Adoption of Water-Conserving Irrigation Practices among Row-Crop Growers in Mississippi, USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is a well-written manuscript. I enjoyed reading through it and commend the research of the authors. The necessity of the study has been clearly defined. The introduction is comprehensive without being verbose. Materials and methods are well articulated. Results are well presented. Discussion section has a minor shortcoming in that it does not compare the research findings of the authors with similar studies (of course, except for Nian et al.), if they exist. I would recommend the authors to address this. I would request the authors to address the minor changes that I have raised in my comments. Other than that, I do not see any other reason to stall this informative document from being published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Very fine piece of work!

I suggest to introduce in any suitable way information on metric units - it is relatively demanding for non-US-citizens (who are naturally not used to US standards) to read your paper. 

I suggest to provide information on conservation programmes (are there any?) already in the introduction - as well as some information on environmental problems and sustainabilty might be helpful to have an image of the whole. Naturally farmers are primarily interested in monetary aspects - but other "players" in society will have different focuses.

In line 71 I suggest to use "water deficit stress" instead of water stress (which might be a surplus as well).

In lines  189/190 Table 1 ist split into two lines - this generally should be avoided.

Part if discussion/conclusions might be a "what to do with the results". Is there any option to make use of your results in training, guidance or funding-programmes?

References are clear and not overloaded.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf