Identification of Tartary Buckwheat Varieties Suitable for Forage via Nutrient Value Analysis at Different Growth Stages

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Eight Buckwheat varieties flowering, pustulation, and mature stages were investigated for forage value assaying the contents of ash, crude protein, crude fiber, crude fat, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber, nitrogen free extract, calcium, phosphorus, total flavonoids and rutin. Also, relative feed value and relative forage quality were analysed with statistical methods of PCA. The results evidenced the well-known potential of high forage values.

Title is ok, but keywords could certainly be improved. Also, abstract should bring more results, not only RVF and RVQ, and also the PCA results.

References are ok, updated and self citation issues were not observed.

Tables 3 to 8 could be moved to Supplementary material. The main suggestion is to present data in a more graphical way, that could improve the discussion.

Authors presented an improved version, answering several issues from the reviewers.

Author Response

Responses to comments of reviewer 1:

Eight Buckwheat varieties flowering, pustulation, and mature stages were investigated for forage value assaying the contents of ash, crude protein, crude fiber, crude fat, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber, nitrogen free extract, calcium, phosphorus, total flavonoids and rutin. Also, relative feed value and relative forage quality were analysed with statistical methods of PCA. The results evidenced the well-known potential of high forage values.

Point 1: Title is ok, but keywords could certainly be improved. Also, abstract should bring more results, not only RVF and RVQ, and also the PCA results.

Response 1: Thanks for your comment. We have modified the key words as “Tartary buckwheat; Forage; Relative feed value; Relative forage quality; Principal component analysis”, and added the PCA results “Accordingly, the comprehensive scoring of principal component values of PS-07 and CQ-3 are relatively higher at flowering stage.” into abstract in the revised manuscript.

Point 2: References are ok, updated and self citation issues were not observed.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment.

Point 3: Tables 3 to 8 could be moved to Supplementary material. The main suggestion is to present data in a more graphical way, that could improve the discussion.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We have moved Tables 3 to 8 to Supplementary material in the revised manuscript.  We tried to display our data in the form of histogram, but because there are too many data, the effect is not ideal, so we think it will be clearer to use the form of chart.

Point 4: Authors presented an improved version, answering several issues from the reviewers.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of this article by testing the nutrient content of eight varieties of buckwheat at different stages of growth to evaluate the feeding value of the research results have some significance for the development of animal husbandry. However, all results and discussions so far have been descriptive and lack focus and themes. The associated scientific issues and interpretation of the results need further refinement. Considerable improvements are needed before they can be considered for publication.

General comments

Major comments:
Abstract:
  The abstract should show the reader the viewpoint of the article in a concise manner, focusing on the conclusions of the study and highlighting the points of innovation. The language expression of the abstract of this article is messy and illogical, the author does not summarize the research results well, does not have a very prominent research content, and is not able to attract the reader's attention. It is recommended that the author reorganize and write the abstract.

Introduction:

This part needs improvement, the authors first describe the species and species advantages of buckwheat, and then its value and advantages as a quality forage grass to improve the quality of livestock products, and finally indicate the content and purpose of this paper's research. This study of buckwheat is mainly used for feed purposes, so I suggest that the authors provide us with the main uses of buckwheat at home and abroad, as well as domestic and foreign research progress on buckwheat in feed, in addition to the authors should introduce the eight varieties of buckwheat each have any characteristics.

Material and methods:

  This part of the author neglected to describe a lot of content. Did the authors obtain samples of eight varieties of buckwheat at different stages of fertility from the feed mill? If so, can we understand that the feed mills have been used as feed ingredients into production practices, then this study will not have any significance. If the samples were collected by the authors at the forage plant, please add a description of the sample collection work.

Results:

The author's ability to summarize the table content needs to be improved, it looks more like a nutrient analysis report, the long length of figures and tables easily makes the reader tired of reading and lose interest in reading, in addition, the results are mixed with discussion, the structure is confusing, it is recommended that the author has a focus on the presentation of the chart content, focus on the meaningful results, summarize the other content in a single stroke, multiple simple sentences can be combined into one long sentence to reduce unnecessary statements.

Discussion:

The discussion is not deep enough and lacks logic, Too much of the discussion is a description of the results in different ways, many of the contents are well known, it is recommended that the authors consult more relevant studies to highlight the similarities and differences with the content of others' studies and analyze the reasons, showing the new findings of this study, new content.

Conclusion:

I found that this article does not have a conclusion section, whether the author did this on purpose or forgot to write it. I suggest that the author summarize and summarize the article so that it is easy for the reader to quickly extract the findings and implications of this article.

Special comments:

1、L14-15 This sentence needs to be reorganized because it makes the reader think that this study is mainly about buckwheat varieties, whereas in the text in addition to varieties the authors are more about different fertility stages, which can mislead the reader about the content of the study.

2、L21-25 This passage needs to be reorganized and reordered to make it concise and logical.

3、L56-59 is not as described by the authors, alfalfa is known as the "king of forage", has high nutritional quality, sorghum, corn, etc. as grain seeds compared to the buckwheat straw in this study has a high feeding value, the authors are advised to consult the literature for further verification.

4、L61-63 In fact antibiotics are rarely used in livestock production, especially in ruminant livestock, because in most cases their addition disturbs the ecological balance of the rumen and even has the opposite effect.

5、L68-69 have shown that buckwheat either plant or grain can be used as a high-quality feed, in L75-76, the authors again tell us to find and breed new varieties of buckwheat is the purpose of this study, so it is recommended that the authors include the characteristics of each of the eight different varieties of buckwheat in this paper, telling us what is new about them

6、Please add the collection of buckwheat samples in the material methodology, how many plants of each species were collected, sampling methods, whether the samples are representative and other issues

7、L234-235 There is no need to repeat the test method in the results, this part has been described in the material method, and the same problem exists in the later content.

8、The XQ-1 significance in Figure 1 is incorrectly labeled.

9、It is recommended that the authors include the units of the indicators in the table

10、L357-361 This sentence would be better placed in the material approach, where the discussion is an analysis of the similarities and differences in the results of one's own research based on the research of others, where the interpretation of what the indicators represent is used to do what?

11、L367-370 PS-07 showed high RFV and RFQ levels during flowering, why does it indicate that BY is the most suitable for forage during flowering, please explain.

12、L390-391 The authors say in the introduction that alfalfa is low in protein and low utilization, and here they say that buckwheat is as good as alfalfa in terms of nutritional value, which is correct?

13、It is recommended that the authors carefully revise the reference format and improve the information such as volume number and issue number according to the requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Response to comments of reviewer 2:

Point 1: L14-15 This sentence needs to be reorganized because it makes the reader think that this study is mainly about buckwheat varieties, whereas in the text in addition to varieties the authors are more about different fertility stages, which can mislead the reader about the content of the study.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have improved the sentence “It is important to select buckwheat varieties suitable for forage as increasing attention was paid to the forage value of buckwheat.” to be “It is important to select buckwheat varieties suitable for forage and determine their best harvest time as increasing attention was paid to the forage value of buckwheat.” in the revised manuscript.

Point 2: L21-25 This passage needs to be reorganized and reordered to make it concise and logical.

Response 2: Thanks for your comment. We have improved the passage “Results showed that all the eight tatrtary buckwheat varieties possessed potential high forage value as their RFV is from 121.31% to 217.39% and RFQ from 117.26% to 224.54% at all three stages. Especially, the RFV of PS-07 at flowering stage reached the highest value of 217.39% and RFQ of PS-07 at flowering stage reached the highest value of 224.54%.” to be “Results showed that all the eight tatrtary buckwheat varieties possessed potential high forage value as their RFV is from 121.31% to 217.39% and RFQ from 117.26% to 224.54% at all three stages. Especially, both RFV and RFQ values of PS-07 reached the highest at flowering stage among the eight tartary buckwheat varieties, followed by CQ-3 and EWPS.” in the revised manuscript.

Point 3: L56-59 is not as described by the authors, alfalfa is known as the "king of forage", has high nutritional quality, sorghum, corn, etc. as grain seeds compared to the buckwheat straw in this study has a high feeding value, the authors are advised to consult the literature for further verification.

Response 3: Thanks for your comment. We revised this sentence in the revised version after consulting several cited literatures.

Point 4: L61-63 In fact antibiotics are rarely used in livestock production, especially in ruminant livestock, because in most cases their addition disturbs the ecological balance of the rumen and even has the opposite effect.

Response 4: Thanks for your comment. We agree with you. Antibiotics are rarely used in livestock production. The lack of antibiotics might lead to potential problems such as the reduction of disease resistance in animals. Tartary buckwheat has been widely reported to have the ability of antibacterial and disease resistance, so we propose that bioactive ingredients of tartary buckwheat might be used as an alternative. We have modified this part in the revised manuscript.

Point 5: L68-69 have shown that buckwheat either plant or grain can be used as a high-quality feed, in L75-76, the authors again tell us to find and breed new varieties of buckwheat is the purpose of this study, so it is recommended that the authors include the characteristics of each of the eight different varieties of buckwheat in this paper, telling us what is new about them

Response 5: Thanks for your comment. There is no obvious difference between our eight Tartary buckwheat varieties. Compared with other varieties of buckwheat, the differences between them are with large leaves, tall plants, thick stems, more branches and high production of the whole plant.  We have added this point in section L82-83 in the revised manuscript.  

Point 6: Please add the collection of buckwheat samples in the material methodology, how many plants of each species were collected, sampling methods, whether the samples are representative and other issues

Response 6: Thanks for your comment. We have added “The samples of buckwheat varieties were harvested and dried in the whole field, 1.0 kg of samples were randomly selected for quality testing and analysis from each field to ensure that the samples were of representative.” in the material methodology in the revised manuscript.

Point 7: L234-235 There is no need to repeat the test method in the results, this part has been described in the material method, and the same problem exists in the later content.

Response 7: Thanks for your comment. We have removed this part in the revised manuscript.

Point 8: The XQ-1 significance in Figure 1 is incorrectly labeled.

Response 8: Thanks for your comment. We corrected the XQ-1 significance in Figure 1.

Point 9: It is recommended that the authors include the units of the indicators in the table

Response 9: Thanks for your comment. The content we mentioned in the article is a percentage content, which is converted from the calculated original data.

Point 10: L357-361 This sentence would be better placed in the material approach, where the discussion is an analysis of the similarities and differences in the results of one's own research based on the research of others, where the interpretation of what the indicators represent is used to do what?

Response 10: Thanks for your comment. We have removed this sentence in the revised manuscript.

Point 11: L367-370 PS-07 showed high RFV and RFQ levels during flowering, why does it indicate that BY is the most suitable for forage during flowering, please explain.

Response 11: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected “BY” into “PS-07” in the revised manuscript.

Point 12: L390-391 The authors say in the introduction that alfalfa is low in protein and low utilization, and here they say that buckwheat is as good as alfalfa in terms of nutritional value, which is correct?

Response 12: Thanks for your comment. We deleted the “as good as alfalfa” in this sentence in the revised manuscript.

Point 13: It is recommended that the authors carefully revise the reference format and improve the information such as volume number and issue number according to the requirements of the journal.

Response 13: Thanks for your comment. We have revised the reference format and improved the information such as volume number and issue number according to the requirements of the journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

The presented article is characterized by relevance for agriculture in terms of determining the potential of using eight varieties of tartary buckwheat in livestock feeding. The results obtained by the authors are more of practical value, but the work is not devoid of scientific novelty, since the authors determined the most suitable for rational feeding of livestock varieties of tartary buckwheat.

The authors took into account the comments of the reviewers and prepared a revised version, but in my opinion, a few minor corrections should be made before publication in the International Journal of Plant Biology. 

1. Explain in the article (Introduction or MM) why did you study exactly 8 varieties of tartary buckwheat
2. Check the quality of the presentation of the figures. For example, in Figure 2 I see a red underline of the word "Rutin”
3. Since the article uses a lot of abbreviations, it will be better to make a list of abbreviations at the end of the article which helps readers quickly navigate and understand what it is about
4. The authors summarized obtained results in Discussion section. It is allowed by Instructions for authors of the journal, but I think separated Conclusion section will better point out significance of the main valuable results.
5. In the first round, the reviewers wrote that modern references were used in the work. I don't quite agree with this, since 32.5% of sources are 10+ years old. If the number of new sources is increased, the problem raised in the article will seem more relevant.

In general, I believe that the article "Identification of tartar buckwheat varieties suitable for forage via nutrient value analysis at different growth stages" meets the requirements and the scope of the International Journal of Plant Biology and I recommend it for publication after minor adjustments described above.

Author Response

Response to comments of reviewer 3:

Point 1: Explain in the article (Introduction or MM) why did you study exactly 8 varieties of tartary buckwheat

Response 1: Thanks for your comment. We studied exactly 8 varieties of tartary buckwheat just because the 8 varieties of tartary buckwheat studied in this research have some obvious characteristics, including large leaves, tall plants, thick stems, more branches and high production of the whole plant. So, we added “In our previous research aiming to select buckwheat varieties suitable for forage, eight tartary buckwheat varieties with large leaves, tall plants, thick stems, more branches and high production of the whole plant” in the revised manuscript.

Point 2: Check the quality of the presentation of the figures. For example, in Figure 2 I see a red underline of the word "Rutin”

Response 2: Thanks for your comment. We have checked the quality of the presentation of the figures in the revised manuscript.

Point 3: Since the article uses a lot of abbreviations, it will be better to make a list of abbreviations at the end of the article which helps readers quickly navigate and understand what it is about

Response 3: Thanks for your comment. We have added an abbreviation table in Appendix A in the revised manuscript.

Point 4: The authors summarized obtained results in Discussion section. It is allowed by Instructions for authors of the journal, but I think separated Conclusion section will better point out significance of the main valuable results.

Response 4: Thanks for your comment. We have added the Conclusion section in the revised manuscript.

Point 5: In the first round, the reviewers wrote that modern references were used in the work. I don't quite agree with this, since 32.5% of sources are 10+ years old. If the number of new sources is increased, the problem raised in the article will seem more relevant.

Response 5: Thanks for your comment. We replaced several references of 10+ years old with modern references [2],[3],[46] in the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised article is a great improvement, but the language needs further optimization.