A Comparison of Irrigation-Water Containment Methods and Management Strategies Between Two Ornamental Production Systems to Minimize Water Security Threats

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

In my opinion, this is not a review paper. The references are not adequate, not always up-to-date and related almost only to American works. Are you aware that almost a quarter of the literature cited are self-citations?

This could be a case study article but you should change at least the title because in this form it seems a title of a research paper (but you don’t show enough results). Anyway I don’t know if the journal accepts case studies.

If you decide to re-write the article I also suggest to add very clear to the Abstract and at the end of Introduction what this work aims at.

Please pay attention to the use of the unit of measure in an international journal: I suggest to use only litres (not gallons), and hectares (not acres).

Specific comments and corrections:

Line 235: These case studies… Please substitute “these” with “the below reported”

Lines 394: Beaulieu et al. is in preparation? Do you mention something in preparation??

Lines 551-553: you should also add ACS Symposium Series, 863(16):

Lines 583-584: References 45 and 46? It’s the same reference

Author Response

Based on comments and editorial suggestion from the editor and 2 reviewers, we have changed the following:

Editor’s comments:

We agree that the subject matter in our manuscript better fits a Case Report and would like to submit it as such. We have clarified the scope and objectives of this manuscript to better fit “case report” subject matter including editing our abstract. We have switched our measurement nomenclature to international system of units (metric). Any non-published material has been cited as such. We have removed non-primary references and have added national/international references where possible and have replaced older reference versions with newer ones.

Reviewer 1 comments/suggested edits

As a case report, the 56 references should be adequate. Abstract and portions of the introduction were rewritten to reflect our manuscript objectives in comparing water security issues and management of two ornamental plant production operations within a ‘water rich” region of the US. Units of measure were changed to metric Per suggested edits of the following Line 235: These case studies… Please substitute “these” with “the below reported” – substituted Lines 394: Beaulieu et al. is in preparation? Do you mention something in preparation?? – used the term unpublished Lines 551-553: you should also add ACS Symposium Series, 863(16): - added citation Lines 583-584: References 45 and 46? It’s the same reference – deleted reference 45

Reviewer 2 comments/suggested edits

Literature references format revised according to citation guidelines Title now reflects suggested edit Per suggested edits of the following - -m3 is not m3 - were replaced -cm-1 is not cm-1 - was replaced -Figure is not Fig. - were replaced -to indicate the surface use the symbol “ha” is not Ha - were replaced -in the text use figure is not Fig. - were replaced

Comments to editor and reviewers

Our cited literature are based on subject material relating to this case study. Some older references were used because of their unique relevance to the subject matter. The self-citations were from years of work and research in nursery water management, including 3 multimillion dollar USDA-funded projects. These citations are of specific relevance to the case report. Per reviewer 2 comment #1 – We believe our submitted manuscript has been formatted according to instructions for authors Per reviewer 2 comment #3. Another manuscript recently accepted by MDPI Water (White et al) frequently used the terminology of “operations” to describe ornamental plant production systems. We would like to continue using this term, but have included the use of “plant production systems” synonymously. Per reviewer 2 comment #6 - We did not feel as though an article on reclaimed water on vegetable crops was relevant to our subject matter of recycled water on ornamental crops. While this is an important issue in areas where water is scarce, reclaimed water is not considered because of the expense of infrastructure to transport this water. Reclaimed water is not directly used in the mesic region where these nurseries are located.

We hope that the correction made to our manuscript will be satisfactory. We look forward to your decision.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to the Author.

 

 

In Particular the Following Necessary improvements are:

 

-The complete manuscript needs to be revised according to Functional the instructions for authors

 

Authors: Andrew G. Ristvey^1*, …..and John D. Lea-Cox²

Keywords: container-production; propagation …..

References: they should be checked. They do not correspond to format style. Lea-Cox, J.D.; Ross, D.S.; Teffeau, K.M.…. J. Environ. Hort. 2001, 19, 230–236. Is not:  Lea-Cox, J.D., ….Teffeau. 2001….

 

-It is recommended to review the terms; for example instead of "Operations" the authors can use “crop systems”.

 

- Title: A Comparison of Irrigation-Water Containment Systems and Management Strategies between Two Ornamental Production Operations, to Minimize Water Security Threats. does not clearly identify the reported study

Change in: A Comparison of Irrigation-Water Containment Methods and Management Strategies between Two Ornamental Production Crop Systems, to Minimize Water Security Threats.

 

-m³  is not m3; cm^-1 is not cm-1

-Figure is not Fig.

-to indicate the surface use the symbol “ha” is not Ha

-in the text use figure is not Fig.

-Chapter 3: for suitability of reclaimed water use for  irrigation, see “Agronomy Research.  2017, 15(5), 2012–2025, https://doi.org/10.15159/AR.17.044.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Based on comments and editorial suggestion from the editor and 2 reviewers, we have changed the following:

Editor’s comments:

We agree that the subject matter in our manuscript better fits a Case Report and would like to submit it as such. We have clarified the scope and objectives of this manuscript to better fit “case report” subject matter including editing our abstract. We have switched our measurement nomenclature to international system of units (metric). Any non-published material has been cited as such. We have removed non-primary references and have added national/international references where possible and have replaced older reference versions with newer ones.

Reviewer 1 comments/suggested edits

As a case report, the 56 references should be adequate. Abstract and portions of the introduction were rewritten to reflect our manuscript objectives in comparing water security issues and management of two ornamental plant production operations within a ‘water rich” region of the US. Units of measure were changed to metric Per suggested edits of the following Line 235: These case studies… Please substitute “these” with “the below reported” – substituted Lines 394: Beaulieu et al. is in preparation? Do you mention something in preparation?? – used the term unpublished Lines 551-553: you should also add ACS Symposium Series, 863(16): - added citation Lines 583-584: References 45 and 46? It’s the same reference – deleted reference 45

Reviewer 2 comments/suggested edits

Literature references format revised according to citation guidelines Title now reflects suggested edit Per suggested edits of the following - -m3 is not m3 - were replaced -cm-1 is not cm-1 - was replaced -Figure is not Fig. - were replaced -to indicate the surface use the symbol “ha” is not Ha - were replaced -in the text use figure is not Fig. - were replaced

Comments to editor and reviewers

Our cited literature are based on subject material relating to this case study. Some older references were used because of their unique relevance to the subject matter. The self-citations were from years of work and research in nursery water management, including 3 multimillion dollar USDA-funded projects. These citations are of specific relevance to the case report. Per reviewer 2 comment #1 – We believe our submitted manuscript has been formatted according to instructions for authors Per reviewer 2 comment #3. Another manuscript recently accepted by MDPI Water (White et al) frequently used the terminology of “operations” to describe ornamental plant production systems. We would like to continue using this term, but have included the use of “plant production systems” synonymously. Per reviewer 2 comment #6 - We did not feel as though an article on reclaimed water on vegetable crops was relevant to our subject matter of recycled water on ornamental crops. While this is an important issue in areas where water is scarce, reclaimed water is not considered because of the expense of infrastructure to transport this water. Reclaimed water is not directly used in the mesic region where these nurseries are located.

We hope that the correction made to our manuscript will be satisfactory. We look forward to your decision.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

No correspondence among numbering of the citations in the text and in the Literature cited. It is not so easy to check them. You continue to use the word “operation” in the text. Please change with “production system” or similar.

Maybe you should also change Operation A and B with Case Study A and B.

Specific comments and corrections:

Line 643: The two … Please complete the sentence

Line 645: Each… Please complete the sentence

Line 814: the correction is not clear

Lines 1093-1094: The sentence is not clear.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 comments/suggested edits

The authors would like to thank reviewer 1 for the time and effort placed into helping revise this manuscript. Please note you were reviewing an incorrect version of our manuscript… a downloaded revision which contained two sets of manuscripts; a corrected version and one in which Microsoft Word track-changes could be viewed. This is evident from the line numbers used in Specific Comments and Corrections. The doubled manuscript added to the line numbers and number format of doubled citations, thus all citation numbers in the document reviewed were all incorrect. The first manuscript with lines 1 to 597 should be used.

 

The descriptor “operation” is typically used for ornamental plant nursery businesses. The journal Water recently accepted a manuscript by White et al, where the word “operation”, as it relates to ornamental plant nursery businesses, is used over 50 times. Additionally, another manuscript recently accepted by Water, Majsztrik et al, uses the term 10 times. My fellow authors and I regard this term as a valid descriptor and in order to stay consistent with these articles, we would like the term to remain in our manuscript.

 

Operation A and B changed to Case Study A and B.

 

Per suggested edits of the following:

 

Line 643: The two … Please complete the sentence

The sentence (lines 31-32) was corrected by the use of the descriptor word “operations” to indicate to which “The two” is referring.

The two operations employ very different water treatment systems based on their access to water, growing methods, land topography, and capital investment.

Line 645: Each… Please complete the sentence

The sentence (lines 31-32) was corrected by the use of the descriptor word “operations” to indicate to which “Each” is referring

Each operation has experienced different water quantity and quality vulnerabilities, and have addressed these threats using a variety of technologies and management techniques to reduce these threats.

Line 814: the correction is not clear

My fellow authors are not sure what correction reviewer 1 refers to however, it is possible that it may be the sentence in lines 174-175, rephrased below

Moreover, this strategy insulates the operation from reduced water availability and/or future price escalations, increasing overall water security.

Lines 1093-1094: The sentence is not clear.

The sentence in lines 430-431 was rewritten.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that threats faced by many ornamental operations in recycling water are common throughout the United States.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I examined the manuscript all the suggested changes have been carried out correctly, including text formatting, citation and reference list, figures and tables and their captions.

 

The paper can be accepted for publication after some minor revisions:

Please check the scientific names

The species should be written at first mention, e.g. Pythium, italic format of the characters; Phytophthora cryptogea Pethybr. Laff. (1919) is not Phytophthora cryptogea; subsequently in the text to report e.g. P. cryptogea.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

The authors would like to thank reviewer 2 for the time and effort placed into helping revise this manuscript. We italicized Pythium on line 319 and added authorities to all species when first mentioned, then abbreviated genus with first initial afterwards.