Performance of Strawberry Varieties Developed for Perennial Matted-Row Production in Annual Plasticulture in a Cold Climate Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Performance of Strawberry Varieties Developed for Perennial Matted-Row Production in Annual Plasticulture in a Cold Climate Region
Review:
General Remarks:
This is an important publication for the whole northeastern US and parts of Canada. Besides just a few small remarks, mostly for better readability and understanding of the system, I only have two larger issues that I think need to be addressed before publication. First, it is not clear in which years the trials were conducted, which causes quite some confusion while reading the manuscript. And second, I recommend to add two tables, one which gives an overview of the trials that were done, and one that shows the means, SEMs and statistical differences between total yields and average berry weights per trial.
However, those are minor edits and I’m happy to recommend this manuscript for publication after addressing those issues.
Abstract:
12-13. It would be good to mention in which years the trails were conducted.
Introduction:
38-41. Could be two sentences for better readability. A citation for the weed management/production comparison (production guide??) would be good.
42-45. In warmer areas, plasticulture systems are also predominately used for direct-to-consumer marketing (e.g. with Chandler, which has not good wholesale qualities).
- For better readability: Please end the sentence after the citation of Poling 2012 and start the new sentence with “Relatively…”
81-83: This sentence reads as if two strawberry trials were conducted parallel over the period of three years. But that is not the case (at least I think it isn’t). Please clarify what was done and add the years in which the trials were conducted.
Material and Methods:
As a suggestion, a small table or graph that visualizes the planting cycles of the two trials (planting dates, renovation dates, winter covers, harvest windows), and that maybe also lists the cultivars in the first and the second trial would be very helpful and could be used as a guidance while reading through the manuscript. Especially to those who are not familiar with the Northern US strawberry cycle.
- It is not clear what ‘trial 1’ and ‘trial 2’ is. I suspect it refers to ‘first trial’ and ‘second trial’ from Ln 113-114, but I’m not clear on it. Suggest to label them as well ‘trial 1’ and ‘trial 2’ through the manuscript, since the tables refer to it. They also could be labeled ‘trial [year1]’ and ‘trial [year2]’.
120-122 and 165-168. I suggest to either move the statistics/analysis description at the end of M&M (preferred), or to move the detailed description of harvest methods up to explain how data were taken before describing the analysis.
165ff. Please add a sentence that fruit was graded (marketable vs. non-marketable).
169ff. A table as suggested above would be very helpful in particular in the following paragraph to understand better what was done in the second trial.
181ff. If I understand this correctly, then yield was calculated based on berry counts and only included, if the mean fruit weight per replicate of one harvest was >= 8g. Correct? Please rephrase this chapter to make it more clear.
Results and Discussion
I think the main issue is that it is not 100% clear in which years the trials were conducted. The manuscript could read as if they were conducted parallel to each other. Especially Ln 81-83 can be misleading, and my mind was for a while asking the question: ‘Why where they done parallel to each other at the same location?’ It becomes clearer in the discussion, but it’s still unclear in which years the trials were conducted. If years would be added to the dates throughout the manuscript that would help a lot.
The second issue is that there is no table/graph that visualizes the results of the ANOVA and post-hoc tests. I recommend to add a table that shows total yields, average berry size, Variance (or SEM) and statistical parameters.
- Please add the year (May 28 of which year??)
234-235. Very well said. That is exactly right.
- Please explain in M&M how you took total yield and marketable yield in trial 1 and trial 2.
247-248. replace ‘runner tip plugs’ with ‘plug plants’
280-281. The citation link is not working anymore. Use this instead: http://cesantabarbara.ucanr.edu/files/228579.pdf. 2 and 3 row beds are still quite common in California as well.
293-295. Larger beds would require more than one row of drip tape most likely, and therefore precise bed laying, which might be a challenge for small growers not just due to equipment, but also experience.
Tables and Graphs
Table 1: Please add years to the trials.
Table 2: See above
All Figures: Please indicate the year on the dates
448: ‘March 16’
Figure 3: please add to figure description that this belongs to trail 1. Please add years to dates. Any reason why maximum fruit weight is shown and not average fruit weight per harvest date?
Figure 6: Please add years to dates. Any reason why maximum fruit weight is shown and not average fruit weight per harvest date?
Personally I think the graphs could be a bit more presentable, but that’s a cosmetic problem.
Author Response
General remarks
Trial years have been added to the manuscript.
SEM values added to Table 2 for total yield and mean fruit weight data.
Table 3 added with parameters of the ANOVA for total yield, marketable yield, mean fruit weight and year over year interactions.
Introduction:
An additional reference for pest management practices was added to the literature cited.
Additional wordage regarding plasticulture in warm climates for local markets was added.
Suggested edits to run on sentence was made to make 2 sentences that read better.
An additional figure was added to clarify the timeline for each trial was added- now Figure 1.
Materials and methods:
As stated above, an additional figure (figure 1) was added to clarify operations.
Trials were labeled as Trial 1 and Trial 2 throughout the manuscript for clarity.
Statistical analysis was combined with data collection and moved to the end of the M&M section as suggested.
A statement on grading fruit was added to the text.
Marketable yield calculation was clarified in the text.
Results and Discussion
Year is added.
Table 3 was added with ANOVA parameters and results. Berry sizes, yield with SEM are listed in table 2.
Yield measurements were clarified in the M&M
Changed wording to plug plant.
Updated citation as suggested
Added verbiage regarding precision bed making and irrigation requirements.
Tables and graphs.
Added years.
Corrected grammar.
Labeled each figure more specifically for each trial.
Verbiage is added to text in discussion regarding tracking maximum weight vs. mean fruit weight.
Graphs are updated to make them easier to read.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well-justified and well-written, with valuable initial findings for the novel application of the plasticulture management system.
Some General Comments:
There is a tendency to place in-text citations in middle of clauses/phrases. Along with the in-text URL placement, this can be rather disruptive as a reader. I would suggest moving to end of clauses/sentences, and keep URLs in the works cited section.
Instead of referring to trails as "Trial 1" and "Trail 2", it may be useful to refer to them more descriptively based on methodology. For instance, "Rye Cover" vs. "Sorghum Cover" or "Rested Bed" vs. "Unrested Bed", or anything that may indicate the differences. Alternatively, a table or box describing the methodological differences, including varieties planted, would be a useful addition to the tables/figures.
All table/figure captions could be slightly improved by indicating briefly the differences between trial 1 and trial 2. Otherwise, it isn't clear why they are evaluated separately.
Where any transformations attempted on the % Marketable data? Since % is truncated, an arcsin or logit may lead you to a significant result.
I wonder if Table 2 would be better presented as a figure (bar plot), in order to more easily visualize differences among varieties for each parameter.
If available, including profitability or economic viability data would greatly elevate this paper, based on estimated material and labor costs of the plasticulture related to observed yield. However, the manuscript is already justified and valuable as-written so I wouldn't deem this a necessary inclusion.
Line Item Comments:
[59] an relatively (spelling error?)
[98] The years of cultivation are not specified
[106] It would be useful to include the irrigation schedule (amount and timing of water)
[108] The beds to rested (grammar error?)
[119] Briefly describe the procedures of the ANOVA. Given your experimental structure, it would be necessary to include plot as a random effect, and it isn't clear by the description whether this was done. Further, Duncan's MRT can elevate risk of Type II error, so I'm curious as to what led to this implementation. It probably isn't a big deal, but your effect sizes of average berry weight are seemingly small so I'm wondering if a Tukey HSD or SNK would be more robust for your data and lead to more significant results.
[119] I would move your statistical analysis description to the end of the methods, so this section flows more linearly.
[237] Necessary to identify F-values, degrees of freedom, and p-values when reporting significant ANOVA results.
[255] Identify Duncan's MRT as the test in the parenthetical alongside p-value
[Fig. 1-6] I would include tick marks for every date on the x-axis, and attempt to standardize the range among figures if possible
Author Response
General comments:
Citations moved to end of sentences throughout as needed for clarity of reading.
Stayed with Trial 1 and Trial 2 as suggested by Reviewer #1 and changed labeling throughout to reflect this for clarity. Added Figure 1 to show timeline of operations for each trial for clarity.
Addressed clarity through added figure and additional descriptive verbiage in the M&M.
No data transformation was done. Statistics were completed on the actual yield data and presented as percentage for comparisons sake. Statistical analysis results are presented in new table (table 3) for added reference.
Table 2 was left as a table with added SEM for values. Author feels the tabular format better allows for comparisons of parameters of yield, marketable yield and fruit size across varieties and years. Graphical format would showcase each parameter separately but would be more difficult to make comparisons. It would also require multiple graphs which could make the manuscript unwieldy.
The author agrees that economic data would be useful information for readers. However, the design of the trials was for comparing variety performance and is not suitable for investigating differences in production systems.
Line Items:
Line 59: corrected spelling
Line 98: trial years added throughout.
Line 106: irrigation schedule added
Line 108: grammar corrected
Line 119: Table 3 lists ANOVA parameters. The author feels the Duncan’s MRT is most appropriate for yield data in strawberry. The high level of environmental error that is inherent in field trials makes a more conservative approach to statistical analysis appropriate, thus Type II error (false negatives) is a better outcome. The relevant data is relative categorizing of varieties by potential yield and fruit weight. The Duncan’s MRT does this well.
Line 119: Statistical analysis has been moved to the end of the M&M and combined with data collection information.
Line 237: Table 3 is added with additional ANOVA parameters
Line 255: Duncan’s MRT is identified in new Table.
Figures: Added tick marks to each figure and worked to better standardize the graphs
