Influence of Mowing and Trampling on the Allelopathy and Weed Suppression Potential of Digitaria ciliaris and Cyperus microiria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are some revisions need to be considered before publication as follow:

Abstract: is quite fine.

Introduction: It is not well presented to mention the problems that convinced you to conduct this experiment.

Line 34: The main problems should be mentioned.

Lines 37-38: Provide an appropriate reference.

Methods: The Methods is not well structured. Methods can be properly structured using paragraphs and subheadings to indicate different subsections that generally describe different experiments. Each experiment's subheading can correspond to its specific objective. After that, you can provide a brief rationale for your experiment.

Lines 83-84: What was the soil pH and Ec?

Line 85: In your opinion, is it logical to conduct these kinds of experiments on small plots? 

Line 130: How deep was the soil considered in this experiment?

Line 152: In order to maintain the uniformity of the experiment, what arrangements were made?

Results, Lines 220-223: The data are presented in table 1. It doesn't need to be repeated!

Line 304: Is that was significant or what?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have studied the effect of mowing and trampling on allelopathic potential of two weeds, Digitaria ciliaris and Cyperus microiria. However, no sufficient evidence for allelopathic interactions of these two weeds have been demonstrated. Weed suppression potential of mowing and trampling can be more due to physical rather than chemical interactions. To substantiate the claims of allelopathic interactions, authors should add about evidence of allelopathic potential of these two weeds in the introduction section. Authors have mentioned about allelopathic effects of sorghum in lines 43-49 but it's not relevant here. Introduction section should be improved.

In materials and methods, under 2.1.1, authors have mentioned about timeline of study as 'Beginning in July 2018'. If that was the beginning, how many years, this study was repeated? If the results are based on one year or study was replicated over years? This experiment was planned on natural weed populations in the field. Table 1 shows that first five dominant weeds include three grass spp, one shrub and one forb. Why authors have not studied shrub which has the same frequency (95.8%) as the studied grass spp.

Further, Mowing and trampling experiments as in lines 88 was carried out at which weed growth stage? How much was the weed growth when these experiments were conducted?

In lines 122-126 and 286-297, soil hardness was studied by authors. What is the significance of this parameter in the study. Authors have not discussed about role of soil hardness with allelopathy or weed suppression potential.

In lines 127-129, rainfall data was obtained, and authors have mentioned that rainfall data is given in Figure A1 (line 139). But no such figure is found in manuscript. Also, there was speculations given by authors in section 2.1.2 that rainfall might leach water-soluble allelochemicals in fields. But we don't know whether types of allelochemicals released by these two weeds are hydrophobic or hydrophilic. Without the knowledge about allelochemicals, no results can be confirmed.

In lines 167-169, seed source of two weeds were mentioned for the said study. What about other greenhouse studies? Whether seed of Digitaria and Cyperus was similar in all field and greenhouse experiments.

In lines 169-170, authors have mentioned that 'Both species were grown for about four months.' Is it true only for study or same for all field and lab experiments? 

In lines 229-231, authors have mentioned that 'The weed survey indicated that grassweeds...' which is not true. Among the 5 most frequent weeds, 3rd place is of shrub and 4th place if or forb means two broadleaf weeds. Kindly check Table 1.

In lines 242-244, authors have mentioned that 'The variations between the MDR of grass weeds (southern crabgrass, Asian flatsedge, and giant foxtail) at the three different measurement times (0 WAT, 2 WAT, and 4 WAT) were not significant.' This is not consistent with data shown in Table 2. Southern crabgrass is significantly affected by mowing and trampling treatments at 2 WAT, and 4 WAT. 

In lines 358-359, authors have discussed that 'In the tilled field, broad-leaved weeds are commonly more abundant than grass weeds.' In my opinion, weed emergence depends more on weed seed size and its bank in the soil in upper soil layers. Tillage will affect the weed emergence depending upon seed size and seed bank. If some broadleaf weeds would have bold seeds, then it will be there regardless of tillage practice being followed.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript can be accepted for publication