Response of Twenty Tall Fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort.) Cultivars to Low Mowing Height

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the study seems interesting and important. The authors have chosen a wide array of fescue cultivars to work with. They have examinated them exhaustively using many different methods, and have surveyed every cultivars from many angles, which gave detailed and helpful results. The results have been summarized in a comprehensible and right way. It is also good to mention that the authors have chosen references mainly from the last 10-20 years, which shows their orientation in the latest improvements and results in this topic.

However, I think the visual presentation of the results can be improved further. The large tables (especially tables 4, 5 and 6) are hardly comprehensible, a graph or a color scheme would be more useful. Figure 1 is also hardly gatherable. Maybe changing the scale of the graphs (for example, not beginning with 0) could emphasize more the differences among the values of the cultivars. The color scheme of the figure is also a bit indistinct.

Nevertheless, the paper is well-structured, its language is understandable, and can be helpful when choosing grass species for athletic fields.

Author Response

The topic of the study seems interesting and important. The authors have chosen a wide array of fescue cultivars to work with. They have examinated them exhaustively using many different methods, and have surveyed every cultivars from many angles, which gave detailed and helpful results. The results have been summarized in a comprehensible and right way. It is also good to mention that the authors have chosen references mainly from the last 10-20 years, which shows their orientation in the latest improvements and results in this topic.

However, I think the visual presentation of the results can be improved further. The large tables (especially tables 4, 5 and 6) are hardly comprehensible, a graph or a color scheme would be more useful.

A graph is not more comprehensible since it should include 20 series of data, and we do not know how to show this data in a color scheme without losing information. This is usually the way to present this kind of data, but we are open to suggestions.

Figure 1 is also hardly gatherable. Maybe changing the scale of the graphs (for example, not beginning with 0) could emphasize more the differences among the values of the cultivars. The color scheme of the figure is also a bit indistinct.

In an effort to improve figure clarity, color have been added to the bars, and major ticks are now placed every visual rating point. We would like to keep the scale as is, most of the time, shrinking the visual rating scale would result in biased perception of the results, as the reader would perceive big differences among cvs, when there’s really none

Nevertheless, the paper is well-structured, its language is understandable, and can be helpful when choosing grass species for athletic fields.

Reviewer 2 Report

I consider that the manuscript needs serious improvements and I did not recommend it for publication in its current form. My comments and suggestions are below.

Abstract and Introduction:

First of all, I could not find a clear and strong hypothesis, which should be the basis.

Lines 40 – 43 – refer to the same citation [11], it is enough to write it once.

Materials and Methods:

Table 1 - I did not see the aim of putting the 54-year average of air temperature in Table 1 and I found no explanation in the text.

I consider that Table 2 could be in the supplementary data (moreover, lack of the explanation of the meaning of DLF), it is not necessary for the main text, in contrast to the results described in other tables presented in the supplementary data.

Table 3 – In my opinion, it should be included in additional materials.

No control (optimal) conditions of mowing height to compare the cultivars.

Results

Lines 119, 187, 190, 191 „data not shown” –  I am not convinced that it is appropriate to describe the results that were not showed in the Results section. Perhaps it would be better to comment these results in the Discussion.

Figure 1 – charts not in the correct order, maybe it is worth adding A, B, C…. I guess it will be better to start the y axis with 4, in this case, the results will be more visible, especially the differences between the cultivars. Were the differences statistically significant? It seems to me, it is worth adding, for example, homogeneous groups, which would indicate significant differences, denoted by the letter in the graphs.

Lines 163-164 -  it should be re-written,

Discussion

The discussion is short and not exhaustive. Poor reference to other authors' research.

Conclusions

Most of them were a repeat of the introduction, lack strong conclusions.

General opinion

Very preliminary research.

Other comments

No abbreviation list, which would be helpful.

Author Response

I consider that the manuscript needs serious improvements and I did not recommend it for publication in its current form. My comments and suggestions are below.

Abstract and Introduction:

First of all, I could not find a clear and strong hypothesis, which should be the basis.

Hypothesis added: ‘The hypothesis of this study was that new and improved tall fescue cultivar can withstand frequent and low mowing heights’

Lines 40 – 43 – refer to the same citation [11], it is enough to write it once.

Changed accordingly.

Materials and Methods:

Table 1 - I did not see the aim of putting the 54-year average of air temperature in Table 1 and I found no explanation in the text.

It is needed to compare long-term with annual climatic trends. The reader can understand if the experimental year has temperature and precipitation similar to the mean of the area. This is a request and a common practice in all agronomic articles (e.g. Pornaro, C., Menegon, A., & Macolino, S. (2018). Stolon Development in Four Turf‐Type Perennial Ryegrass Cultivars. Agronomy Journal, 110(6), 2159-2164; Pornaro, C., Serena, M., Macolino, S., & Leinauer, B. (2020). Drought Stress Response of Turf-Type Perennial Ryegrass Genotypes in a Mediterranean Environment. Agronomy, 10(11), 1810; Schiavon, M., Pornaro, C., & Macolino, S. (2021). Tall Fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort.) Turfgrass Cultivars Performance under Reduced N Fertilization. Agronomy, 11(2), 193), no explanation is needed.

I consider that Table 2 could be in the supplementary data (moreover, lack of the explanation of the meaning of DLF), it is not necessary for the main text, in contrast to the results described in other tables presented in the supplementary data.

The table 2 (now Supplementaty table 1) has been moved as supplemental tables. The company location has been added to the distributor name.

Table 3 – In my opinion, it should be included in additional materials.

The Table 3 (now Table 2) is an ANOVA table and it’s crucial for the reader to understand statistical interpretation of the data, hence will not be moved.

No control (optimal) conditions of mowing height to compare the cultivars.

Due to spatial constraints a higher mowing height could not be included in the trial. Moreover, it’ll be beyond the scope of the article. Our research aims to help turf managers making a proper selection of tall fescue cultivars if they desire to use them in athletic fields. No beneficial information will come to them if we included a higher mowing height, green keepers in the sport industry won’t be able to mow higher than 2 cm.

Results

Lines 119, 187, 190, 191 „data not shown” –  I am not convinced that it is appropriate to describe the results that were not showed in the Results section. Perhaps it would be better to comment these results in the Discussion.

A reference to these results are needed as they are listed in the Table 3. Since their description is trivial for this manuscript, they will not be discussed in the discussion section.

Figure 1 – charts not in the correct order, maybe it is worth adding A, B, C…. I guess it will be better to start the y axis with 4, in this case, the results will be more visible, especially the differences between the cultivars. Were the differences statistically significant? It seems to me, it is worth adding, for example, homogeneous groups, which would indicate significant differences, denoted by the letter in the graphs.

Graph order has been corrected and letters have been added. Scaling of y axes has been changed. To group cultivars in homogeneous groups means to change their order in the x axis and this make difficult to find them in the different graphs. Letters in this case are not needed, as LSD bars can be found on top of each bar

Lines 163-164 -  it should be re-written,

Changed

Discussion

The discussion is short and not exhaustive. Poor reference to other authors' research.

Being a cultivar comparison, it is not easy to find other articles studying the same cultivars. We used references about tall fescue in general and about its mowing height for turfgrasses. If reviewers have any specific article in mind that could improve literature review, we’d be happy to include it.

Conclusions

Most of them were a repeat of the introduction, lack strong conclusions.

Strongly disagreed, the only two sentences that retake concept for the introduction are the first ones. This is a common practice in scientific articles to put conclusions into context. The remainder of the conclusions sections are a summary of our results.

General opinion

Very preliminary research.

The present study is a 2-year filed trial experiment on 20 tall fescue cultivars. We do not agree with this comment. The study meets the requirement for publication in agronomical peer-reviewed journal. Some researches published with a 2-year field trial experiment:

Pornaro, C., Barolo, E., Rimi, F., Macolino, S., & Richardson, M. (2016). Performance of various cool-season turfgrasses as influenced by simulated traffic in northeastern Italy. Eur. J. Hort. Sci, 81(1), 27-36.

Giolo, M., Pornaro, C., Onofri, A., & Macolino, S. (2020). Seeding Time Affects Bermudagrass Establishment in the Transition Zone Environment. Agronomy, 10(8), 1151.

 Pornaro, C., Menegon, A., & Macolino, S. (2018). Stolon Development in Four Turf‐Type Perennial Ryegrass Cultivars. Agronomy Journal, 110(6), 2159-2164.

  Other comments

No abbreviation list, which would be helpful.

An abbreviation list is not expected for this journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors for their efforts in this manuscripts. They have evaluated the effect of mowing in Schedonorus arundinaceus using several parameters, providing an extensive amount of data. The topic is interesting and fits with the journal scope. Nonetheless, some important drawbacks must be addressed in order to ensure that the manuscript reaches the expected quality of the papers published in Agronomy. Following, I include a series of comments aimed to enhance the quality of the manuscript:

1. In Section 2, it´s given several details about the maintenance like soil characterization, climate and maintenance works such as mowing, chemical and fertilizers treatments, Authors must include information about water, it would be better to include some parameter about quality (pH, CE...) and the origin (groundwater, recycled water...) to complete the information, also indicate the characteristics of the irrigation system (sprinkling, rainfall...).

2. In Section 3, the text is something disordered in the organization at the start, Tables 3 and 4 could be separated and include the corresponding explanation to each one without mixing so and giving greater clarity.

3. Also, in section 3, the explanation of the results reflected in Figure 1 is a bit disorder. It would be more effective to comment on the aspects treated by referring them in the same order as the four graphs included in Figure 1, transmitting them in this way a greater clarity. Finally, in Section 3 the same happens in the analysis of the results of tables 5 and 6 may be better organized if your comment is ordered in front of each table.

4. In Section 4 , all the analyzed parameters should be treated, commenting on the interpretation of them in relation to the varieties with the best results, adding subsections, it could even include an analysis that correlates variables as an example, two articles that work in this sense with a similar plant material are attached:

• Pedro V. Mauri, Lorena Parra, Salima Yousfi,  Jaime Lloret, Jose Marin. Evaluating the Effects of Environmental Conditions on Sensed Parameters for Green Areas Monitoring and Smart Irrigation Systems. Sensors 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062255
• Jose Marin, Salima Yousfi, Pedro V. Mauri , Lorena Parra, Jaime Lloret,  Alberto Masaguer. RGB Vegetation Indices, NDVI, and Biomass as Indicators to Evaluate C3 and C4 Turfgrass under Different Water Conditions. Sustainability. 2020. DOI: 3390/su12062160

5. Also, in Section 4, some justification is lessed, given the detail of analysis for the classification in the cultivars regarding the quality parameters studied, nothing is commented regarding the NDVI values obtained. This value is in relation to the parameters studied and appears to have no significance, and the authors must explain something to improve it.

6. In section 5 and given the line of research followed, future works, parameters or varieties with which it is interesting to continue working could be described. It may also be interesting to modify maintenance guidelines, soil characterization, irrigation, fertilization, or the use of biostimulants.

Author Response

I would like to congratulate the authors for their efforts in this manuscripts. They have evaluated the effect of mowing in Schedonorus arundinaceus using several parameters, providing an extensive amount of data. The topic is interesting and fits with the journal scope. Nonetheless, some important drawbacks must be addressed in order to ensure that the manuscript reaches the expected quality of the papers published in Agronomy. Following, I include a series of comments aimed to enhance the quality of the manuscript:

In Section 2, it´s given several details about the maintenance like soil characterization, climate and maintenance works such as mowing, chemical and fertilizers treatments, Authors must include information about water, it would be better to include some parameter about quality (pH, CE...) and the origin (groundwater, recycled water...) to complete the information, also indicate the characteristics of the irrigation system (sprinkling, rainfall...).

The origin and the characteristics of the irrigation system have been added.

In Section 3, the text is something disordered in the organization at the start, Tables 3 and 4 could be separated and include the corresponding explanation to each one without mixing so and giving greater clarity.

 Table 3 and 4 explanations has been separated.

Also, in section 3, the explanation of the results reflected in Figure 1 is a bit disorder. It would be more effective to comment on the aspects treated by referring them in the same order as the four graphs included in Figure 1, transmitting them in this way a greater clarity. Finally, in Section 3 the same happens in the analysis of the results of tables 5 and 6 may be better organized if your comment is ordered in front of each table.

The order of the graphs in Figure 1 has been changed according to results explanation. Table 5 and 6 explanations has been separated.

In Section 4 , all the analyzed parameters should be treated, commenting on the interpretation of them in relation to the varieties with the best results, adding subsections, it could even include an analysis that correlates variables as an example, two articles that work in this sense with a similar plant material are attached:

Based on the aim of the study (comparing cultivars performance) only parameters with significant interactions involving cultivars have been treated. A sentence has been added (Lines 119-120) to explain this. We would avoid to use subsections as explanation of some parameters is too short.

Correlation analysis of visual quality with remote sensing technology has been extensively studied for the last 20 years, it’s beyond the scope of this study and this article will not add anything to the existing scientific body in correlation between visual ratings and NDVI or DIA, therefore information will not be added.

Pedro V. Mauri, Lorena Parra, Salima Yousfi,  Jaime Lloret, Jose Marin. Evaluating the Effects of Environmental Conditions on Sensed Parameters for Green Areas Monitoring and Smart Irrigation Systems. Sensors 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062255

Jose Marin, Salima Yousfi, Pedro V. Mauri , Lorena Parra, Jaime Lloret,  Alberto Masaguer. RGB Vegetation Indices, NDVI, and Biomass as Indicators to Evaluate C3 and C4 Turfgrass under Different Water Conditions. Sustainability. 2020. DOI: 3390/su12062160

Also, in Section 4, some justification is lessed, given the detail of analysis for the classification in the cultivars regarding the quality parameters studied, nothing is commented regarding the NDVI values obtained. This value is in relation to the parameters studied and appears to have no significance, and the authors must explain something to improve it.

Results are discussed based on ANOVA results, and we do not wish to include Type I statistical errors in this manuscript

In section 5 and given the line of research followed, future works, parameters or varieties with which it is interesting to continue working could be described. It may also be interesting to modify maintenance guidelines, soil characterization, irrigation, fertilization, or the use of biostimulants.

This article does not investigate different management practices, hence including such practices, or different environmental factors in the discussion section will be utter speculation. A nod to possible future researches has been added in the conclusion

Reviewer 4 Report

This article explores the responses of twenty different Tall fescue cultivars to a weekly low mowing set at 18 mm hoc. The subject of the work is very interesting and useful to sport managers. Moreover, is in the line to find more suitable turfgrass cultivars in sports fields. However, the manuscript should be improved before it’s publication in Agronomy.

The introduction is clear and well planned; however, it should be complemented with more details. For example, introduction should include more information about Tall Fescue slow recover in sports fields. Furthermore, authors did not mention any information about traction measurements in the introduction section.

The discussion should be implemented with a better explanation about the different cultivars and their response. Authors focused on ‘Turfway’, ‘Titanium 2LS’ and ‘JT-338’ significant results for the assessed parameter. Explanation of what cause cultivars better performances and more references are recommended in the discussion section.

Other comments:

Line 68.  Please correct g-1.

Line 69. Please correct kg-1.

Line 71. Please correct year-1.

Line 88. Please states the precise herbicide doses and the sprayer employed.

Line 110. Please correct Analysis of Variance.

Line 156. Please correct should (authors meant showed right?).

Line 171. Please correct “Dynamites LS”.

Line 209-213. Authors found that “JT-338” together with “Armani” showed finer texture compared to other cultivars, however authors discussed only “Armani” performance. My suggestion is to include “JT-338” results in this part of the discussion.

Line 215. What kind of management practices can improve Tall fescue quality managed with a low mowing regime? Please provide several examples.

Author Response

This article explores the responses of twenty different Tall fescue cultivars to a weekly low mowing set at 18 mm hoc. The subject of the work is very interesting and useful to sport managers. Moreover, is in the line to find more suitable turfgrass cultivars in sports fields. However, the manuscript should be improved before it’s publication in Agronomy.

The introduction is clear and well planned; however, it should be complemented with more details. For example, introduction should include more information about Tall Fescue slow recover in sports fields. Furthermore, authors did not mention any information about traction measurements in the introduction section.

More information on tall fescue recovery and traction measurements have been added.

The discussion should be implemented with a better explanation about the different cultivars and their response. Authors focused on ‘Turfway’, ‘Titanium 2LS’ and ‘JT-338’ significant results for the assessed parameter. Explanation of what cause cultivars better performances and more references are recommended in the discussion section.

It is difficult to answer this comment. Distributor companies sale cultivars with a description such as “very dark green color year round” or “high stress resistance” or “the cultivar can be maintained from ½" to 4"”. This is the reason way cultivars comparison by independent studies is needed. We do not found studies investigating causes (for example morphological traits) explaining this 20 tall fescue cultivars differences.

Other comments:

Line 68.  Please correct g-1.

Corrected.

Line 69. Please correct kg-1.

Corrected.

Line 71. Please correct year-1.

Corrected.

Line 88. Please states the precise herbicide doses and the sprayer employed.

Added.

Line 110. Please correct Analysis of Variance.

Corrected.

Line 156. Please correct should (authors meant showed right?).

Corrected

Line 171. Please correct “Dynamites LS”.

Corrected.

Line 209-213. Authors found that “JT-338” together with “Armani” showed finer texture compared to other cultivars, however authors discussed only “Armani” performance. My suggestion is to include “JT-338” results in this part of the discussion.

Discussion about ‘JT-338’ performances (quality and density) are in lines 224-229. A sentence about ‘JT-338’ texture rates has been added at line 229-230.

Line 215. What kind of management practices can improve Tall fescue quality managed with a low mowing regime? Please provide several examples.
Information added

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for authors' comments and explanations.
I still recommend improving Figure 1, it has a low quality and therefore it is hardly readable.

Author Response

Thank you to the anonymous reviewers for your time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We have made changes to the manuscript and feel that most/all comments and requests for changes have been adequately addressed. Below please find our rebuttal statements (listed in bold) to referees’ comments and suggestion for changes.

Thank you for authors' comments and explanations.
I still recommend improving Figure 1, it has a low quality and therefore it is hardly readable.

Figure 1 quality has been improved (from 300 to 600 dpi).