Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Nursery Traits in Japanese Plums on Five Different Rootstocks
Previous Article in Journal
Identification of Vitis vinifera L. Local Cultivars Recovered in Andalusia (Spain) by Using Microsatellite Markers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 9
Issue 3
10.3390/horticulturae9030317
Review Report
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effect of Weed Competition on Growth of Container Grown Ornamentals Plants in Four Different Container Sizes

Horticulturae 2023, 9(3), 317; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030317
by Yuvraj Khamare 1, Stephen C. Marble 1,*, Brian J. Pearson 1, Jianjun Chen 1 and Pratap Devkota 2
Reviewer 1:
Jerzy Grabiński
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Horticulturae 2023, 9(3), 317; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030317
Submission received: 2 February 2023 / Revised: 15 February 2023 / Accepted: 21 February 2023 / Published: 28 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Floriculture, Nursery and Landscape, and Turf)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is written in a very understandable language. There is no unnecessary content in it, and the description of the methods used indicates that the authors knew exactly what they were doing and what they wanted to achieve.
  The only thing I would change about the work is the Conclusions chapter. I would suggest shortening it, because there are some sentences which clearly more suitable for the Discussion chapter (especially those with literature references)
Besides, I believe that in naming (especially weeds, it is better to use only Latin names, because common names can be different.
I would remove the verb "Observed" from the titles of Tables 2 and 3.



Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, please consider the following points when submitting your revised manuscript.

The introduction is very well written, covering all essential aspects and leading to the research aims. 

Weed species were appropriately chosen, based on their appearance and severance in the region. 

The M&M section is adequately presented.

The results section is good with the results written in the text, covered by tables and figures. 

I would like to point out one interesting thing in Table 4. Although no significant differences were determined for Japanese holly there is an evident increase in micronutrient levels with the weed-coverage increase. It flags the defensive mechanism in the investigated plants and deserves considerable attention. It should be elaborated. It takes me to the beginning, why did you choose those two ornamental species, are they predominant on the market, and highly profitable? Were they previously known as susceptible to weeds? 

The discussion section is very weak after such a huge amount of collected data, I suggest its broadening. Some parts of the conclusion section belong to the discussion. Amend the conclusion section with some numerical data that you observed. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for implementing required changes. 

Back to TopTop