r003
Revision 2
15 Mar 2026 Author Response No. Comments Response 1 The irrigation model name is still incorrect in the manuscript text. Although the response letter states that this was corrected, the manuscript still reads “CROWAT” in the irrigation methods section. This should be corrected to “CROPWAT” consistently throughout. We appreciate your comment and have revised the text accordingly. 2 Year / season information must be harmonized throughout the manuscript. The abstract refers to the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 growing seasons, the Methods section states that the field experiments were conducted during 2022 and 2023, and the biomass sampling paragraph refers to measurements in 2021 and 2022. Please revise these sections so that the experimental timeline is fully consistent everywhere. Thank you for your feedback. We have made the requested adjustments. 3 The ANN methodology requires clearer technical description. Please specify the actual correlation threshold used for feature selection, clarify exactly which scikit-learn implementation and solver(s) were used, and revise the description of training/testing versus cross-validation so that the workflow is unambiguous. At present, the method description remains difficult to follow in this respect. We thank the reviewer for this comment. The ANN methodology has been revised as suggested (see lines 202-255). 4 Please check and correct the equation given for R². The reported formula appears incorrect/incomplete as presented in the current manuscript and should be verified carefully against the actual metric used in the analysis. Thank you for your feedback. We have corrected the equation for R² as requested. 5 Please remove the remaining language and typographical errors throughout the manuscript. Examples visible in the revised version include “Re-mote,” “pcercentage,” “conent,” “soil moister,” “phybrid,” “Identify” instead of “Identity,” “These observed is,” and “DB wights.” Please perform a final careful proofreading of the full manuscript, tables, and figure legends. We thank the reviewer for this feedback. As requested, we have corrected the remaining language and typographical errors throughout the manuscript. 6 Please revise the interpretation regarding T75 in the Discussion. The manuscript states that T75 was favorable “with no significant reduction in the tomato crop,” whereas the preceding results section states that Tukey post-hoc testing showed significant pairwise differences between treatments for yield. Please reconcile this statement with the actual statistical results and avoid overstating the conclusion. We thank the reviewer for this feedback. We have revised the interpretation regarding T75 in the Discussion, as requested (see lines 343–346). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments-4.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346503.r004
20 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Ömer Faruk Coşkun, Editor Predicting water status, growth and yield of tomato under different irrigation regimes using the RGB image indices and artificial neural network model PONE-D-25-50619R2 Dear Dr. Salem, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.... If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Ömer Faruk Coşkun, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Authors, Thank you for your revision. The manuscript has been improved and is suitable for publication. Please carefully check and correct remaining minor language, grammar, and typographical issues during the proof stage. Best regards. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346503.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ömer Faruk Coşkun, Editor PONE-D-25-50619R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Salem, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Ömer Faruk Coşkun Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346503.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .