“Active” Weed Seed Bank: Soil Texture and Seed Weight as Key Factors of Burial-Depth Inhibition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a good study, with a nice range of weed species. I am looking forward to seeing the improved version. It was very interesting to see in vitro and pot experiments compared and explained. However I am disappointed with the referencing and generalisations. The introduction contained at least two references (13 and 14) that are cited incorrectly.
On lines 49-55 there are several broad sweeping statements made about weeds and unsupported; the citing papers only look at one species (13), and have a variety of contradictory results (14). The authors need to check all the references are correct throughout the entire paper before submitting it.
The results are very interesting, however, in general the graphs are very 'full'. I would prefer smaller dots and thinner lines, especially when you put more than one line in a graph.
There are several broad generalisations which are unsupported, and the final sections are not finished.
I would prefer to see some emphasis on seeds left at the surface, which could be a control. But this is not described, either in the method, or the results.
Also, see individual comments within paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I have answered to almost allcorrections and suggestions that were kindly provided to me
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made an interesting study regarding the effects of two factors (soil texture and seed weight) on germination inhibition of weed seeds placed at different soil depths. They collected a lot of data, but the results are not well presented. Thats a pity, because the potential soundness and usefulness of the results is high. Even the material and methods section needs an adjustment.
I suggest the authors revising the manuscript according to my comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
I have answered almost all suggestione and corrections that were kindly provided to me
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I have seen the modifications apported within the text by the authors. I would have preferred a point by point answer to my comments. I guess, this is the common approach. Authors reply to questions posed by the reviewers and simultaneusly make changes in the text.
Anyway, I think that the manuscript is now stronger and clerarer than in the previous version.
