Reaction of Sweet Maize to the Use of Polyethylene Film and Polypropylene Non-Woven Fabric in the Initial Growth Phase

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments

Line 26. Please rearrange keywords in alphabetic order. I suggest deleting “sweet maize”, already presented in the title, with another word.

Line 34. Reference 1. Please delete this reference and insert one in English. Agronomy is an international journal and citations in the introduction should be in English.

Line 60. Please insert abbreviations: (shrunken-2) and (sugar enhancer).

Lines 64-68. The discussion about the cultivation of maize from seedlings is unnecessary and unfounded considering the framework described above. Please rewrite these sentences in a more reasonable way.

Lines 69. References 16 and 17. Please delete these references that appear outdate and not consider maize cultivation with a more appropriate and recent ones; see for example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842901831551X

Lines 76-78. I suggest the following style: “The aim of the study ...”. Please rewrite this sentence better explaining the hypothesis tested in the study and the expected results/new insight in the context of previous studies (agronomy field) for readers.

Line 81. Please insert the Country.

Line 82. “Chernozems soils”.

Line 83. Class III, not clear, please better explain.

Line 86. (sh2). Please delete the description. See the note in line 60 for abbreviations.

Line 89. 25.04? it is a date? Please insert all date in a more common form like 25 April.

Lines 116-117. “The obtained data were compared….” Please explain the ratio of this comparison considering that 12-14 year of measured data are missing (2000 to 2012) and the effect of climate change may have affected long term data, not valuable in this case. For me, if the datalogger works well, it's not necessarily made a comparison; authors can present mean data for temperature and precipitation presenting the location in the first lines of M&M.

Line 120. Look at the sign of degrees.

Line 122. Equation (1). This equation is well known and could be skipped. Furthermore,

Furthermore, it should be well explained why it is being calculated and how it can affect with the use of plastic films.

Please consider inserting in the manuscript simply as a text after a colon.

Lines 123-125. Please insert semi-colon at the end of the text.

Line 126. Please insert a point at the end of the text.

Line 129. Please add a reference for STATISTICA software.

Line 132-134. See the comment for lines 116-117. Your long-term data are affected by missing data, so your comment must be revised considering this issue. I suggest recovering the missing data (e.g. reanalysis database) and discuss considering the whole period. Without these, comments to past averages should be deleted.

Lines 134-137. Not clear, please better explain temperature evolution during the years 2012-2014.

Line 142. Table 1 not presented in the text.

Line 158. Figure 1. First, please note that Figure 1A has oblique dates, align with others. In addition, note that Figure 1A, B, and E have negative values. I think that the axis should start from zero. Descriptions for A-F should be added in the description. Finally, should be added the unit in the Y axes.

Line 188. Figure 5 is presented here but this appears only after paragraph 3.3. Please insert all tables and figures close to where they are presented, and in any case within the paragraph.

Line 219. Table.

Line 236. Study.

Line 312. Study.

Lines 327-329. Please delete these references and insert a more coherent comments for maize.

Line 337. Authors should better represent research results with critical review and comments of cited literature. Furthermore, authors should insert useful suggestions and recommendations for readers resulting for this research to increase both quality and quantity of sweet maize in cold climates, i.e. Poland. In addition, the authors need to set the limitations and drawbacks of the study (i.e. sustainability, in comparison with biodegradable films made from renewable resources) looking at the spreading use of these films.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for usefull proposal and suggestion.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 26. Please rearrange keywords in alphabetic order. I suggest deleting “sweet maize”, already presented in the title, with another word.

Authors Response:

Keywords arrangement was changed and arranged in alphabetic order

Line 34. Reference 1. Please delete this reference and insert one in English. Agronomy is an international journal and citations in the introduction should be in English.

Authors Response:

Changed title and given English title of paper

Line 60. Please insert abbreviations: (shrunken-2) and (sugar enhancer).

Authors Response:

Abbreviation of varieties type inserted

Lines 64-68. The discussion about the cultivation of maize from seedlings is unnecessary and unfounded considering the framework described above. Please rewrite these sentences in a more reasonable way.

Authors Response:

Deleted paragraph about cultivation method of maize from seedlings. Rewritten sentence.

Lines 69. References 16 and 17. Please delete these references that appear outdate and not consider maize cultivation with a more appropriate and recent ones; see for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842901831551X

Authors Response:

Changing. Deleted older references at position 16 and putting new published in 2019:

16.Zhang X.D, Yang L.C, Xue X.K, Kamran M, Ahmad I. Dong Z.Y, Liu T.N, Jia Z.K, Zhang PHan Q.F. 2019. Plastic film mulching stimulates soil wet-dry alternation and stomatal behavior to improve maize yield and resource use efficiency in a semi-arid region. Field Crops Res., 233, 101-113

Lines 76-78. I suggest the following style: “The aim of the study ...”. Please rewrite this sentence better explaining the hypothesis tested in the study and the expected results/new insight in the context of previous studies (agronomy field) for readers.

Authors Response:

That part of manuscript was rewriting. New version below.

The aim of the study presented in this manuscript was to determine the effect of cover made of various types of polyethylene film and polypropylene non-woven fabric used in the juvenile stage of sweet maize vegetation on its development and yielding. In the study tested the hypothesis: cover crops positively influenced on soil temperature and enhanced on maize growth and yielding. It was assumed that maize plant covering in the early vegetation period finally increase the marketable yield of cobs.

Line 81. Please insert the Country.

Authors Response:

Added

Line 82. “Chernozems soils”.

Authors Response:

Added

Line 83. Class III, not clear, please better explain.

Authors Response:

Better explained and at current version putting new proposal:

The experiment was conducted on chernozems soil with a calcic level (FAO-WRB Gleyic Calcic Chernozems soil) on medium clay, belonging to medium soil (class III) in the six-class of Polish fertilities soils systematics. The first one means the best soil, sixth the lowest fertile soil, and humus content 1.8%, pH 7.25 and salinity 103.1 μS-cm^-1.

Line 86. (sh2). Please delete the description. See the note in line 60 for abbreviations.

Authors Response:

Deleted

Line 89. 25.04? it is a date? Please insert all date in a more common form like 25 April.

Authors Response:

Date inserted on more common form

Lines 116-117. “The obtained data were compared….” Please explain the ratio of this comparison considering that 12-14 year of measured data are missing (2000 to 2012) and the effect of climate change may have affected long term data, not valuable in this case. For me, if the datalogger works well, it's not necessarily made a comparison; authors can present mean data for temperature and precipitation presenting the location in the first lines of M&M.

Authors Response:

Thank you to Reviewer for that remark. The period of meteorological data used for comparative analyzes was from the years 1971-2010 not 1971-2000. We presented incorrect data at previous version of manuscript. In the revised manuscript corrected data presented.

Line 120. Look at the sign of degrees.

Authors Response:

Changed

Line 122. Equation (1). This equation is well known and could be skipped. Furthermore,

Furthermore, it should be well explained why it is being calculated and how it can affect with the use of plastic films.

Please consider inserting in the manuscript simply as a text after a colon.

Authors Response:

Equation was deleted and added sentences better explained the effect of cover on GDD sum accumulation. New version of description presented below.

The number of days from sowing to harvesting maturity and the number of thermal units (T baseline = 10°C) from sowing to harvesting (based on soil temperature) and to harvesting maturity (based on ambient air temperature) were calculated as a Growing Degree Days (GDD). That calculation of thermal units estimates for prediction of the plant’s growth and development within growing season. The main assumption of GDD basic on a base temperature (T - base) which is specific for different crops and crops (f.ex. maize) development occurs if the temperature exceeds minimum. Cover crops like plastic films increase observed temperatures the same influenced on accumulation of GDD.

Lines 123-125. Please insert semi-colon at the end of the text.

Authors Response:

Equation was deleted as a Reviewer suggested and also legend was removed.

Line 126. Please insert a point at the end of the text.

Authors Response:

Reviewer suggested delete equation and also legend was removed.

Line 129. Please add a reference for STATISTICA software.

Authors Response:

References was added

Line 132-134. See the comment for lines 116-117. Your long-term data are affected by missing data, so your comment must be revised considering this issue. I suggest recovering the missing data (e.g. reanalysis database) and discuss considering the whole period. Without these, comments to past averages should be deleted.

Authors Response:

Rewrite that part and reorganize. Below new proposal

In all the years of the research, a higher air temperature was recorded during the maize vegetation period than the long-term average air temperature (Table 2). Much higher than average temperatures were observed during plant emergence (i.e. within weeks from maize sowing) in 2012 and 2014. In the subsequent years of the study, during the maize vegetation period, large precipitation water deficits were observed, ranging from 95.6 to 104.6 mm, in relation to the average long-term precipitation sums (Table 2). However, the most unfavourable distribution of precipitation between April and August occurred in 2013. The period of seed germination and plant emergence was very unfavourable in this respect. The long rain-free period, in March and April, and the accumulated high rainfall in the short period from 30 April to 9 May (79.6 mm) caused a delay in plant emergence. This was followed by flooding of the experiment site. In the 2nd and 3rd part of May, no precipitation was recorded.

Lines 134-137. Not clear, please better explain temperature evolution during the years 2012-2014.

Authors Response:

Rewrite that sentence and added data at figure 2 for better explanation of effective temperature (GDD) differences during sweet maize vegetation season.

Line 142. Table 1 not presented in the text.

Authors Response:

At revised version Table 1 presented in the text (Material and Methods part)

Line 158. Figure 1. First, please note that Figure 1A has oblique dates, align with others. In addition, note that Figure 1A, B, and E have negative values. I think that the axis should start from zero. Descriptions for A-F should be added in the description. Finally, should be added the unit in the Y axes.

Authors Response:

Thank you to Reviewer for that remarks. All errors and weakness were removed from figure. Response on another Reviewer proposal also changed number of figures (at new version give number 3 instead 1).

Line 188. Figure 5 is presented here but this appears only after paragraph 3.3. Please insert all tables and figures close to where they are presented, and in any case within the paragraph.

Authors Response:

Table 5 moved and inserted close to paragraph 3.3. Reviewer marked sentence was removed for new place.

Line 219. Table.

Authors Response:

Changed

Line 236. Study.

Authors Response:

Changed

Line 312. Study.

Authors Response:

Changed

Lines 327-329. Please delete these references and insert a more coherent comments for maize.

Authors Response:

Deleted

Line 337. Authors should better represent research results with critical review and comments of cited literature. Furthermore, authors should insert useful suggestions and recommendations for readers resulting for this research to increase both quality and quantity of sweet maize in cold climates, i.e. Poland. In addition, the authors need to set the limitations and drawbacks of the study (i.e. sustainability, in comparison with biodegradable films made from renewable resources) looking at the spreading use of these films.

Authors Response:

Suggestion and recommendation presented at conclusion of manuscript. Unfortunately, limited number of maize publications makes it difficulties to conduct a broad discussion. In that case some critical review base on publication prepared for others crops, not maize. Especially articles about effect of cover on maize cobs quality is limited. We added sentence that future research is necessary for better development of maize cultivation for very early harvest.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript of Adamczewska-Sowińska and Sowiński addresses the study of two sweet maize varieties using polyethylene options as a viable hypothesis for increasing growth of crops. The manuscript is of interest to Agronomy and is overall well done and interesting results over a 3-year field experiments. A very high demanding work has been done and presented in the manuscript. Major issues arise on the English grammar and phrasing that needs improvements, so the audience could more comprehensibly read the paper.

Comments are outlined below and in attachment:

Introduction section, L76- Please specify in more detail the objectives approached in the study.

Material and Methods:

It seems that is lacking the information of why using the varieties of maize Signet F1 (very early) and Rustler F1 (medium early) to test which hypothesis.

It would be advised to have a scheme explaining the experiment performed, thus supporting text description in the Material and Methods section.

L127- have you test the normality of the data used for statistical analysis? Also statistics methods should be more detailed.

Results:

Environmental conditions section- it would be more appropriate to see the data on temperature and relative humidity on the same table as in Table 1. Also, in table 1 should be included an explanatory information on the dates presented, namely 18.04 and 25.04.

Figure 1- Please include x and y axis legend. Have you done any statistical analysis to see significant differences between the years of field experiment?

On table 4- no statistical treatments were done? Please include such information, to access differences between varieties and treatments.

From the results on tables 5 no significant differences were obtained from the cultivar and sowing period. Could you please explain this considering that the two varieties have different harvesting times F1(very early) and Rustler F1 (medium early) ?

On table 7, it would be more easy to depict statistical differences if the authors could put lettering information used in statistics, rather than, including only the below table with the results per se.

Discussion- a clear paragraph highlighting major results obtained from your study with conclusions is missing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Thank you Reviewer for usefull comments and proposal.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript of Adamczewska-Sowińska and Sowiński addresses the study of two sweet maize varieties using polyethylene options as a viable hypothesis for increasing growth of crops. The manuscript is of interest to Agronomy and is overall well done and interesting results over a 3-year field experiments. A very high demanding work has been done and presented in the manuscript. Major issues arise on the English grammar and phrasing that needs improvements, so the audience could more comprehensibly read the paper.

Authors Response:

Thank you Reviewer, for comments and suggestion proposal. We informed, that text before submission to Agronomy Journal was checked by native speaker Professional Member of the Society for Editors and Proofreaders in London. Before resubmission we sent to him again for text improving.

Comments are outlined below and in attachment:

Introduction section, L76- Please specify in more detail the objectives approached in the study.

Authors Response:

That part of manuscript was rewriting. Both Reviewers suggested changes at that paragraph. New version below:

The aim of the study presented in this manuscript was to determine the effect of cover made of various types of polyethylene film and polypropylene non-woven fabric used in the juvenile stage of sweet maize vegetation on its development and yielding. In the study tested the hypothesis: cover crops positively influenced on soil temperature and enhanced on maize growth and yielding. It was assumed that maize plant covering in the early vegetation period finally increase the marketable yield of cobs. It was suppose that the type of variety (very early and medium early) react differently to the applied experiment treatments (sowing term and cover type)

Material and Methods:

Authors Response:

It seems that is lacking the information of why using the varieties of maize Signet F1 (very early) and Rustler F1 (medium early) to test which hypothesis.

Added

Supposing that the type of sweet maize variety (very early and medium early) react differently to the applied experiment treatments (sowing term and cover type).

It would be advised to have a scheme explaining the experiment performed, thus supporting text description in the Material and Methods section.

Authors Response:

Table 1 was moved to Material and methods. At the same chapter added scheme of field experiment.

L127- have you test the normality of the data used for statistical analysis? Also statistics methods should be more detailed.

Authors Response:

No, we are not tested normality of data used for statistical analysis. For statistical analysis we used big samples size (data from 3 years, 2 varieties, 2 term of maize sowing, 5 type of cover and 3 repetition). Database for statistical analysis was n=180. Base on Pallant publication (2007) “for large enough sample sizes (> 30), the infringement of the normality assumption should not cause major problems”.

Pallant J. SPSS survival manual, a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. 3 ed. Sydney: McGraw Hill; 2007. pp. 179–200

Results:

Environmental conditions section- it would be more appropriate to see the data on temperature and relative humidity on the same table as in Table 1. Also, in table 1 should be included an explanatory information on the dates presented, namely 18.04 and 25.04.

Authors Response:

Table 1 is more informative and characterize the field experiment. At resubmitted version move to M and M. Changed also all dates for more commonly used form.

Weather data – only air temperature and rainfall (not humidity) presented at table 2.

Figure 1- Please include x and y axis legend. Have you done any statistical analysis to see significant differences between the years of field experiment?

Authors Response:

Added legend for axis x and y. Not done statistical analysis. Limited number of temperature data (no repetition) excluded statistical analysis.

On table 4- no statistical treatments were done? Please include such information, to access differences between varieties and treatments.

Authors Response:

We disagree with Reviewer. Statistical analysis was on the bottom of table 4. That part of table presented below.

From the results on tables 5 no significant differences were obtained from the cultivar and sowing period. Could you please explain this considering that the two varieties have different harvesting times F1(very early) and Rustler F1 (medium early) ?

Authors Response:

That results were not included in the manuscript. In the first table indicates period of maize cobs harvest lasting (20 days in 2012 and 2013 and 18 days in 2014). Maize sown at the first term and especially Signet F1 variety was harvested at the beginning of this period. Maize sown two weeks later and the Rustler F1 variety was harvested in the second half. In addition, covering maize plants with plastic film accelerated the harvest. Control plots harvested latest.

On table 7, it would be more easy to depict statistical differences if the authors could put lettering information used in statistics, rather than, including only the below table with the results per se.

Authors Response:

Used lettering information for marking homogeneous group is difficult present for interaction between treatments. We decided present Low Significant Differences as a more informative form of statistic.

Discussion- a clear paragraph highlighting major results obtained from your study with conclusions is missing.

Authors Response:

Conclusion highlighting major obtained result presented as a separate chapter.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Substantial improvements have been added to the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments from the initial considerations and have improved the manuscript significantly.

I would only recommend a careful read of the manuscript without track changes and english proofread at the end.