Weed Management by In Situ Cover Crops and Anaerobic Soil Disinfestation in Plasticulture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the work presented for review is interesting. However, it needs thorough revisions. Statistical analysis is the part that is the weakest part of the work. Why? Because presenting only changes in years without synthesizing the years is a minor contribution to science. It only shows changes in years. Experiments are repeated in years to confirm or not certain relationships. Therefore, it is necessary to supplement this.
What guided the authors in choosing such a range of representation of weather patterns? It is rational to present the entire period covering the experiment. In the time between experiments, too, there is precipitation, which affects what happens in the field. This should be supplemented.
Please apply these changes.
Author Response
We appreciate the time the reviewers took to evaluate the manuscript. Responses to the review are listed below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very well-written paper on a novel method of weed control in organic vegetable production. I have only minor comments and suggestions which are shown in the attached pdf file using the comment tools in Adobe.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We attempted to address your concerns in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Latin names of weeds should be added, at least at the first mention (line 180)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We provided Latin names in the revised manuscript per your suggestion.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the work is interesting and raises an important issue in the practice of food production. However, the statistical analysis of the data according to me is a weak point of the work. In my opinion, two factors should be introduced into the statistical analysis (the first: the type of intercrop, the second: the year of the study). From the point of view of implementing the results into production, it is such an analysis that will be crucial and these factor interactions. Only after such statistical analysis, only interpret the results obtained in the two-year experiment.
Please improve this part of the manuscript.
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer's careful reading of the manuscript and constructive comments. We have incorporated the suggested changes to improve and clarify the manuscript. The study used a factorial experimental design (4 x2) with 4 cover crop residue treatments (sorghum-sudangrass, sunn hemp, both, or no cover crop) by 2 soil aeration conditions (aerated or non-aerated). The effects of ASD are primarily defined by cover crop x soil aeration. We included the year by treatment interactions in the revised manuscript to improve statistical interpretation. There was no intercrop planted between studies so I assume the reviewer meant cover crop.
We did not include a 'track changes' document because the reordering and restructuring of the manuscript were substantial. Instead, we have outlined the major changes in the manuscript using bullet points.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
applied changes are correct, and only now the statistical analysis and its interpretation are correct and have the power to convey the relationship. Congratulations.
