Preemergent Liverwort Control by Organic Mulching in Containerized Ornamental Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment

 

1.     The title is looks like a technical report or review.

 

2.     "Laboratory experiments" should not be considered as a separate research part of this study. Water retention rate is only a physical property of organic mulch, and there is not a word in the whole manuscript to say whether water retention rate is related to the purpose. In my opinion, the measurement method of water retention rate can be briefly introduced, and a correlation analysis of water-retention rate with plant growth and liverwort index could be carried out to explain the influence of mulch on liverwort and the plants in the container.

 

3.     The scientific questions in the introduction should be more direct and precise, and the objective can be reorganized as (just a suggestion): to (1) assess the effect of different organic mulch and mulching depth on liverwort growth. (2) reveal the phytotoxicity of different treatments to plant growth. (3) find effective liverwort control technology in container by organic mulch. The third objective can be accomplished by referring to the researches of integrated multi-trait breeding (just a suggestion).

 

4.     The research materials, sample treatments, indicator measurement and statistical analysis could be divided into different paragraphs.

 

5.     The descriptions of formulas a and b may be wrong.

 

6.     The results of ANOVA should be presented in separate tables (including the degree of freedom and variance for each factor). It is very important for judging the reliability of the data and the results. Additionally, the format of the tables should be revised.

 

7.     "Curly Fries" and "Pandora" are described as two repetitions, but they are analyzed separately in the results section. So, maybe there wasn't a replication?

 

 

8.     The discussion and conclusions can be more concise. And the text should be more relevant to your findings.

 

                              

 

 

 

Other comment:

 

L16-L17, This sentence should be deleted (The reasons are as described above)

 

L60, L64, L67, L71, The positions of the quotations interfere with reading.

 

 

L60-L62, L67-69, L71, The sentences are not formal written expression of a research report.

 

L78-L81, Modified the sentence according to abstract? (just a suggestion)

 

L84, If the following three equations are related to “the moisture-holding capacity” and “percent moisture retention”. Please unified the name of the indicators.

 

L98-L99, The formula is difficult to understand. Shouldn’t W0-WI+V be 171?

 

L101-L103, According to Reference 14 (cited here), this formula should have calculated the water loss from evaporation at 1 h, 4 h and 24 h.

 

L109, Percentage should not be transformed using log if they are less than 1(100%), because they will be negative after transformed. log (1+x), Square-Root or arcsin (x) maybe more suitable.

 

L126-L127, The words are confusing. (1) This manuscript analyzed two varieties separately in the result, so it can’t be “two replicates”. (2) Complete species names is missing, here. (3) Are 'Curly Fries' and 'Pandora' cloned plants or seed plants? In general, more repetition are required for phenotypic analysis, if seeds plant are used.

 

L141. The initial size of the Hosta plants should be basically the same, and the information should be reported here

 

L149，There is a writing error

 

L156，log transformed should be careful.

 

L164, Used Water retention and L177 used Moisture retention (described above).

 

L176, ANOVA table should be presented (including degree of freedom and variance of each factor)

 

L185-L186, Significance should be determined by ANOVA results.

 

L281-L282, Based on what?

 

L291-L293, There isn’t any word in introduction and discussion describing the relationships of moisture on liverwort controls, so the logical is difficult to understood here.

 

 

L294, L298, L304, L306, L310, L325, L329, L338, L368, L361, The positions of the quotations interfere with reading.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You have provided a good summary of using different mulches to control liverwort in container-grown crops. Although there is a significant amount of information on using rice hulls for liverwort control, the current study includes mulches from two sources (cocoa hull and red hardwood) that have not been widely studied in container-grown crops. Overall, the study provides new information for mulches and supports use of rice hulls for liverwort control. I have a few comments related to the statistical analyses and other edits/suggestions included in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript reports work done on organic supression /management of the liverwort (Marchantia polymorph)n in Hosta spp.

While the paper is well written, a few areas can be improved.

In moisture laboratory determination, what was the control treatment?

for the greenhouse experiment, the authors need to document how growth index was recorded as the manuscript only provides the initial measurement. were there any subsequent measurements done? If so, how and how often?

in the greenhouse experiment, line 206 and line 208, the authors mention 76% liverwort coverage and 81% respectively, which is which?

Table 3 column 10WAT is it statistically correct? Is 12 significantly equivalent to 29? what was the THSD test critical value?

Why was the experiment terminated at 12 WAT? Is it the growth period of the Host spp?

Table 4 the presentation of this table contradicts the experimental design. Although the depths cut across the mulches, the individual mulches were different . so how do the authors present only depths?

Generally, the experiment set-up does not align with the presentation of the results. For instance, the greenhouse experiment was a three way factorial experiment yet tabular results are presented as a single factor or one way experiment. If the factorial experiment was depth by mulch type by week, the results ought to have interaction effect, why isnt this the case?

moisture content experiment also had time*mulch*depth, this interaction is not properly detected in the presentation of results as well as the results write-up

Some more suggestions and comments are in the attached ms

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment: In moisture laboratory determination, what was the control treatment?

Response: There was no control in this part and the mulches were compared amongst each other.

Comment: for the greenhouse experiment, the authors need to document how growth index was recorded as the manuscript only provides the initial measurement. were there any subsequent measurements done? If so, how and how often?

Response: It is mentioned in methods that GI is average of height and widths of plant. And final observations were recorded at 12WAT.

Comment: in the greenhouse experiment, line 206 and line 208, the authors mention 76% liverwort coverage and 81% respectively, which is which?

Response: The correction has been made, the two values were for 10 and 12 WAT, respectively.

Comment: Table 3 column 10WAT is it statistically correct? Is 12 significantly equivalent to 29? what was the THSD test critical value?

Response: They are statistically 12bc and 29b, not same.

Comment: Why was the experiment terminated at 12 WAT? Is it the growth period of the Host spp?

Response: That is generally the limit for how long plants usually remain with nursery owners, so we terminated it at 12 WAT. Also, there was no much difference visible for effects of different mulches as we progressed in time.

Comment: Table 4 the presentation of this table contradicts the experimental design. Although the depths cut across the mulches, the individual mulches were different . so how do the authors present only depths?

Response: The effects of mulches were non-significant, so the data has not been presented here.

Comment: Generally, the experiment set-up does not align with the presentation of the results. For instance, the greenhouse experiment was a three way factorial experiment yet tabular results are presented as a single factor or one way experiment. If the factorial experiment was depth by mulch type by week, the results ought to have interaction effect, why isnt this the case?

Response: The 2-way interactions have been provided only where they were found, for e.g in Table 2. In other cases, the interactions were non-significant OR either the effects of mulches or depths were non-significant, so only the ones that were significant have been presented in most of the tables.

Comment: moisture content experiment also had time*mulch*depth, this interaction is not properly detected in the presentation of results as well as the results write-up

Response: There was no three-way interaction, so only 2-way interaction has been presented in table 1 (Now table 2).

Comment: Some more suggestions and comments are in the attached ms

Response: For the comments in pdf file, Please find the responses in the pdf attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is generally interesting and shows how the use of appropriate mulching contributes to the control of Liverwort in the production and maintenance of ornamental plants. However, the text is extensive in most sections, with many details and examples being given in both the introduction and the discussion. The results are also described in a very detailed but unobjective manner, as the authors mention all the results, which does not allow the most relevant ones to be clearly highlighted. Furthermore, although in the discussion the most relevant results were adequately discussed, in many cases the discussions are extensive, which sometimes makes it difficult to read due to the confusing construction of some sentences. Overall, the text requires a professional review of grammar and style, as it could be reduced by up to 40% if it were written in a more objective manner. Some specific observations related to the writing are listed below:

 

L12-25: The abstract needs to be rewritten, reducing or eliminating the methodological details mentioned. You should focus on the main results obtained in each experiment, highlighting numerically the main differences.

L60-62: Liverwort was effectively controlled in nursery plants such as highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), black currant (Ribes nigrum), and rhododendron (Rhododendron arboreum) using Sphagnum moss and black currant stem pieces [11].

L68, L71, 298, 310, 321, 325, 334, 338, 345, 361, 368, 371: Bring the citation to the end of the statement, as in the example above.

L96-113 and 147-161: Integrate these lines into a single section (Statistical Analysis) at the end of the methodology.

L164, 180, 185, 202, 203, 210, 233, 234, 237, 239, 245, 263, 278, 286, 333, 358, 365, 371: Delete "significantly" and "significant". They are subjective terms that do not contribute intellectually, because you must make statements about your results with statistical support. Saying that something was 'significant', 'statistically’, or ‘significant' is redundant.

L175, 192, 217, 248, 255, 272: Transform tables into figures. Table 3 and Table 4 can be presented in a single figure as subfigures A and B. The same could be applied to Figures 5 and 6 (clearly identify the variety).

L185-194: What was the height of the plants in cm at the start of the experiment? Information is missing to understand how, even in the controls, there was an increase in growth of more than 160%.

L192: Are the values ​​presented here those obtained at 12 WAT? Please specify clearly in the description of the results or in the table legends.

L212: Define what you mean by "excellent control". Is there a qualitative scale for such a statement?

L264: Please check the typo.

L268: "respectively".

L278: RH and PB mulch

L282-285: The irrigation water infiltration rate was high in PB and RH, with most of the water reaching the ornamental root ball, compared to CS and HW mulches.

L361-375: The discussion regarding percentage cover or percentage control is poor compared to the discussions made on substrate moisture and Hirta growth. Expand your discussion or reduce previous discussions.

L376-370: Rewrite your objectives by directly answering the questions posed in the objectives so that it does not appear to be a repetition of the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the authors addressed most of the comments from the other three reviewers, unfortunately, my observations were only partially addressed or completely ignored. Therefore, considering that the authors ‘strongly’ disagree with avoiding the use of subjective terms, I 'kindly' and 'delicately' request that they provide scientific arguments to explain the decision to retain these terms in their manuscript. On the other hand, just as they 'strongly' justify the use of subjective terms as 'a means to facilitate readers' understanding,' it is undeniable that presenting the results in the form of figures, rather than tables, is the most 'substantial' and 'widely' used approach, as it 'significantly' enhances the reader's comprehension. Therefore, I also ask that you scientifically argue your objection to transforming your tables into figures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf