Investigating the Effect of Hydrafiber and Biochar as a Substitute for Peat-Based Substrate for Zinnia (Zinnia elegans) and Snapdragon (Antirrhinum majus) Production
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis comprehensive paper contains a great deal of data that will improve our knowledge of the use of sustainable substrates in potting mixes. The topic of the manuscript is suitable for publication in Horticulturae. However, it needs some improvements before it can be considered for acceptance. In the lines below, I have made comments and suggestions that will contribute to improving the manuscript.
-There are too many abbreviations in the abstract and throughout the text, which makes it difficult to read. I believe that the substrate's physical properties should not be abbreviated throughout the text.
-The authors should improve the keywords, including growing media, floriculture, potted plants...
L32-24. The authors emphasize the good properties of peat as a growing medium. But could they include any negative agronomic aspects of its use?
L54. Since nitrate is the most polluting and problematic form of nitrogen. If possible, could the authors include information on the loss of nitrate when biochar is added to growing media?
L105. In substrate experiments, the details of irrigation management are relevant, especially when measuring EC and pH of the leachate. Could the authors describe how irrigation was managed?
L110. The use of a commercial substrate is quite ambiguous. Please justify the choice of the commercial substrate as the control of the experiment. If the main objective of this paper is to reduce the use of peat, why was 100% peat not used as a control? In my area, it is common to use 100% peat in ornamental nurseries.
-L133-134. I am not clear on the difference between container capacity and water holding capacity. I understand that the latter is the maximum water-holding capacity of a substrate, but it is sometimes referred to as container capacity. I think this can be confusing. Could you clarify this issue?
L155. The statistical design that the authors used is valid, but not the most appropriate. The authors wrote that the second objective was to investigate the co-effects of the mixture of biochar and hydrafiber as a component of potting substrates. Therefore, from a statistical point of view, it seems more appropriate to use a two-factor ANOVA approach (biochar x hydrafiber), since it allows us to know the interactive effects between the two substrates. This is a recommendation for future work.
-Table 2. The WHC column heading should be expressed as a percentage and not as a decimal.
-Figure 1. Some graphs have lowercase letters for statistical interpretation and others do not. Please check this.
- Table 2 and Figure 1 appear to contain the same data. Consider choosing one of them.
- This paper includes a variety of measures of growth and development (SPAD, flowering, dry weight,...). In addition, a growth index was designed, but not a visual quality index which is a major flaw in a study of ornamentals. Using the measured growth and development parameters along with others that can be calculated (leaf appearance, compactness...), the authors should develop a visual quality index. Incorporating a quality index score would greatly assist farmers in selecting the most appropriate growing media
-Conclusions. Based on the results obtained, could the authors recommend the best mix for both Zinnia and Snapdragon?
Author Response
Point 1: There are too many abbreviations in the abstract and throughout the text, which makes it difficult to read. I believe that the substrate's physical properties should not be abbreviated throughout the text.
Response 1: I have deleted all the abbreviations of physical properties of substrate, changing CC, WHC, BD, AP, and TP into container capacity, water holding capacity, bulk density, air porosity and total porosity throughout the text and the abstract.
Point 2: The authors should improve the keywords, including growing media, floriculture, potted plants...
Response 2: I have added several more keywords, including growing media, and floriculture.
Point 3: L32-24. The authors emphasize the good properties of peat as a growing medium. But could they include any negative agronomic aspects of its use?
Response 3: I have rewritten the negative effect of peat on substrate “Peat moss, while having beneficial properties, faces issues with rewetting and nutrient leaching due to its hydrophobicity” (page 1, Line 37-38)
Point 4: L54. Since nitrate is the most polluting and problematic form of nitrogen. If possible, could the authors include information on the loss of nitrate when biochar is added to growing media?
Response 4: I have expanded the paragraph “Biochar with high cation exchange capacity (CEC)…indicating more nitrate retention in the sphagnum peat moss and perlite (85:15 v:v) glass column over time” (Line 59-62)
Point5: L105. In substrate experiments, the details of irrigation management are relevant, especially when measuring EC and pH of the leachate. Could the authors describe how irrigation was managed?
Response 5: we used hand irrigation and watered the plants with the same quantity and at the same time with 10-20% leaching rate. I have revised the page 3 line 112-115.
Point 6: L110. The use of a commercial substrate is quite ambiguous. Please justify the choice of the commercial substrate as the control of the experiment. If the main objective of this paper is to reduce the use of peat, why was 100% peat not used as a control? In my area, it is common to use 100% peat in ornamental nurseries.
Response 6: It’s not common to use 100% peat for growing ornamental flowers in containers due to its low pH. The recommended substrate pH for container crops is 5.4 to 6.8 and the pre-mixed commercial substrates are commonly used for container crop production. Therefore, I didn’t choose to use 100% peat as the control, instead, I used a commercial substrate mix that “consists of 55% aged pine bark, and the remaining 45% was composed of Canadian sphagnum peat moss, perlite, and vermiculite. (Line129-130). Our objective is to replace partial peat moss in a commercial substrate mix with biochar.
Point 7: -L133-134. I am not clear on the difference between container capacity and water holding capacity. I understand that the latter is the maximum water-holding capacity of a substrate, but it is sometimes referred to as container capacity. I think this can be confusing. Could you clarify this issue?
Response 7: I calculated container capacity and water holding in the same way. They are both referred to as the total amount of water the sample can hold after saturation and drainage, and calculated by ((wet weight – Dry weight)/347.5)X 100. And 347.5mL is the volume of porometer. I have deleted the data of water-holding capacity in the article.
Point 8: L155. The statistical design that the authors used is valid, but not the most appropriate. The authors wrote that the second objective was to investigate the co-effects of the mixture of biochar and hydrafiber as a component of potting substrates. Therefore, from a statistical point of view, it seems more appropriate to use a two-factor ANOVA approach (biochar x hydrafiber), since it allows us to know the interactive effects between the two substrates. This is a recommendation for future work.
Response 8: Thank you for the recommendation. I treated the substrate media as one factor that's why I used one-way ANOVA.
Point 9: -Table 2. The WHC column heading should be expressed as a percentage and not as a decimal.
Response 9: I have deleted water holding capacity as previously mentioned
Point 10: -Figure 1. Some graphs have lowercase letters for statistical interpretation and others do not. Please check this.
Response 10: I have checked and corrected
Point 11: - Table 2 and Figure 1 appear to contain the same data. Consider choosing one of them.
Response 11: I guess you are indicating Figure 2 and table 2. Yes, they both showed the data of container capacity, total porosity, and bulk density. And I deleted figure 2.
Point 12: - This paper includes a variety of measures of growth and development (SPAD, flowering, dry weight,...). In addition, a growth index was designed, but not a visual quality index which is a major flaw in a study of ornamentals. Using the measured growth and development parameters along with others that can be calculated (leaf appearance, compactness...), the authors should develop a visual quality index. Incorporating a quality index score would greatly assist farmers in selecting the most appropriate growing media
Response 12:I have regraphed figures and made them as readable as possible.
Point 13: -Conclusions. Based on the results obtained, could the authors recommend the best mix for both Zinnia and Snapdragon?
Response 13: I have added recommendation “This study recommended incorporating 20%BC with CS or 100%CS would give the best performance for growing zinnia and snapdragon” ( page 12, line 388- line 389)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
please note my comments in the manuscript. Additionally, I have some general remarks:
Results should not been shown twice as table and figure. Thus, Table 2 or Figure 2 is superfluous and may be deleted.
Figure 3 to 6 need to be revised because they are difficult to read due to the large amount of data. They should be reduced to the essential data, especially since the text does not deal with all the data and significant differences were not found in all cases. It might be worth changing the type of presentation from columns to lines which show the measured parameter on the y-axis depending on the weeks after transplanting on the x-axis.
Figure 7: From my point of view, all plants - even those of the control - show a low quality. Obviously, the time of sale seems to be over. Do you have photos from an earlier stage of development which might be more meaningful?
In the grapgs, the size of the axis texts is usually too small. This is especially true for the numbers on the y-axis.
It would be better to list the letters for the subfigures near the y-axis rather than below the x-axis.
References: Several references (No. 2, 12, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31 and 43) are not mentioned in the manuscript. They should be incorporated into the manuscript or removed from the list of literature. Furthermore, reference number 16 is identical to number 13.
It should be checked for all references whether they are listed in the correct place in the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: Results should not been shown twice as table and figure. Thus, Table 2 or Figure 2 is superfluous and may be deleted.
Response 1: I deleted figure 2.
Point2: Figures 3 to 6 need to be revised because they are difficult to read due to the large amount of data. They should be reduced to the essential data, especially since the text does not deal with all the data and significant differences were not found in all cases. It might be worth changing the type of presentation from columns to lines which show the measured parameter on the y-axis depending on the weeks after transplanting on the x-axis.
Response 2: I tried to revise as much as possible to make it readable for figures 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Point 3: Figure 7: From my point of view, all plants - even those of the control - show a low quality. Obviously, the time of sale seems to be over. Do you have photos from an earlier stage of development which might be more meaningful?
Response 3: we started late, the objective of this research is to 1) compare the BC and HF as a container substrate component; and 2) investigate the co-effects of BC and HF mixture as container substrate components for zinnia and snapdragon. We will incorporate the time of sale in future studies. We don’t have early-stage photos. The photos included here were to show the differences in treatment at the end of the trial.
Point 4: In the graphs, the size of the axis texts is usually too small. This is especially true for the numbers on the y-axis.
Response 4: I have enlarged all the text on the axis for all figures.
Point 5: It would be better to list the letters for the subfigures near the y-axis rather than below the x-axis.
Response 5: I have listed treatment legend on top of figures for figures 3 and 4. I kept the treatment number for the rest of figures because I believe this way is more readable and direct for readers. I have enlarged the size to make sure they are clear enough on x-axis.
Point 6: L16 According to Figure 1 as well as Table 1 and 2, only one CS was used.
Response 6: I incorporated commercial substrate mix in T9, T10, T11, and T12 at the percentage of 80%, 60%, 40%, and 100% respectively. The 100% is the control treatment. We only included one type of commercial substrate to make all treatments comparable.
Point 7:L95 Delete the point
Response 7: changed
Point 8:L104: Is it 100 mg fertilizer per l substrate or per l water?
100 mg fertilizer per l water is a very low concentration which may have led to an undersupply of nutrients to the plants. Usually, the concentration of a fertilizer solution is ten times higher.
If it is 100 mg fertilizer per l water, what was the total amount of solution given per pot during cultivation?
Were the CS-based substrates fertilized in the same way as the other ones?
Response 8: We had a typo there. it should be weekly fertilization. Fertilizer concentration is per liter of water. We applied weekly fertilization with the rate of 240 mg/L solution (based on nitrogen) for 8 and 10 weeks for zinnia and snapdragon, respectively. Each fertilization was applied with around 400 mL solution per pot each time. Therefore, the total amounts of solution input throughout the experiment were 3.2 liters and 4 liters zinnia and snapdragon, respectively. We have incorporated this information into our manuscript as well (page 3, line 110-112).
Point 9: You should write mg L-1 instead of mg/L (also within the brackets).
Response 9: I have changed all unit styles to mg L-1
Point 10:L105- Was deionized water used or another one with what properties?
Response 10: we used tap water for irrigation. The pH were 6.64, EC were 157.3 mS m-1(page 3, line 112-113)
Point 11: L108: Have any other treatments been carried out regarding plant protection or growth control?
Response 11: No, we kept all plants in the greenhouse, they all maintained in the same condition.
Point 12: L110- I recommend deleting "Figure 1" in line 110 and inserting it in line 111: The twelve treatments (Figure 1) were T1 .......
Response 12: I have added after the sentence “The twelve treatments (Figure 1) were T1 .......” (Page 3, Line 122)
Point 13:L120- Write" mS m-1" instead of "mS/m", the same applies to the caption of Figure 1.
Response 13: I have rewritten those units throughout the particle
Point 14: L124 should read: ....with different ratio in Biochar (BC), Hydrafiber (HF), peat moss (P) ...
Response 14: I have rewritten those words (page 3, Line 133-134)
Point 15: L134- "Table 3" should be deleted.
Response 15: I deleted Table 3, it should be table 2 instead. (page 4, line 142)
Point 16:L146- It must read "plant" instead of "plan".
Response 16: I have rewritten the word “plant”. (page 4, Line 154)
Point 17: L161- Information on the statistical analysis of physical and chemical properties is missing.
Response 17: I have added the statistical analysis method (page 4, L164)
Point 18: L169: It is Table 2..
Response 18: I have changed it
Point 19: L169-T4 is 20BC:40HF:40P.
Response 19: changed
Point 20: L170-It should read: .....higher than those of the control.
Response 20: changed
Point 21: L170-T5 is 40BC:40HF:20P
Response 21: changed
Point 22: L172-Delete the reference to Figure 2a and b, it is included in the reference in line 173.
Response 22: changed
Point 23: L175-Delete "mm" behind 0.5.
Why is the fraction >2mm not further splitted up (see Material and Methods)?
Response 23: I used 6 sieves of 8.0, 4.0, 2.0, 1.0, 0.50, and 0.25 mm to measured particle sizes. Particle sizes that are larger than 2mm are considered coarse. Therefore, I integrated the percentage of particle sizes that are larger than 2mm together.
Point 24: L 176-Which test was used?
Response 24: I have rewritten the sentence as “Z means within a column followed by the same letter were not significant differences according to Tukey–Kramer’s honestly test at P ≤ 0.05 test”(Page 5, line 185)
Point 25: L176- It must read: ...were not significantly different ...
Response 25: changed
Point 26: L178- It must read "capacity".
Response 26: changed
Point 27: Table2: The letter "b" cannot be correct. Does it have to be "d"?
Response 27: I have deleted the column ‘WHC’ since I realized that CC and WHC measure the same thing.
Point 28: Table2: write "g cm-3" and "mS m-1"
Response 28: changed
Point 29: L195-I would delete the word "at".
Response 29: changed
Point 30: L195- T6 has the same pH as T11.
Response 30: I have rewritten the sentence “with T6 and T11 being the highest” (Page 5, Line 195-196)
Point 31: L198: Suggested rewording:
Moreover, pH of T6 (...), T8 (...) and T10 (...) were ... and were significantly higher than the pH of the control ...
Response 31: I have rewritten the sentence “pH of T6 (60BC:40HF), T8 (40BC:60HF), and T10 (40BC:60CS) were 6.67, 6.64, and 6.29 respectively, and were significantly higher than the control (T12, 5.86) at 10 WAT” (Page 5, Line 198-200)
Point 32: I wonder why the pH at WAT0 is different for zinnia and snapdragons since they were transplanted into the same substrates. The same question arises for the EC at WAT0 in Figure 4.
Response 32:I looked back to our pH and EC data at 0 week after transplanting. Here is the value of pH, EC and standard deviation for zinnia and snapdragon. I would consider these differences as method deviation.
|
pH 0 WAT zinnia |
SD |
pH 0WAT snapdragon |
SD |
|
|
T1 |
5.483 |
0.130 |
5.617 |
0.204 |
|
T2 |
6.383 |
0.147 |
6.833 |
0.082 |
|
T3 |
6.800 |
0.089 |
7.483 |
0.098 |
|
T4 |
5.717 |
0.117 |
6.050 |
0.105 |
|
T5 |
6.350 |
0.152 |
7.000 |
0.063 |
|
T6 |
6.800 |
0.210 |
8.333 |
0.225 |
|
T7 |
6.017 |
0.117 |
6.700 |
0.089 |
|
T8 |
6.517 |
0.041 |
7.883 |
0.117 |
|
T9 |
6.083 |
0.075 |
6.550 |
0.122 |
|
T10 |
6.750 |
0.217 |
7.233 |
0.163 |
|
T11 |
6.933 |
0.082 |
7.517 |
0.117 |
|
T12 |
5.717 |
0.098 |
5.733 |
0.103 |
|
EC WAT0 zinnia |
SD |
EC WAT0 snapdragon |
SD |
|
|
T1 |
133.333 |
51.640 |
150.000 |
83.666 |
|
T2 |
183.333 |
40.825 |
183.333 |
40.825 |
|
T3 |
200.000 |
0.000 |
200.000 |
0.000 |
|
T4 |
116.667 |
40.825 |
100.000 |
0.000 |
|
T5 |
200.000 |
0.000 |
166.667 |
51.640 |
|
T6 |
366.667 |
121.106 |
266.667 |
51.640 |
|
T7 |
100.000 |
0.000 |
100.000 |
0.000 |
|
T8 |
200.000 |
0.000 |
233.333 |
51.640 |
|
T9 |
2416.667 |
256.255 |
1500.000 |
334.664 |
|
T10 |
1666.667 |
350.238 |
1216.667 |
278.687 |
|
T11 |
1300.000 |
141.421 |
783.333 |
147.196 |
|
T12 |
2475.000 |
1025.671 |
2150.000 |
969.020 |
Point 33: L222- Suggested rewording:
Substrates EC (...) in leachates of zinnia (a) and snapdragonn (b) containers at ...
Response 33: I have rewritten the sentence “Figure 4. Substrates EC (mean ± standard error) ) in leachates of containers zinnia (a) and snapdragon (b)” (Page 7, Line 222)
Point 34: L229-It should read:
... than those in the control ...
Response 34: I have rewritten the sentence “For zinnia plants, all the SPAD values were similar to or significantly lower than those in the control at 2, 4, 6, and 8 WAT” (Page 7, Line 229)
Point 35: L232- It should read:
... than those in the control ...
Response 35: I have rewritten the sentence “for snapdragon plants, all the SPAD values were similar to or significantly lower than those in the control at 4, 6, 8, and 10 WAT” (Page7, Line 232-233)
Point 36:L244- write "(Figure 6, 7)"
Response 36: changed (Page 7, Line 244)
Point 37: L246- add "at WAT10"
Response 37: changed (Page 7, Line 246)
Point 38: L248- It should read:
... they had ....
Response 38: changed (Page 7, Line 248)
Point 39: Figure 6: Were there significant differences only for snapdragons at WAT10? If this is so, it should be stated in the figure caption.
Response 39: I have added the sentence in the caption of figure 6 “At 10 WAT, only snapdragon was significantly different among each treatment.” (page 8, line 239-240)
Point 40: Figure 7: The variant names are difficult to read. The text should be slightly larger.
Response 40: changed. I have enlarged the size of text.
Point 41: L297- Spelling mistake: it must be "substrates'"
Response 41: changed
Point 42: L298- I can't understand it based on Table 1.
Response 42: I have revised my explanation for that paragraph. (page 11, Line 296-304)
Point 43: L304-305-TP?
Response 43: Yes, it should be TP. I have rewritten it. (Page11, L311-L312)
Point 44: L315-T3 also has 60% BC.
Response 44: I have rewritten the sentence “T3(60BC:20HF:20P), T6 (60BC:40HF) and T11 (60BC:40CS) had the highest percentage of BC (60%), resulting in the highest initial pH at 6.8, 6.8, 6.93” (Page 11, L320).
Point 45: L317-T7 and T9 also have 20% BC.
Response 45: I have rewritten the sentence “Furthermore, the inherent acidity of HF, P, and CS with a pH range …followed by T4(20BC:40HF:40P) at 5.72.” (Page 12, L322-326)
Point 46: L325- already at 4 WAT
Response 46: I have rewritten the sentence “All the treatments developed into the optimal pH range at 4 WAT. For snapdragon plants” (Page 12, Line 329-330)
Point 47: L331-341: This paragraph is hardly to understand.
Response: I have revised the paragraph.(Page 12, Line 337-345)
L334- mS m-1
Response 47: I have changed all units of mS/m to mS m-1
Point 48: L345- Delete these sentences since it is the same statement as in the first sentence.
Response 48: changed
Point 49: L343-362-Duplicate statements must be removed.
Response: I have revised the paragraph.(Page 12, Line 347-362)
L364- A part of the text is missing here.
Response 49: I have rewritten the sentence “The study found the reduction in the fresh weight of geranium (Interspecific geraniums) with an increased proportion of pine wood fiber” ( Page 12, Line 364-365)
Point 50: What might be possible reasons for the poor performance of the snapdragon in substrates T1 and T6?
Response 50: This may be due to species variation. I looked back at the data at the last week of transplanting. pH for T1 and T6 of snapdragon was on average (5.33 0.45), and 6.7 0.07 respectively, and of zinnia was 5.3 0.12, and 6.670.16 respectively. Zinnia can tolerate more acidic substrate conditions. Whereas, snapdragon prefers neutral condition. Therefore, zinnia grows much better than snapdragon plants. The reason why T1 and T6 performed the worst of snapdragon, given pH of all treatments is slightly acidic (pH value for T1 to T12 are 5.33, 6.34, 6.29,5.82, 6.04, 6.7, 6.28, 6.51,6.03, 6.46, 6.2, 6.05 respectively). The substrate types may be the reason.
Point 51: L378: Suggested rewording:
... and peat moss substrate mixes for zinnia and snapdragon plants.
Response 51: I have rewritten the sentence “…and peat moss substrate mixes for zinnia and snapdragon plant.” (Page 13, Line 378).
Point 52: L381: I don't agree with the statement that there are no differences in WHC (see Table 2).
Response 52: Yes, I have reworded it. (Page 13, line 382)
Point 53: Conclusion- Are the other HF-containing substrates, except T1 and T6 in the snapdragons; really worse than T3, T4, and T5?
Response 53: I agree that T1 and T6 can be also considered using as HF-containing substrates for growing zinnia plants. I have revised my conclusion “Among all HF-containing substrates, T1(20BC:20HF:60P), T3 (60BC:20HF:20P), T4 (20BC:40HF:40P), and T5 (40BC:40HF:20P), T6(60BC:40HF) generally had better performance in substrate properties, plant growth, biomass, and flower numbers of zinnia and snapdragon plants (with the exception of T1 and T6) ,” (Page 12, line 380-383)
Point54: References: Several references (No. 2, 12, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31 and 43) are not mentioned in the manuscript. They should be incorporated into the manuscript or removed from the list of literature. Furthermore, reference number 16 is identical to number 13.
It should be checked for all references whether they are listed in the correct place in the manuscript.
Response 54: I have checked all references and made sure they are all mentioned.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
thank you very much for the detailed revision of the manuscript. However, there are still a few small points that should be checked before publication.
Line 111: An EC of 157.3 mS m-1 for tap water is very high to me. Is this value really correct?
Table 2: Obviously only the pH and EC for the zinnia at WAT0 are listed. I wonder why the sometimes different values for the snapdragons are not included. However, an inclusion would have an impact on the third paragraph of the discussion. In this context, a note on the sometimes different values for zinnia and snapdragons at WAT0: I don't believe that the differences are method deviations. Possibly, several packaging units may have been used which were not mixed before the experiment?
Line 238: It is Figure 4 instead of Figure 5.4
Line 239-240: The sentence "At 10 WAT, only snapdragon ..." does not belong to this figure.
Caption of Figure 5: I would add "There are no significant differences among treatments for zinnia". Otherwise you might think that alphabet letters above the zinnia columns have been forgotten.
Figure 7b: The letters above the columns of T3 and T8 as well as T10 and T11 appear to be swapped (the column with "cd" should be higher than the column with "cde" and the column with "abc" should be higher than the column with "bc").
Line 274: Delete the word "significantly" since T9 and T11 do not differ significantly from the control (they have "a" as their common letter).
Line 276: Delete the word "significantly" since there is no significant difference between T9 and T12 (they have "a" as their common letter).
Line 291: change the abbreviation "TP" into total porosity
Line 310: According to response 43, it is not air space but total porosity.
I wish you much success in your future work.
Author Response
Point 1: Line 111: An EC of 157.3 mS m-1 for tap water is very high to me. Is this value really correct?
Response 1: I measure tap water again, EC and pH was 20.0 mS/m and 6.56 respectively. I have updated the information in the article (Line 111-112).
Point 2: Table 2: Obviously only the pH and EC for the zinnia at WAT0 are listed. I wonder why the sometimes different values for the snapdragons are not included. However, an inclusion would have an impact on the third paragraph of the discussion. In this context, a note on the sometimes different values for zinnia and snapdragons at WAT0: I don't believe that the differences are method deviations. Possibly, several packaging units may have been used which were not mixed before the experiment?
Response 2: I double checked our measuring procedure. We first used Blue lab combo meter which was less precise (only one significant figure after the decimal point) to measure a few of substrates. Then, wire connecting the probes to the meter broke. We ended up measuring the rest of pH and EC with HI 98129, Hanna Instruments. And kept it consistent for the rest of experiment period. I have deleted the data at 0 WAT.
Point 3: Line 238: It is Figure 4 instead of Figure 5.4
Response 3: changed (Line 238)
Point 4: Line 239-240: The sentence "At 10 WAT, only snapdragon ..." does not belong to this figure.
Response 4: deleted (Line 239)
Point 5: Caption of Figure 5: I would add "There are no significant differences among treatments for zinnia". Otherwise you might think that alphabet letters above the zinnia columns have been forgotten.
Response 5: added (Caption Figure 5)
Point 6: Figure 7b: The letters above the columns of T3 and T8 as well as T10 and T11 appear to be swapped (the column with "cd" should be higher than the column with "cde" and the column with "abc" should be higher than the column with "bc").
Response 6: I double checked the code again, and changed the letters accordingly (Figure 7b).
Point 7: Line 274: Delete the word "significantly" since T9 and T11 do not differ significantly from the control (they have "a" as their common letter).
Response 7: I have changed the sentence (Line 274-275).
Point 8: Line 276: Delete the word "significantly" since there is no significant difference between T9 and T12 (they have "a" as their common letter).
Response 8: changed (Line 276)
Point 9: Line 291: change the abbreviation "TP" into total porosity
Response 9: changed (line 291)
Point 10: Line 310: According to response 43, it is not air space but total porosity.
Response 10: changed (Line 310)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
