Effect of Bed Preparation on Native Wildflower Establishment, Weed Control, and Arthropod Presence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This original research article by Pennisi et al. entitled “Effect of Bed Preparation on Native Wildflower Establishment, Weed Control and Arthropod Presence”. This is an interesting research work. The authors have organized the manuscript precisely. I have gone through the manuscript and I observed that this is sufficient informative. The authors showed that bed preparation has a positive influence on wildflower establishment, weed control and arthropod presence. Although the authors have done the job perfectly, they have to address some queries:

1.     They have to add some literature about dazomet and glyphosate with references in introduction section.

2.     They should add the study area map materials and methods section.

 

3.     They should write conclusion on the basis of title.

 

Finally, the authors have to follow the manuscript formatting guidelines of MDPI

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review; we have tried to address your questions. 

 

1. They have to add some literature about dazomet and glyphosate with references in introduction section.

Authors’ response: added

2. They should add the study area map materials and methods section.

 

Authors’ response: We have provided the GPS coordinates of the research site under section 2.1 in Materials and Methods. We think this is sufficient information.

 

3. They should write conclusion on the basis of title.

Authors’ response: provided

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear appreciated Authors,

The manuscript “Effect of Bed Preparation on Native Wildflower Establishment, Weed Control and Arthropod Presence” was found interesting, novel, appears to be scientifically sound topic. However, there are a few details which should be considered (see in Attachment) and some revisions have to be made and before it can reach a publishable value. Also, the authors should set up the manuscript according Templates available on the journals' Instructions for Authors pages.

Kind regards,

NL

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review. 

We have addressed each comment provided in the pdf file you provided, and in the order they appear in the yellow comment boxes. The revisions are incorporated in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Original Submission
1.1. Recommendation
Major revision

2. Comments to Author:

Title: Effect of Bed Preparation on Native Wildflower Establishment, Weed Control and Arthropod Presence.

Overview and general recommendation:

This study evaluated two bed preparation techniques, a glyphosate treatment with no tillage and tillage with soil fumigant (dazomet) for their impact on herbaceous perennial transplants establishment, weed control, and arthropod presence. Overall, the idea is acceptable, but the arrangement and structure of the paper was poor, and the novelty of the study needs to be improved. I do not recommend it be published at the present form, and a thorough major revision is needed. I explain my concerns in more detail below.

1. Abbreviations: There is no need to list only one abbreviation separately.

2. Abstract: “In this study, we evaluated two bed preparation techniques, a glyphosate treatment with no tillage and tillage with soil fumigant (dazomet). Treatments were evaluated for their impact on herbaceous perennial transplants establishment, weed control, and arthropod presence”. It is suggested that these two sentences be merged.

3. Introduction. The introduction is too loose, and many paragraphs can be merged to make it logically more compact.

4. “Conflicting information abounds regarding the best methods to ensure habitat longevity”. Why?

5. In the introduction section, some references are too old, so it is suggested that the author cite updated references.

6. Tables. All tables should adopt three-line tables.

7. The data in some tables can be represented by graphs to show the research results more intuitively.

8. Conclusions missing?

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We have tried to address all your comments.

1. Abbreviations:There is no need to list only one abbreviation separately.

Authors’ response: deleted

2. Abstract: “In this study, we evaluated two bed preparation techniques, a glyphosate treatment with no tillage and tillage with soil fumigant (dazomet). Treatments were evaluated for their impact on herbaceous perennial transplants establishment, weed control, and arthropod presence”. It is suggested that these two sentences be merged.

Author’s response: corrected

2. The introduction is too loose, and many paragraphs can be merged to make it logically more compact.

Author’s response: We laid out our justification for the research by careful consideration of all factors – biodiversity decline, popular practices for conservation (i.e. native wildflowers), multitude of challenges in establishing habitats from seed, the effectiveness of pollinator habitats to support arthropods, and which areas in the current state of knowledge have not been studied. We presented a concise introduction in what is a broad area of study. We think that removing pertinent material would not help the reader. Also, and based on other reviewers’ comments, we have added information in this section which we hope improve the introduction.

3. “Conflicting information abounds regarding the best methods to ensure habitat longevity”. Why?

Author’s response: We have clarified the statement.

4. In the introduction section, some references are too old, so it is suggested that the author cite updated references.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the request, however the subject in the paper deals with specific works germane to our study (i.e. Derr and Appleton, 1989). In particular, Corley et al., 1993 are relevant because the of the same geographic area (i.e. Georgia, United States). We included all relevant and recent studies (some also published before 2000); all these works are critical to understanding the background and interpreting our results, and therefore cannot be omitted.

5. All tables should adopt three-line tables.

Author’s response: corrected

6. The data in some tables can be represented by graphs to show the research results more intuitively.

Author’s response: We changed Table 5 to a graph.

8. Conclusions missing?

Author’s response: conclusions are now provided.

Reviewer 4 Report

Undoubtedly, the manuscript “Effect of Bed Preparation on Native Wildflower Establishment, Weed Control and Arthropod Presence“ may be of interest to landscape designers, in particular, designers of urban areas. However, the authors did not work enough with the manuscript template and experiment design.

11.       The design of the manuscript and the list of references does not meet the requirements of the journal. Please format the text according to the template. See “Instructions for Authors”: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/horticulturae/instructions

22.       “Seed establishment is dependent on a variety of factors including seed viability…” What do you mean using the term “Seed establishment”?

33.       Page 3 “Plugs are increasingly recommended as an alternative to seeds…” What do you mean? (“Plugs”?). Is it a common term?

4.       Table 2 It is advisable to indicate the data of dispersion analysis in the table with directly obtained experimental data. Apart from them, the table is meaningless.

54.       Table 3 It is obvious that different species have different growth indexes and number of blooms. What did you want to show in this table, compare the species with each other?

65.       You should combine Tables 3-5 to visually compare study data.

76.       Figure 1 Please change the designations of the pictures to lowercase letters. Capital letters with a dot confuse the reading of the Latin names of species.

87.       Table 6 Why don't you provide data on areas not treated with herbicides? Have you checked for weed infestation in pristine wild areas near your research plots?

98.       Table 7 Why did you pool the values of arthropod abundance from both bed treatments? How we can compare them separately?

19.   Dazomet is used as a nematocide when applied to the soil for the cultivation of crops. It is also known to have fungicidal and herbicidal properties. Your hypothesis is quite obvious. What is new in it?

110.   You should have compared the number of insects also in the wild forbs of the area in order to judge how their populations are changing. Have you done such research?

         Add a Conclusion Section

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We have tried to address all your questions.

1. The design of the manuscript and the list of references does not meet the requirements of the journal. Please format the text according to the template. See “Instructions for Authors”: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/horticulturae/instructions

Author’s response: we have revised the manuscript according to journal’s formatting requirements.

2. “Seed establishment is dependent on a variety of factors including seed viability…” What do you mean using the term “Seed establishment”?

Author’s response: Seed establishment refers to seed germination and subsequent seedling growth. If a seed fails to germinate, the establishment is zero. If the seed germinates but fails to reach a reproductive phase (i.e. flower and seed), the establishment is considered poor.

3. Page 3“Plugs are increasingly recommended as an alternative to seeds…” What do you mean? (“Plugs”?). Is it a common term?

Author’s response: Plugs, also termed transplants, are a standard term used to describe forbs used in various landscape plantings, including ecological restoration and ornamental landscapes/gardens.

4. Table 2It is advisable to indicate the data of dispersion analysis in the table with directly obtained experimental data. Apart from them, the table is meaningless.

Author’s response: The table presents analysis of variance for the main effects and their interaction. This is standard information for presenting statistical analysis results. Please refer to similar table in:

Harris, B.A., Bauske, E., & Pennisi, S.V. 2021. Cultural practices and microbial inoculants have variable impact on a bedding plant (Lantana camara L.) performance in the landscape. Scientia Horticulturae 282(6): 110059

5. Table 3 It is obvious that different species have different growth indexes and number of blooms. What did you want to show in this table, compare the species with each other?

Author’s response: We think you may mean Table 5 where the species are pooled to compare them with each other; based on the data pooled from both treatments we will be able to provide recommendations for faster to establish species. However, to limit the number of tables, we converted Table 5 to a graph to improve visualization.

5. You should combine Tables 3-5 to visually compare study data.

Author’s response: done.

7. Figure 1Please change the designations of the pictures to lowercase letters. Capital letters with a dot confuse the reading of the Latin names of species.

Author’s response: done

8. Table 6 Why don't you provide data on areas not treated with herbicides? Have you checked for weed infestation in pristine wild areas near your research plots?

Author’s response: Our study questions were whether dazomet with tillage would affect wildflower establishment and how effectively it would suppress weeds. The other treatment, glyphosate with no tillage served as the control. The surrounding wild areas were not included in the study. Most disturbed soils have vegetation.

9. Table 7 Why did you pool the values of arthropod abundance from both bed treatments? How we can compare them separately?

Author’s response: We did compare them separately and we found that the bed treatment had no effect on insect abundance (F = 0.2, p = 0.65), while insect group was highly significant (F = 40.3, p <.0001). The interaction effect of bed preparation and insect group was not significant (F = 0.92, p = 0.25).

9. Dazomet is used as a nematocide when applied to the soil for the cultivation of crops. It is also known to have fungicidal and herbicidal properties. Your hypothesis is quite obvious. What is new in it?

Author’s response: You are correct that dazomet has been studied in vegetable and fruit crops. However, there have been limited studies on ornamentals, and none that we could find on wildflowers and from transplants. It has not been compared with standard bed preparation methods. We think that our study is novel in several aspects and it answers pertinent questions.

10. You should have compared the number of insects also in the wild forbs of the area in order to judge how their populations are changing. Have you done such research?

Author’s response: We carried out visual observations and aerial sweeps of flowering forbs in the vicinity but we did not conduct systematic assessment of the surrounding wild areas which were not included in the study. Since our objective was to assess the species in the treatment plots under investigation, we did not include information on surrounding areas.

11. Add a Conclusion Section

Author’s response: conclusions are now provided.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

accept

Author Response

Thank you for your review!

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors have done a great job of improving the manuscript "Effect of Bed Preparation on Native Wildflower Establishment, Weed Control and Arthropod Presence". Tables have become more visual, and Figure 1 is a better representation of the data than the table. However, I reckon that the sequence of tables 2 and 3 should be changed.

In the Conclusion section, briefly indicate the specific numerical data obtained as a result of the experiments.

I ask the authors to once again pay attention to the design of the manuscript (font, line spacing, sequence of annotations and keywords, etc.).

Author Response

We really appreciate your time to review the revised manuscript.

Authors have done a great job of improving the manuscript "Effect of Bed Preparation on Native Wildflower Establishment, Weed Control and Arthropod Presence". Tables have become more visual, and Figure 1 is a better representation of the data than the table. However, I reckon that the sequence of tables 2 and 3 should be changed.

Authors response: it is a standard practice to show ANOVA results for the main factors and their interaction before the actual means (along with means separation). Therefore we think the order of tables 2 and 3 should stay as is.

In the Conclusion section, briefly indicate the specific numerical data obtained as a result of the experiments.

Authors response: done

I ask the authors to once again pay attention to the design of the manuscript (font, line spacing, sequence of annotations and keywords, etc.).

Authors response: we used the template provided by the editor. If there's anything specific, we'd be happy to change but at this point we followed all the directions.

Thank you very much again for improving our manuscript!