Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Rachel E. Schattman 1,*,
  • Alicyn Smart 2 and
  • Yong-Jiang Zhang 5
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Runwei Li Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewing Comments for Manuscript Water-1544690

 

Schattman et al. presented a field-scale study about the effects of precipitation events on the growth of strawberries in Maine, United States. The study derived four scenarios to simulate current and future precipitation patterns using historical observation in 2001 and 2019. The authors explained the influence of precipitation on strawberries' growth from aspects of (1) leaching amount and nitrogen in leachate, (2) disease and insect damage, (3) plant physiological performance, and (4) biomass production. Through the observation and statistical investigation, authors concluded that (1) precipitation events impact the N in leachate but not the leaching amount, (2) precipitation events were not associated with foliar or root disease pressure, (3) Precipitation events may have small effects on leaf photosynthesis, and (4) compared to precipitation pattern, the total amount is a more important driver of leaf biomass. Overall, the authors presented a complete story. However, several places need to be justified (please find details in the comments). Hence, I recommend a minor revision for the current version.

 

  1. Figure 1 (Introduction): The manuscript is focused on a field-scale study. Therefore, presenting a regional-scale map to describe the location of the study is misleading. I recommend discarding Figure 1 or using a map like Maine State or a related county.

 

  1. Line 102 - 120 (Introduction): Authors reviewed a series of growth indicators related to precipitation events (e.g., chlorophyll concentration and biomass). Please add a paragraph for other indicators used in the study (e.g., nitrogen in leaching and disease damage).

 

  1. Line 144 - 145 (Methods): The first two precipitation scenarios (RECDry and RECWet) represent historical dry and wet conditions in 2001 and 2019. Are these two observations the driest and wettest records in history? If so, please present evidence (may present as supporting information); If not, please justify your selection.

 

  1. Line 150 - 152 (Methods): The third and fourth precipitation scenarios were derived based on the 2001 precipitation record and multiplied by 1.43 and 1.89 to align with the 2019 precipitation record. In my understanding, AMPDry1.43 and RECWet have the same total precipitation amount, while AMPDry1.89 has a larger total precipitation amount. These scenarios suggested that future precipitation events would accumulate a larger total amount in a more separated pattern. Please present related references to support this underline assumption or give justification.

 

  1. Line 156 (Methods): In AMPDry1.89, the 25-September rainfall event is removed. After removing this event, what is the total amount of precipitation in AMPDry1.89? If the total amount is decreased too much, is it still a good representation for future precipitation?

 

  1. Line 255 (Results): 9 experimental plants (56%) died in the RECDry scenario. However, related measurements were still included in the results and analysis. If all dead plant-related measurements (in all scenarios) are excluded, would the current conclusions still be valid?

 

  1. Line 274 (Results): The highest measurement for N in leachate is 0.628 mg N/L. However, figure 3 only covers the N in leaching below 0.17 mg N/L. Was the highest measurement excluded from the analysis? Please give justification or include all measurements in your results.

 

  1. Line 285 - 286 (Results): According to figure 3, one of the current conditions (i.e., RECDry) has the highest N in leachate concentration, while the rest scenarios are comparable. The description and suggestion in Line 285 - 292 are in opposition to the results in figure 3. Please update the manuscript to be consistent.

 

  1. Table 3 (Results): Parameters presented in this table seem incorrect.

 

  1. Figure 4 (Results): The resolution of figure 4 is not as good as figure 3.

 

  1. Line 392 - 406 (Discussion): The discussion about N in leachate contradicts previous results. This is related to Comment 8. Please also update this section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

See in attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Well done. All comments have been incorporated well