Landscape and Horticultural Fertigation Using Roof-Derived Storm Water: The Potential Multiple Benefits of Blue Green Roof Installations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled 'Landscape and horticultural irrigation using roof-derived storm 2 water: The potential multiple benefits of blue green roof installations' by James et al. is dealing with an important topic which is the use of non conventional water for urban crop irrigation.
Besides comments directly attached in the PDF, I have some comments for the authors in order to improve the quality of the manuscript
1/Abstract: the Introduction is good but lacks some numerical data from the experiment
2/The introduction section is rich of information but it is very long and should be reduced
authors should keep arguments pushing in the same direction of their choice in conduction this research
3/Materials and methods: the section is very long and there is no statistical analysis of the collected data from the experiments
4/Results: No statistical data performed in order to compare the data
check comments attached
check the figures and tables numbers
Try to reduce the length concentrating on the main topic of the research conducted
5/Discussion/ Similarly, the section is very long with the absence of statistical test it is hard to compare with other researchers data
6/Conclusion section is fine
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
REFEREE 1.
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
The reviewer is directed to lines 124-143 where the overall aims and objectives are outlined. The methods are clearly described in materials and methods, including experimental site descriptions, irrigation and laboratory work,
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
The key finding, that there are no inhibitory effects from using blue green roof water in fertigation, and for tomatoes there are clear benefits, is stated. The possible public health benefits from consumption of low sodium fruit are presented (based on statistical testing for significance) and the overall context with the few similar accounts of fertigation in literature are discussed. Actual values of irrigation chemicals that may be harmful are discussed (particularly sodium in soil) and the large amount of further work, particularly organic chemicals are outlined.
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
These have been edited and advanced, with more presentation of valid comparison, particularly statistical tests establishing significance, and removal or superfluous results.
Is the article adequately referenced?
Checked the list and in text, made sure the references are numbered.
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
This is a summary of key results outcomes, such as reuse of otherwise wasted rainwater and suggestions for further work. Also as the referee states "6/Conclusion section is fine"
1/Abstract: the Introduction is good but lacks some numerical data from the experiment
Added sodium in tomato fruit values, a key result.
2/The introduction section is rich of information but it is very long and should be reduced
Total manuscript length reduced by ~500 words including introduction
3/Materials and methods: the section is very long and there is no statistical analysis of the collected data from the experiments
Some reduction in methodology length, T Test used to compare tap and roof waters.
4/Results: No statistical data performed in order to compare the data
Now added
check the figures and tables numbers
Checked and altered including some figures and tables removed
Try to reduce the length concentrating on the main topic of the research conducted
Done, including removed superfluous results, 500-word reduction
5/Discussion/ Similarly, the section is very long with the absence of statistical test it is hard to compare with other researchers data
Compared with other published reports regarding fertigation, soil risk, benefits and drawbacks. Statistics added and within-experiment discussion strengthened.
NB: REGARDING OBSCURED FIGURE 2 LEGEND, THIS IS A PRODUCT OF POST SUBMISSION CHANGES THEREFORE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY THE JOURNAL.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This article is devoted to issues that are very important for sustainable development, namely, issues of agriculture.
The article demonstrates the results of using water (roof-water, topwater). Of course, this question is related to the topic of efficient use of resources, which makes this study significant.
It is also not clear how the events in Ukraine prompted the authors to undertake a similar study in the UK. As far as I know, Great Britain is an island geographically separated from the mainland. Perhaps the authors should focus on the disclosure of the specifics of natural conditions in the area in which they are doing research. If the authors of this study's agricultural methods are innovative (which I do not rule out), then why they are innovative for this area - this particular question has not been disclosed. For other regions, these methods of water conservation and use are not new. agricultural workers simply conserve water in this way. This is one way. However, this article is characterized by a scientific approach, which explains traditional practice.
The relevance of the article needs to be improved.
Figure 2 needs to change the text wrapping. In this case, the line numbers will not block the text.
In the Materials and Methods section, I lacked a description of the temperatures that were on the roof (How they differed from ground ones), and what fertilizers were used (Were there any changes with the previous period).
Authors need to carefully proofread the text
Line 15-16: The nutrients released from roof substrate growing medium, could contribute to growth of crop and landscape plants..." - (remove the comma, put the correct article) - "The nutrients released from roof substrate growing medium could contribute to the growth of crop and landscape plants"
roof-harvested water
nutrient-rich
and landscaping plant
lines 21-23: Following three years of a blue-green roof's operational life, export of inorganic nutrients, from the roof, local storage and then application to plants, was effective in contributing additional fertiliser." change the spelling of the last word) - " Following three years of a blue-green roof's operational life, the export of inorganic nutrients, from the roof, local storage, and then application to plants, was effective in supporting additional fertilizer. "
Line 112 (page 3) . "This includes insulation". Read exactly "This"?
These are just examples. Authors must proofread the text.
Author Response
REFEREE 2.
This article is devoted to issues that are very important for sustainable development, namely, issues of agriculture.
The article demonstrates the results of using water (roof-water, topwater). Of course, this question is related to the topic of efficient use of resources, which makes this study significant.
Area of focus by reviewer (1):
It is also not clear how the events in Ukraine prompted the authors to undertake a similar study in the UK. As far as I know, Great Britain is an island geographically separated from the mainland. Perhaps the authors should focus on the disclosure of the specifics of natural conditions in the area in which they are doing research.
Response by authors:
The reference to Ukraine is now removed and context more focused on the study area and the context of water resources from green infrastructure.
Area of focus by reviewer (2):
If the authors of this study's agricultural methods are innovative (which I do not rule out), then why they are innovative for this area - this particular question has not been disclosed. For other regions, these methods of water conservation and use are not new. agricultural workers simply conserve water in this way. This is one way. However, this article is characterized by a scientific approach, which explains traditional practice.
Response by authors:
As far as the authors are aware, this manuscript is the first study to document harvesting of water from a blue green roof with a permanent subterranean store, and applying it in a recorded, scientific manner to horticultural and landscaping uses. It is made clear that the roof sub base details are not standard and we were not simply harvesting a standard roof. The dissolved nutrients from soil as additions in fertigation were an integral part of the work. In this context, the experimental results of runoff from a novel biodiverse green roof and added for fertigation, is completely unreported in academic literature.
Area of focus by reviewer (3):
The relevance of the article needs to be improved.
Response by authors:
This manuscript is part of a special issue on Sustainable Drainage (SuDS) and the introduction contains plenty of information to place the work in context of multipurpose drainage infrastructure, namely how a drainage asset may be employed for fertigation (fertiliser application plus irrigation) We deal with some of the hydraulic benefits of blue green roofs that are accepted as sustainable infrastructure, then apply this water to a productive use.
Area of focus by reviewer (4):
Figure 2 needs to change the text wrapping. In this case, the line numbers will not block the text.
Response by authors:
This seems to be a result of post submission changes, the word version has no such obstruction of page lines against legend. This is probably an issue for the journal to amend.
Area of focus by reviewer (5):
In the Materials and Methods section, I lacked a description of the temperatures that were on the roof (How they differed from ground ones), and what fertilizers were used (Were there any changes with the previous period).
Response by authors:
There was no monitoring of roof temperatures as the water was harvested from the roof (compared with tapwater) and applied in a controlled greenhouse with temperatures stated in text. No fertiliser was added to any of the experiments other than what was in the two types of water (clearly described in Table 1) and the background nutrients in the growing medium, which was the same for both water irrigation types.
Area of focus by reviewer (6):
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Authors need to carefully proofread the text
Response by authors:
The length of the introduction is reduced and some unnecessary content removed and general content improved.
The authors have carefully proof read the text and made necessary changes.
Area of focus by reviewer (7):
Line 15-16: The nutrients released from roof substrate growing medium, could contribute to growth of crop and landscape plants..." - (remove the comma, put the correct article) - "The nutrients released from roof substrate growing medium could contribute to the growth of crop and landscape plants"
Response by authors:
Changed.
Area of focus by reviewer (8):
lines 21-23: Following three years of a blue-green roof's operational life, export of inorganic nutrients, from the roof, local storage and then application to plants, was effective in contributing additional fertiliser." change the spelling of the last word) - " Following three years of a blue-green roof's operational life, the export of inorganic nutrients, from the roof, local storage, and then application to plants, was effective in supporting additional fertilizer. "
Response by authors:
Changed.
Area of focus by reviewer (9):
Line 112 (page 3) . "This includes insulation". Read exactly "This"?
These are just examples. Authors must proofread the text.
Response by authors:
Changed.
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
Response by authors:
The reviewer is advised that aims and objectives are in lines 124-143 for focus.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper can be accepted for publication after the first round of revision
Minor editing of English language required
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have finalized the article according to the comments.
