A Review of Chemical Weed Control Practices in Christmas Tree Production in the United States
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript titled “A Review of Chemical Weed Control Practices in Christmas Tree Production” reviews industry, extension and to a lesser extent peer reviewed literature on chemical controls for Christmas tree production in the US. It is not clear who the review is for – the review does not go into enough depth on many concepts nor analysis but at the same time goes into too much detail on a few specific applications where the reader would be better off going to the references an/or extension agent.
The writing was appropriate and easy to read throughout. However, many of the topic sentences that start paragraphs are repetitive and too broad as to introduce the topic of the paragraph (e.g., Ln 92, 123). Citations should be extended to sentences that present new information/idea as the citation in the preceding sentence or at the end of a paragraph can’t be assumed to extend to all the sentences near it (e.g., Lns 116-117, 120-121, 124-129, 145-150 and throughout). References should focus on primary references and peer-reviewed articles as much as possible. There are references that are not strong enough for this manuscript and should be removed or backed-up by other primary literature (blog posts and university lectures). Also, some references do not have enough information to find the document. Many references need authors or at least the organization that printed the document and working links. Define all abbreviations (e.g., PPO and VLCFA)
Specific comments:
Ln 7: Capitalize State
Ln 15: Define stages. Consider something like “In initial stages of the tree crop,…”
Ln 16: Correct to present tense “succumb”
Ln 22-24: Revise to “Repeated application…” and remove “repeatedly,”
Ln 28: Correct to “affect”
Ln 37: Clarify what “retained well” means
Ln 48-50: Connect concepts. Sentence in Ln 48-49 states that non-crop vegetation should not be removed but the next sentence implies it should be removed. Clarify non-crop – does this include weeds?
Lns 57-82: Paragraph hits on multiple different subjects that should either be separate paragraphs or connected in a clear progression. For example, the list of species can be a separate paragraph which can also include the physical impact of these weeds on trees. The drought and shade impacts could be its own paragraph.
Ln 81: Correct to “needles”
Ln 90-96: Need citations.
Ln 107-108: Revise or remove because it is a repeat from Lns 64-65
Ln 108: Consider making a new paragraph because the topic has shifted.
Ln 109-110: I’m not sure what this means. Please revise.
Ln 139-140: Revise “following paragraphs” to “this section”
Ln 156: Are these other methods mechanical or chemical, or both?
Lns 157-172: This paragraph needs re-arranged. It covers timing of application but also lists the herbicides that are effective against different types of weeds. Clarify broadleaf – are these only eudicots? And then grasses, does that mean all monocots? What about Pteridophytes?
Ln 248: Revise to “trees are sensitive”
Ln 249-251: Sentence needs revised for clarity.
Ln 263-264: Why?
Ln 465-466: Revise sentence because “extremely required” is awkward phrasing. Also correct “weeds” to “weed”.
Ln 466-477: Why these very specific suggestions? Are there other papers or fields that use these techniques in weed management? Please cite or give context to these specific suggestions.
Table 1: What is the herbicide order logic? If mode of action is a major point that is being made, then
Tables 2-3: Format the alignment of text to be consistent with Table 1 to make them easier to read (centering text vertically within cells).
References:
Make sure that the scientific names are italicized (e.g., Ln 505)
#21 – Needs more information to find this reference. Also, a blog is not a great source. The link does not work.
#22 – Not an appropriate reference. Remove.
#23 – Needs more information (author, publisher) so readers can find this document. The link does not work.
#34 – This reference needs to be more specific as it is not able to be found.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript reviews chemical weed control practices in Christmas tree production in US. Non-chemical weed control strategies that can be applied to Christmas tree production were discussed in a previous review paper. Due to the specific regulatory environment in US, herbicides described here apply to Christmas tree production in US.
Though this review is a very good compilation of herbicides in Christmas tree production in US, the paper is generally descriptive. A discussion section on integration of non-chemical and chemical weed control is necessary for a better undertanding and practice of weed control: how application of herbicides (depending on mode of action, application time and herbicide resistance) can interact with some of the non-chemical weed control practices.
Please address also the following points:
1.Crosscheck information contained in tables and text to avoid repetition.
2. The same information is given in different paragraphs. For instance:
Lines 87-88: “Therefore, development of an integrated and effective strategy to control weed in 87 Christmas tree production is vital” and L. 101 “Adequate weed control is essential for successful Christmas tree production”.
L. 61-73 repeated information about the some issues than in L. 101-114: for instance, “Weed control during the first three years” “Christmas trees grown in Sandy soils and limited available moisture”.
3. Delete the short section 3 “Non-Chemical Weed Control”. Some of this information is already available in “Introduction” L. 50-54, complete it here with section 3.
4. Tables 1, 2 and 3, columnn “Application timing”: delete the word “apply” in this column for every herbicide. Break the information of this column in two columns, one with the application timing and a new one containing other information related to injuries, safety, herbicide resistance, etc.
5. L. 149-159: “Preemergence herbicides” used many times. Please improve the style.
6. First paragraph in section 2 is very long. I recommend to break it and make a second paragraph from line 73 (Weeds can even shaed…)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is improved in organization, content, and clarity. I feel that the manuscript could have a stronger justification – in the response to reviewer letter, the authors state that information on this subject is scattered among “extension factsheet or bulletins or newsletter, or blogs or online websites” and that the topic needed a literature review to bring these together. I feel that a sentence that describes this sort of rationale could be helpful in the introduction and/or Conclusion.
Ln 569: Revise to Douglas-fir and make sure there is a space after true firs.
Tables still need formatting due to rows not lining up. Table 4 is really hard to know what row aligns with another. But I assume publisher will do this.
Lns 679-680: This sentence may need some caveat. In the Conclusion, it states that more research in to mixing of herbicides with different mechanisms of action is needed. However, this sentence states that it is a method to reduce resistance. Consider putting a caveat on this sentence, or say that in other systems that this worked to reduce herbicide resistance.
Ln 749: check with journal style guide for citation.
Ln 755: “modes” or “mechanisms” – to be consistent throughout MS
Ln 760: Remove ,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
