The Effect of Transplant Date and Plant Spacing on Biomass Production for Floral Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have reviewed the article “The Effect of Transplant Date and Plant Spacing on Biomass Production for Floral Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)” authored by D.H. Suchoff and colleagues. The manuscript described a straight forward study of hemp biomass production in relation to row spacing and transplant date. Early transplant dates favor higher biomass yield and a row spacing of 1.22 m is found to maximize grower profit based on current price models. Readers and producers will find this information useful for optimizing crop management.

 The study is limited by using a single cultivar. The number of test sites is okay, but far from diverse. The number of growing seasons is also limited making production reproducibility difficult to predict. Other than these limitations, the experimental design, data collection, and statistics appear acceptable and appropriate.

 Manuscript presentation is good with a few errors that need correcting.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 are presented in the wrong order in this draft.

In Figure 6 legend (line 386), “Liner” should be “Linear”.

At line 433, “inflorescent” should be “inflorescence”.

Abbreviations: once defined, the abbreviation should be used exclusively, and I suggest avoiding them where practical. For chemical compounds (THC, CBD, CBG, etc.) abbreviations are okay because people generally know the abbreviation better than the full name of the compound. Abbreviating “industrial hemp” as “IH” at line 33 is unnecessary and does not improve readability; just write out “industrial hemp” with each use. Industrial hemp is written out at line 427 and abbreviated at line 434.

At line 448, the first letter of potassium should be in lowercase font.

Author Response

 The study is limited by using a single cultivar. The number of test sites is okay, but far from diverse. The number of growing seasons is also limited making production reproducibility difficult to predict. Other than these limitations, the experimental design, data collection, and statistics appear acceptable and appropriate.

Agreed. Differences will certainly be observed among different hemp cultivars. We added the last paragraph in the conclusion (line 497) to make sure the readers understand the limitations of one cultivar.

 Manuscript presentation is good with a few errors that need correcting.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 are presented in the wrong order in this draft.

Switched figures to correct order.

In Figure 6 legend (line 386), “Liner” should be “Linear”.

Fixed.

At line 433, “inflorescent” should be “inflorescence”.

Fixed.

Abbreviations: once defined, the abbreviation should be used exclusively, and I suggest avoiding them where practical. For chemical compounds (THC, CBD, CBG, etc.) abbreviations are okay because people generally know the abbreviation better than the full name of the compound. Abbreviating “industrial hemp” as “IH” at line 33 is unnecessary and does not improve readability; just write out “industrial hemp” with each use. Industrial hemp is written out at line 427 and abbreviated at line 434.

Agreed. We decided to get rid of “Industrial” all together so that now it just reads “hemp”.

At line 448, the first letter of potassium should be in lowercase font.

Changed.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled “The Effect of Transplant Date and Plant Spacing on Biomass Production for Floral Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)” by Eric Linder, Sierra Young, Sirius Li, Shannon Henriquez Inoa and David H Suchoff presents the results of a 2-year experiment on a floral hemp cultivar at three locations in North Carolina. The paper is well written with a good explanation of their main results about the effect of transplant dates and plant spacing on hemp growth. The experiment was well designed with a good description of the agronomic traits measured and the statistical analysis performed. They included a short economic return study which helps to put their results in perspective and discussed the limitations of their study. I only have got some minor questions and remarks.

-I assume that when the authors talk about the width measurements, they measured the plant canopy width, not the stem width, so does that mean that the plants transplanted early or with larger spacing produce longer leaves?

-There is no explanation about why the authors chose to start on 11 May, is it to include floral hemp in a rotation instead of soybean for example? It could be good to add a sentence or two regarding this in the introduction.

-The Latin names of hemp and rice should be italicized in the text and title.

-Tables 2-6: it is Tukey’s HSD, not Turkey. It is probably a mistake made by the autocorrect. It might also be better to write (P<0.05) as it is in the text instead of (α=0.05).

-Regarding the figure legends, it might be better to specify that the data were obtain at two locations in 2020 and three in 2021 in North Carolina.

-l.105: it is not mentioned line 85 that the Sandhills Research Station is in Jackson Springs. It might be better to specify it line 85.

-Table 1: it could be better if you put the AICc and BIC values for the best model in bold, so it is easier to spot which one is the best. Or you can also use the ΔAICc instead, which the AICc of the model – AICc of the best fitted model (so it will be 0 for the four-parameter logistic models).

Author Response

-I assume that when the authors talk about the width measurements, they measured the plant canopy width, not the stem width, so does that mean that the plants transplanted early or with larger spacing produce longer leaves?

Added "Plant width" line 135. Individual leaves were not measured. We measured the widest part of the plant, which is not always the actual canopy as the plant architecture is more of a christmas tream shape.

-There is no explanation about why the authors chose to start on 11 May, is it to include floral hemp in a rotation instead of soybean for example? It could be good to add a sentence or two regarding this in the introduction.

Agreed- Added a sentence stating that this was the earliest that nurseries would provide cuttings to local farmers (line 124).

-The Latin names of hemp and rice should be italicized in the text and title.

Italics added.

-Tables 2-6: it is Tukey’s HSD, not Turkey. It is probably a mistake made by the autocorrect. It might also be better to write (P<0.05) as it is in the text instead of (α=0.05).

Turkeys eliminated!! All changed to Tukey's. Changed α=0.05 to P<0.05.

-Regarding the figure legends, it might be better to specify that the data were obtain at two locations in 2020 and three in 2021 in North Carolina.

Agreed. Added "Circles represent plot-level data points from two locations in 2020 and three locations in 2021 in North Carolina." to legends.

-l.105: it is not mentioned line 85 that the Sandhills Research Station is in Jackson Springs. It might be better to specify it line 85.

Agreed. Added Jackson Springs, NC before Sandhills Research Station.

-Table 1: it could be better if you put the AICc and BIC values for the best model in bold, so it is easier to spot which one is the best. Or you can also use the ΔAICc instead, which the AICc of the model – AICc of the best fitted model (so it will be 0 for the four-parameter logistic models).

We decided to embolden the best fit model.