Row Spacing and the Use of Plant-Available Water in Sugarcane Cultivation in Water-Abundant Louisiana
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewed article demonstrates the results of monitoring soil moisture during cultivation of sugar cane under different row spacing. Authors made an attempt to relate the results to potential plant productivity under conditions of high water abundance of Louisiana. The results are interesting and the article is likely to draw attention of readers. Still I have some remarks.
1. My main remark concerns statistics. Authors mention using ANOVA, but I failed to find results of its application. I advise to provide a table demonstrating the values supporting statistical significance of the effects of different factors (row spacing, cultivar, year, depth of soil and others). Such information is provided by ANOVA. Furthermore, ANOVA combined with Duncan or LSD test allows demonstrating significance of the difference between the means, which is mostly indicated with similar letters showing the means, which do not differ significantly. It is necessary to provide results of such analysis and to mark the means with letters allowing to see, which means are different (e.g. in the Table. 1)
2. I advise authors to provide explanation of some terms to make the article interesting for a wider readership. Thus “ratoons” should be explained. I am not sure that everyone knows that it is a method of propagation in sugarcane in which the part of cane left underground after harvesting gives rise to a new crop stand.
3. I strongly recommend providing schemes or photos demonstrating the design of planting. This will make easier to understand rather complicated descriptions. Reference to an article [5], which is not easily available, does not help to understand it.
4. The same concerns description of the methods of measuring soil moisture. As far as I know (from my own experience of publishing my articles in MDPI journals) description of methods (at least in short) should be provided in the article submitted to these journals. So reference [33] should be supplied with short description of the used methods.
Author Response
Our response to the reviewer letter are in blue below each reviewer comment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The subject of the study is interesting and topical, with scientific and practical importance.
The introduction is presented correctly, in accordance with the subject. Numerous scientific articles, in concordance to the topic of the study, were consulted.
Methodology of the study was clearly presented, and appropriate to the proposed objectives.
The obtained results are important and have been analyzed and interpreted correctly, in accordance with the current methodology.
The discussions are appropriate, in the context of the results, and was conducted compared to other studies in the field.
The scientific literature, to which the reporting was made, is recent and representative in the field.
Some suggestions and corrections were made in the article.
The following aspects are brought to the attention of the authors.
1.
It is recommended to check / set the size of the text / data in figures, in relation to the article text.
Styles: MDPI_5.1_figure_caption / MDPI_5.2_figure
Eg
Page 5, Figure 1
Page 6, Figure 2
Page 7, Figure 3
Page 8, Figure 4
2.
Conclusions
It is recommended that the Conclusions be presented in more detail.
Also, the conclusions should be based on their own results and less on the literature consulted (eg page 10, rows 338-339, source [51]).
3.
Author Contributions
It is recommended to review and present according to Instructions for Authors, and Microsoft Word template, Agronomy journal.
4.
References
It is recommended to revise the references chapter and correct it, as appropriate.
Styles: MDPI_7.1_References
Abbreviated Journal Name
Eg page 13, rows 375 – 376
"J. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol" instead of “Journal of the American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists”
Page 14, row 409 (Bibliographic source 17), it is recommended to present the access date.
More suggestions have been made in the References chapter.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Our responses to the reviewer's comments are located below each comment in the font color blue.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript Agronomy-1788168 is of some practical and scientific interest. The study is devoted to the issues of agrotechnical measures to improve the system of sugar cane cultivation
However, there are a number of questions and comments to the manuscript
1. The section "Introduction" should be reduced by 40-50%.
2. It is advisable to adjust the purpose of the study taking into account the relevance, novelty and practical significance of the work.
3. Lines 197-201 are not entirely clear, since there are no values of plant transpiration (or transpiration coefficient).
4. Table 1. It is not entirely clear what the meaning is of the volumetric water content (VWC) and plant-available water ( PAW) by years of study (2017-2020). The authors should present this Table in a different way, taking into account the values of indicators for each year separately, and also take into account the varietal characteristics. It is necessary to specify the month of the analysis.
5. Fig. 2. How reliable are the data obtained on the total water content? It is necessary to add this information to the text in this section of the manuscript.
6. It would be better to present Fig. 3 in the form of a Table.
7. The paper does not quite trace the relationship between the width of row spacing with the plant-available water ( PAW) for plants, taking into account the morphological characteristics of the plant (features of the root system), as well as varietal characteristics of sugar cane. Therefore, the theoretical significance of the problem under study is not well represented.
8. Lines 259-260: such data are not presented in your research results.
9. Lines 279-282: Where in these studies the relationship between the length of the roots and the soil horizon is shown?
10. The conclusions of the research should be reviewed. Сonclusions should be conciseness, taking into account the results of the research. Remove literature references from Section 5
Author Response
Our responses to the reviewer's comments are located below each comment in the font color blue.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
