## 4 Discussion  
As the demand for water continues to rise, it is essential to manage this finite resource through an integrated approach that considers the needs of agriculture, the environment, and society as a whole [7]. In various studies, deficit irrigation has been suggested as the primary method for water saving [23]. Our research aims to assess three different irrigation planning techniques to determine whether implementing more effective scheduling methods could lead to water saving while maintaining the quality and yield of processing tomato crops, without resorting to a deficit irrigation strategy. This study compared the irrigation techniques entirely overseen by the farmer (FarMan) to a model based on water balance (IrriMan), which calculates crop water needs using evapotranspiration data [11], as well as a smart irrigation scheduling system. This new system monitored both plant water status and soil moisture level by wireless sensors (PlaSoMan) and was the focus of the study's novelty. As far as we know, most irrigation models and decision support systems (DSS) for irrigation scheduling rely on simulated plant evapotranspiration consumption [24]. However, it appears that none of these systems consider an evaluation of plant water status as the initial step for irrigation planning. Additionally, many irrigation modeling and DSS concentrate mainly on predicting water demand and suggesting various alternatives for irrigation management, putting the final decision-making responsibility on the farmer [25]. PlaSoMan system operates differently. It is fully automated and uses real-time data on the plant's water status and soil moisture levels to start or stop irrigation automatically. However, this requires a cost associated with purchasing and managing the system's various components over time. It was not surprising that FarMan had a higher yield compared to IrriMan and PlaSoMan, as it consumed the highest irrigation volume. In contrast, PlaSoMan was able to save approximately 30% of the water when compared to the irrigation scheduled by the farmer, and 7.5% compared to IrriMan. Despite this, PlaSoMan only experienced a yield loss of 10% and 2.5% compared to FarMan and IrriMan, respectively. These results indicate that PlaSoMan demonstrated a higher level of IWUE than the other two systems examined in this study, over the two-year period. This is a significant finding, since improving IWUE is crucial for maintaining food security, which is a significant challenge of this century [26]. Overall, the new smart system, which assesses both plant water status and soil moisture levels, appears to be an efficient solution for areas with limited water resources, where efficient water design and management are necessary for sustainability and agricultural competitiveness [27; 28]. It is worth noting that IrriMan and PlaSoMan also had lower blue water requirement (BWR) values compared to FarMan. The blue water requirement refers to the irrigation freshwater consumed by the plant for a unit of product [8]. Therefore, sustainable irrigation systems are characterized by low blue water requirement values. The increase in the blue water requirement observed in the first year for all irrigation techniques was probably due to insufficient rainfall during crop growth, requiring more water for irrigation. This result confirms how water scarcity affects the use of blue water. Users need to become more efficient in using blue water as water becomes scarcer. However, this adaptation should be desirable in all regions, not just in those with low water availability and where blue water is the primary contributor to total crop water use [29]. To achieve high-quality tomato production through irrigation, a more comprehensive approach is needed beyond just focusing on yield. Both tomato yield and fruit quality parameters should be taken into consideration when managing irrigation.