Evaluating the Effect of Weed Placement on the Growth of Container-Grown Plants and Herbicide Application around Container Drain Holes and Root Pruning Containers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear,
Review - Evaluating the effect of weed placement on the growth of container-grown plants and herbicide application around container drain holes and root pruning containers.
General comments about the work - The work addresses a non-traditional topic regarding weed management. I believe that the competition of weeds with ornamental species in containers is a problem that impacts the development of economically significant species.
The work is very well organized and justified.
As comments for the authors, I would ask about the feasibility of using herbicides near containers. Given that these structures are generally in public areas with pedestrian traffic, could this negatively impact people's health?
As for the rest of the work, I believe it presents what was proposed. These are valuable results for use in a specific segment.
Regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction:
An objective statement at the conclusion of the introduction would help provide clarification for the reader about which gaps in the knowledge base are being addressed in this paper.
Materials and methods:
Rationale for the specific placement of weeds (beside the rootball, 2.5 cm away, and inside the drain hole) could be more clearly explained in terms of their practical relevance to real-world nursery conditions. Rationale for the selection of the specific herbicides, ornamental species and weed species used would also be helpful.
Line 218: The application method wording indicates "herbicides were applied over the top of all plants" which would have caused severe injury and/or death to the ornamental species tested. The language needs to clarify how and where these applications were made. Are they directed spray, spot treatment applications to the weed species in the containers using a shield, or only to the exterior of the containers?
Results:
Additional discussion on the variability observed in the experiments would be beneficial to validate the conclusions more robustly.
Table 2: The Root wt. numbers for golden dewdrop impacted by eclipta are missing the letters of significance. The shoot weight number (14.4) or the letter of significance (a) for Shoot wt. of Pentas with center placement of ageratum, appear to be incorrect. The use of the term "None" in the list of treatments should be addressed in the footnote, if this is referring to the "Control", to be consistent with the language used in the materials & methods and in discussion text.
Line 252-253: Growth reduction percentages for 12 WAP, have been inverted and should be 29% and 28% for eclipta placed at the center and side, respectively, according to the data being reported in Table 2.
Line 259-261: A reference to the appropriate data Figure or Table is missing.
Figure 3: Text on the graphs is difficult to read. The layout of graphs and treatment descriptions on the graphs should be more clearly denoted. Additional information should be included about the statistical method used and provide letters of separation on the graph. With the current size and resolution of the graphs it is not possible to accurately determine if the error bars overlap across treatments.
Line 285-288: These results do not align with the data and analysis presented in Table 2.
Line 285-286: The growth index of pentas was also significantly reduced by ageratum placed at the side.
Line 286-287: At 12 WAP, center and side were both significantly lower than the growth index of the control plant with no ageratum.
Line 290: This sentence is redundant with the previous sentence. I would suggest that it be removed.
Line 291-292: This needs to be verified after once your numbers or letter of significance have been corrected in Table 2.
Line 292-293: This statement should be removed unless the authors have justification for its relevance.
Line 294-296: I suggest the authors revisit the data and verify this statement is supported by the statistics.
Line 300-302: None of the statements are supported by the data presented in Table 3. The authors need to verify their data is correct.
Table 3: The use of the term "None" in the list of treatments should be addressed in the footnote, if this is referring to the "Control", to be consistent with the language used in the materials & methods and in discussion text.
Line 305-310: None of the statements are supported by the data or analysis in Table 3.
Line 312-315: The % dry weight reductions stated do not correspond to any of the data in table 3, even if data for center and drain hole biomass weights have been transposed.
Line 317: According to Figure 4A, it appears that the shoot wt of eclipta is much higher when grown with the crop than by itself.
Table 4: Text on the graphs is difficult to read. Additional information should be included about the statistical method used and provide letters of separation on the graph. With the current size and resolution of the graphs it is not possible to accurately determine if the error bars overlap across treatments.
Line 332-334: There is no indication in Figure 4 about the use of a "control" treatment, or which treatment would be considered as the control.
Line 355-357: This needs to be verified after all data has been confirmed to be correct.
Line 375: The stated evaluation times do not correspond to the materials and methods section which specifies ratings were only collected at 2, 4, 6, and 8 WAT.
Table 4: Footnote a indicates the Growth Index was calculated at 6 and 10 WAP. Only one set of data are being presented. The timing is in conflict with that reporting in the materials and methods which stated that Growth Index would be calculated at 8 WAT. Additionally, the table indicates the timeframe as WAP while the materials and methods says WAT. The use of the term "Check" in the list of herbicide treatments should be addressed in the footnote to be consistent with the language used in the materials & methods and in discussion text.
Line 385: Citation 31 is not relevant nor supportive of this statement and should be removed. It is likely that citation 32 should be used here in its place.
Line 392: Citation 32 is not relevant to this statement and should be removed.
Line 400-401: While the presence of weeds in the container cause reductions in crop growth, the data collected does not prove that weed species growing near the crop are more competitive than those farther away in the container. This statement should reflect the results of the study and some version of the following modifications are suggested, "The results of this study revealed that competition of eclipta and ageratum can significantly hinder the growth of container-grown golden dewdrop and Pentas plants". The following statements should be removed, "especially when the weed species is in close proximity to the root ball of the crop. Weed species growing near the root ball of ornamental plants exploited available resources from the crop".
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is highly recommended that the author carefully checks all of the data presented in this manuscript to ensure it is correct prior to final submission.
Line 181: "and root dry weight was collected at trail conclusion" correct spelling of trial.
Line 209: "and root dry weight was collected at trail conclusion" correct spelling of trial.
Table 2: Footnote c has a statement that refers to additional treatments that are not actully presented in this table. Therefore, the following statement should be removed, "Additional treatments consisted of either eclipta or ageratum growing at the above-mentioned placement in absence of ornamental plants".
Line 274-275: This statement appears to be referring to data in figure 3 graph A and therefore figure 3 needs to be referenced. Additionally, this statement is confusing and does not specify what comparisons are being made, "On the other hand, both the shoot and root dry weight of eclipta growing in the drain hole were significantly decreased, regardless of the presence or absence of golden dewdrop plants". Significantly decreased compared to what other treatment? If they are being compared to the dry weights of eclipta growing alone in the center or side of the pot, then the statement is only true for shoot dry wt of eclipta. This needs to be clarified and the statements corrected.
Line 279-281: This statement, according to the description of figure 3, is referring to graph B. However, it appears that the author has likely mislabeled their data again. The data and letters of separation for graph B appear to correspond to the results discussed for eclipta growing with golden dewdrop. The data, labeling and results all need to verified and corrected.
Figure 3: Graph A is missing error bars for the shoot dry weight bars. The figure description needs to include a description of the letters of separation. For example, "Bars with the same uppercase or lowercase letter are not significantly different according to…" and include the statistical method and alpha level used. The control treatment needs to be defined.
Figure 3 Graph C & D: It seems odd that the letters of separation indicate no significant difference between any of the treatments for biomass of ageratum, but the error bars for shoot wt data do not overlap on several of the treatments. It would appear that shoot biomass of ageratum increased when growing with the crop. An explanation in the result for why this might have occurred should be provided.
Line 308-309: I suggest the authors confirm this statement after addressing the comments for figure 3 graph C & D above.
Line 321: Shoot dry wt reduction, of pentas with ageratum in center, of 60% is not correct based on the corrected data provided in table 3.
Line 325: Shoot dry wt reduction, of pentas with eclipta in center, of 23% is not correct based on the corrected data provided in table 3.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
