Optimizing Sericea Lespedeza Fodder Production in the Southeastern US: A Climate-Informed Geospatial Engineering Approach
, Thomas H. Terrill 2, Ajit K. Mahapatra 2, Eric R. Morgan 3, Aftab Siddique 2,*, Andres A. Pech-Cervantes 2 and Jan A. van Wyk 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina are the study locations and data mentioned.
However, in the results, only Georgia was presented. Some of the figures need more explanation.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please find the attached documents for the comments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors:
Congratulations for your work. First of all, I'd like to thank you for giving new fodder alternatives to small ruminants. It is a very interesting research.
I have some dubtes and general comments about your work that IMHO could enhace the manuscript:
Line 18: revise scientific name
Line 40: why only for small ruminants? Why not for cattle? clarify
Line 53: New paragraph
In others parts of US, SL is an invansive weed and you did not mentioned this trouble.
I miss in the introduction a small review about others GIS methods.
Line 97: Figure (Fig.) 1.
Figures 1 and 2: Lack of map lejend
Line 109: "Based on extensive literature review....." Provide citations
Point 2.2: very poor agronomical study. Lack of clearly agronomical boundaries for growing SL. What about soil pH, stoninness, % organic matter, salinity?
Line 141-153: The different maps used had different resolutions. Please clarify how affect this to the final results.
Line 208: Very poor discussion. You must provide more citations for discuss your results.
Figures 3, 4 and 5: Why only Georgia?
Line 271-283: More than conclusions are paragraphs of results and discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attached document for the comments
Thanks,
Aftab Siddique
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, thanks for your strong efforts including the changes proposed.
I have three comments of small mistakes detected and one comment about the result and discussion part.
1.- Line 33, Keywords: You must not repeat words in the keywords and in the title.
2.- Revise references format in the manuscript
3.- Line 249. table 2: 3rd colunm starting on right, It is also min temperature?
And the important one. I miss a strong discussion and comparison with references.
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewing our manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
