Greenhouse and Nursery Water Management Characterization and Research Priorities in the USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents very important information concerning the use on water by nursery and greenhouse grower in the US, however: - the presentation of the information lacks organization. - It is difficult for the readers to assimilate all the provided information. - the authors should expend the introduction and highlight previous and similar researches. - it is better to present the findings of the survey (section 3.1) in a table because it is difficult to follow all the numbers and percentages. - the authors should provide clearer conclusions.

Author Response

The article presents very important information concerning the use on water by nursery and greenhouse grower in the US, however:

- the presentation of the information lacks organization.  It is difficult for the readers to assimilate all the provided information.

We understand that the data presented are dense and interconnected.  We feel organization is adequate as we transition from themes in the survey to themes and into the discussions.  We ensured data were presented in the same order for both the survey and discussions.

 - the authors should expend the introduction and highlight previous and similar researches.

The introduction has been modified or expanded as requested.

 - it is better to present the findings of the survey (section 3.1) in a table because it is difficult to follow all the numbers and percentages.

Unfortunately, the randomness of information provided un the survey section does not lend itself to a concise structured table; therefore, the authors elected to include the information of the narrative where information could be adequately qualified.  The narrative has been revised extensively to read more clearly and concisely. 

- the authors should provide clearer conclusions.

Conclusions were strengthened, broadened and set apart as a separate section to make clear that these are the conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewed manuscript present a useful work that can help to focus future research at the nursery and greenhouse water management at the ornamental production in the USA. Nevertheless, some points could be taken into account.

 

The survey, discussions, producers, facts, findings, research priorities, etc. are focused on a very particular sector in the USA. The economic, technological, social and legal context is very specific to one country.

It is possible than in other countries, regions and productive structures, the same results could be found, but it is convenient that the title express clearly the contents of the article; so a title change is recommended, including crop sector (Ornamental) and geographical area/country (the USA).

The survey response rate could be qualified as poor, although it was similar to previous surveys. It is clear that every, however small, response is useful, but how far is represented the whole sector? Is the representativeness of the survey guaranteed? Discuss or clarify this point. In any case could help to better understand the paper, and if statistical or governmental data are available, to include a brief description of the standard or mean ornamental operation. In the same way: What is the selection criteria of industry stakeholders participants in round-tables? Authors have done, in each "round table discussion highlights" paragraph, the effort to include previous researches and discussion examples to clarify the results. However, some further explanation could be added; e.g. reference or explanation of inter-state water wars, reclaimed water regulations, countries from off-shore growers, etc. and some other explanation (or published reference) that aid an international reader to better understand the sector. A survey or round-table discussion design could conditioned the responses, is needed a further definition of the sources or basis to develop/decide the items to discuss or ask. The design data collection tools (structure and chosen questions) should be better explained/justified. Between lines 54 to 59 and 67 to 70 there a little and redundant mess. The redaction to establish the study objectives and the tools used to achieve the proposed goal is confused. Could be rewritten. What is the criteria selection of questions in Appendix A?. Question number 2 seems incomplete (response options) In Table 4. What means “now”? Avoid redundancies: e.g. line 83 “(question detailed in appendix A) is said in line 80.

Author Response

The reviewed manuscript present a useful work that can help to focus future research at the nursery and greenhouse water management at the ornamental production in the USA. Nevertheless, some points could be taken into account.

Thank you, we have revised the manuscript to improve the clarity and utility of information presented.

The survey, discussions, producers, facts, findings, research priorities, etc. are focused on a very particular sector in the USA. The economic, technological, social and legal context is very specific to one country. It is possible than in other countries, regions and productive structures, the same results could be found, but it is convenient that the title express clearly the contents of the article; so a title change is recommended, including crop sector (Ornamental) and geographical area/country (the USA).

The title was revised to “Greenhouse and Nursery Water Management Characterization and Research Priorities in the USA” for clarity of scope. 

The survey response rate could be qualified as poor, although it was similar to previous surveys. It is clear that every, however small, response is useful, but how far is represented the whole sector? Is the representativeness of the survey guaranteed? Discuss or clarify this point.

This response rate is very typical of the USA greenhouse and nursery industry.  Additional references were added delineating additional response rates and why though survey response rate was low, these results are representative of the industry.

In any case could help to better understand the paper, and if statistical or governmental data are available, to include a brief description of the standard or mean ornamental operation.

We added a section in the introduction detailing the mean, median operation for both greenhouse and nursery container producers so that readers are aware of typical demographics within the USA nursery and greenhouse industry.

In the same way: What is the selection criteria of industry stakeholders participants in round-tables?

We added information on participant recruitment to lines 147-149.

 Authors have done, in each "round table discussion highlights" paragraph, the effort to include previous researches and discussion examples to clarify the results. However, some further explanation could be added; e.g. reference or explanation of inter-state water wars, reclaimed water regulations, countries from off-shore growers, etc. and some other explanation (or published reference) that aid an international reader to better understand the sector.

References added to clarify inter-state water wars, reclaimed water regulations, off-shore competition statements - to enhance robust-nature of the discussion.

A survey or round-table discussion design could conditioned the responses, is needed a further definition of the sources or basis to develop/decide the items to discuss or ask. The design data collection tools (structure and chosen questions) should be better explained/justified.

Explanation of question development for discussions enhanced lines 186-193

 Between lines 54 to 59 and 67 to 70 there a little and redundant mess.

We deleted what were lines 67-70 to reduce redundancy and confusion as described above.  The conclusion of the Introduction section where we defined the goal of this study is now accurate and concise and follow the order of information presentation in the results and discussion.

What is the criteria selection of questions in Appendix A?.

Explanation of question selection included in the first paragraph of Appendix A

Question number 2 seems incomplete (response options)

Response options were added to question 2

In Table 4. What means “now”?

“Now” changed to present-day consistency to indicate grower concern of availability in the present vs. long-term

Avoid redundancies: e.g. line 83 “(question detailed in appendix A) is said in line 80.

Parenthetical expression (Appendix A) at line 83 (current line 91) deleted. Other redundancies were removed in the text as noted using track changes.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

As was mentioned in the initial review of this paper, the work presents interesting results pertaining to the use of irrigation water by nursery and greenhouse growers.

The authors have improved the presentation of the results of the survey. I think that this paper presents solid results that can be beneficial to future research.  

Reviewer 2 Report

A new version of “Greenhouse and Nursery Water Management Characterization and Research Priorities” is review. Based on the first review and the changes mades by the authors, all the comments and suggestions have been properly justified and taken into account.

The document makes it easier to understand the water management of the nursery and greenhouse at the ornamental industry and the determination of its problems.