An Alternative Tool for Intra-Row Weed Control in a High-Density Olive Orchard

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper covers contemporary issues of weed floor management in olive orchard. Given the small number of papers written on this topic, the manuscript is noteworthy. Topics include a new approach, precision farming approach, of physical measures application in accordance with organic production and herbicides avoidance in weed control. Contemporary and original topic, well-conceived and written manuscript with the possibility of applying the results. The authors followed the journal instructions  for writing.

Two remarks are more technical:

Line 103 – TCSA abbreviation in the text is mentioned for the first time and should be explained the meaning (trunk cross section area)

Line 276-278 and 282-283 – Latine name of weed species should be written italic

Material and methods are well described and the selected monitoring parameters make the work interesting to read.

Sincerely, I think the manuscript is ok

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Line 103 – TCSA abbreviation in the text is mentioned for the first time and should be explained the meaning (trunk cross section area)

The sentence was removed to answer the request of the reviewer 2 to shorten the Introduction 

Line 276-278 and 282-283 – Latine name of weed species should be written italic

Latine names has been corrected in Italic

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review this paper, the research idea is novel and the outcomes are applicable to real Agri systems to manage perennial crops like olive.  However, the manuscript has been structured with a long introduction.  
My specific comments:
I am not sure whether authors should use "innovative tool" in their title unless determined the cost-benefit ratio. The introduction should be shortened, and please make it concise.  All botanical names should be italic, for example- Line 277, 282, 283  The significant P value should be italic as well The only concern to this paper is whether the authors did any cost/benefit calculation. I suggest adding a table regarding the cost/benefit ratio that highlights water costs, tool cost and initial labour costs for setting up. Otherwise the manuscript is ready to accept.           The title should be modified; my suggestions please delete the words "delete", & "mode of action" from the title. these 2 words are unnecessary and make the title generic and wider.

LIne 35: Not a good start with "Whenever" so reword the first line
Line 38: Please write like this, World agriculture including Brazil.................
Line 39-41: too long statement, please break the statement into 2 parts at least with references
Line 52-54: too long statement, and need a reference as well.
Line 71-74: need references & rewording with good English
Line 78: end of the line tells about the importance of non-chemical weed management options including cover crops, rotation etc and those need to be considered. Such a statement will make a link with your next paragraph.
Line 82-83: All the referecnes are not in proper format?
Line 88: reference format is not correct.
#check through the whole manuscript and update the m2 and ha-1 formate according to journal style.
The MM and results parts are well presented however, language needs to be improved.
Results presentation needs to be significantly improved, otherwise, you will lose the value of your work.

I am surprised not to see the Discussion part in the manuscript
All references need to be checked and there several issues in this part & author did not follow the journal's guidelines
   

Author Response

I am not sure whether authors should use "innovative tool" in their title unless determined the cost-benefit ratio.

The title has been modified as follow 'An innovative tool for intra-row weed control in a high-density olive orchard'. The word 'innovative' has been maintained because we included a cost-benefit analysis in the manuscript, according the the reviewer suggestion (see lines 623-639 and 805-812).

The introduction should be shortened, and please make it concise. 

The introduction has been shortened

All botanical names should be italic, for example- Line 277, 282, 283.

Botanical names have been modified in Italic 

The significant P value should be italic as well

The P value has been modified in italic

The only concern to this paper is whether the authors did any cost/benefit calculation. I suggest adding a table regarding the cost/benefit ratio that highlights water costs, tool cost and initial labour costs for setting up. Otherwise the manuscript is ready to accept.          

According to the reviewer suggestion, we included a cost-benefit analysis (see lines 623-639 and 805-812).

The title should be modified; my suggestions please delete the words "delete", & "mode of action" from the title. these 2 words are unnecessary and make the title generic and wider.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion but the words 'delete' and 'mode of action' are not present in the title. We will be glad to follow any other indication if we do not understand properly the suggestion

LIne 35: Not a good start with "Whenever" so reword the first line

The first line has been reviewed

Line 38: Please write like this, World agriculture including Brazil.................

Sorry we do not understand the request of the reviewer

Line 39-41: too long statement, please break the statement into 2 parts at least with references

The sentences have been revised and shortened according also to requirement of reducing the Introduction length

Line 52-54: too long statement, and need a reference as well.

The sentence has been separated into two.

Line 71-74: need references & rewording with good English

The sentence has been reword and modified.

Line 78: end of the line tells about the importance of non-chemical weed management options including cover crops, rotation etc and those need to be considered. Such a statement will make a link with your next paragraph.

We thank the reviewer for he suggestion

Line 82-83: All the referecnes are not in proper format?

All references have been checked and format modified if necessary

Line 88: reference format is not correct.

Checked and corrected

#check through the whole manuscript and update the m2 and ha-1 formate according to journal style.

Checked and eventually corrected

The MM and results parts are well presented however, language needs to be improved.

Language has been improved when necessary

Results presentation needs to be significantly improved, otherwise, you will lose the value of your work.

Thank for the suggestion.

I am surprised not to see the Discussion part in the manuscript

Discussion section is included in the manuscript and merged with the Conclusion one

All references need to be checked and there several issues in this part & author did not follow the journal's guidelines

All references have been checked and amended if necessary