Review Reports
- Ehab S. A. Moustafa1,
- El-Sayed E. A. El-Sobky2 and
- Hossam I. A. Farag1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review your paper on factors affecting barley yield under saline conditions.
The paper you have presented is a typical agronomic study. I believe it is well written. The reader gets clarity of expression, concrete and comprehensive information about the experience.
I think that the biggest shortcoming of the study is the number of growing seasons taken into account. If the data come from one source, in agricultural research we draw conclusions after at least 3 growing seasons.
It is difficult to draw firm conclusions on the basis of two years of research.
A way out of this situation would be to call your research a pilot study.
Please respond to the following comments:
Abstract
Please name this "arid" region.
What do the authors mean by biological yield? Please explain in the summary.
Introduction.
Please explain the term 'arid'.
Does this form of production - grazing and then growing for grain - involve a risk of grain yield reduction?
Materials and methods
I suggest you add a map where you indicate the region of your research.
„Weed control was applied as recommended for barley”.. who makes such recommendations? Please cite the relevant government data source.
What irrigation system was adopted? continuous? at specific intervals?
What total water application rate was applied to the experimental plots?
Results
Please clarify the term biological yield.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Enclosed please find the revised version of our manuscript entitled “Sowing Date, Genotype and Management System Influence on Yield of Dual-purpose Barley in a Salt-affected Arid Region” (Manuscript ID: agronomy-1160728). With this letter, we would like to thank you and the reviewers for providing constructive suggestions that gave us the opportunity to improve the quality of the manuscript. After carefully reading all comments provided, a major revision of the manuscript is carried out to fulfill the required suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Authors
Responses to Reviewers Comments
Reviewer 1:
Dear authors,
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review your paper on factors affecting barley yield under saline conditions. The paper you have presented is a typical agronomic study. I believe it is well written. The reader gets clarity of expression, concrete and comprehensive information about the experience. I think that the biggest shortcoming of the study is the number of growing seasons taken into account. If the data come from one source, in agricultural research we draw conclusions after at least 3 growing seasons. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions on the basis of two years of research. A way out of this situation would be to call your research a pilot study.
Re: We would like to thank the Reviewer for his time dedicated to our manuscript and presenting positive aspects in our manuscript. We highly appreciate the constructive criticisms which improved the manuscript. The present field study was repeated in two consecutive seasons which is commonly accepted for release. Results in both seasons were consistent and seasonal differences were not significant. The weather conditions in both seasons were about the long-term average (Table 1) and no extreme events were recorded. Therefore, we drew the conclusion over the two growing seasons.
Please respond to the following comments:
Abstract
Please name this "arid" region.
Re: The location has been added (please see line 16)
What do the authors mean by biological yield? Please explain in the summary.
Re: The meaning has been added (lines 24, 137)
Introduction.
Please explain the term 'arid'.
Re: The term “arid” has been explained (please see lines 34-36)
Does this form of production - grazing and then growing for grain - involve a risk of grain yield reduction?
Re: Yes, it does. Interestingly, results of present study showed no grain yield reduction between dual-purpose and grain-only management systems planted early in October.
Materials and methods
I suggest you add a map where you indicate the region of your research.
Re: The map has been added (Fig. 1)
„Weed control was applied as recommended for barley” who makes such recommendations? Please cite the relevant government data source.
Re: The relevant government source has been added (line 103)
What irrigation system was adopted? continuous? at specific intervals?
Re: Furrow irrigation was used as the common system in the region once every week giving about 4000 m3 ha-1 in total for the growing season (has been added in lines 106-108)
Results
Please clarify the term biological yield.
Re: The term “biological yield” has been clarified (line 137)
Reviewer 2 Report
Similar research to this article is relevant, but especially in a salt-affected arid regions with a lack of fodder and cereal grains, respectively. However, there are several shortcomings in the article that need to be edit.
The biggest drawback is the title of the article. It shows the influence of three factors (sowing date, genotype, management system) on the yield of dual-purpose barley. This is inappropriate from the point of view that the dual-purpose barley is one of the management systems and, as it stands, the name is confusing. In terms of the article content as well.
In the chapter Material and Methods, it is appropriate to extend the chemical properties of soil and water by methods for determining individual characteristics.
Citation in the main text is not in accordance with the guidelines for authors, I recommend using a uniform method (square brackets) throughout the text.
The disadvantage is the incorrect designation of upper and lower indices for quantities, resp. chemical elements.
I recommend expanding the Discussion chapter. It is necessary to confront your results with the results of other authors, but it is not enough just to state that similar results were achieved by x y authors.
The aim and content of the article are processed at a good level. Once the deficiencies have been rectified, the article can be a benefit for this journal.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
Similar research to this article is relevant, but especially in a salt-affected arid region with a lack of fodder and cereal grains, respectively. However, there are several shortcomings in the article that need to be edit. The biggest drawback is the title of the article. It shows the influence of three factors (sowing date, genotype, management system) on the yield of dual-purpose barley. This is inappropriate from the point of view that the dual-purpose barley is one of the management systems and, as it stands, the name is confusing. In terms of the article content as well.
Re: We would like to thank the reviewer for his time dedicated to our manuscript.
We agree with the reviewer “management system” has been deleted from the title which has been modified to be “Sowing Date and Genotype Influence on Yield and Quality of Dual-purpose Barley in a Salt-affected Arid Region”
In the chapter Material and Methods, it is appropriate to extend the chemical properties of soil and water by methods for determining individual characteristics.
Re: Determining chemical properties of soil and water have been extended (84-93)
Citation in the main text is not in accordance with the guidelines for authors, I recommend using a uniform method (square brackets) throughout the text.
Re: All Citations in the text have been revised to follow the guidelines
The disadvantage is the incorrect designation of upper and lower indices for quantities, resp. chemical elements.
Re: The chemical elements have been revised and modified throughout the text (line 99, 100, Table 2)
I recommend expanding the Discussion chapter. It is necessary to confront your results with the results of other authors, but it is not enough just to state that similar results were achieved by x y authors.
Re: The discussion section has revised and extended
The aim and content of the article are processed at a good level. Once the deficiencies have been rectified, the article can be a benefit for this journal.
Re: Thanks so much for your time dedicated to our manuscript and presenting positive aspects in our manuscript. We highly appreciate the constructive criticisms which improved the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Data must be provided from how many soil samples the results of Table 2 have been obtained.
In particular, the data on soil salinity need to be presented in more detail. The method of calculating the EC (1:1) needs to be clarified, i.e how many grams of soil were used, how long the soils remained in equilibrium, etc.
Also how many soil samples were taken to measure EC(1:1)
You need to added references that have dealt with the problem of the conversion of the EC (1: 1) into ECe.
Kargas G., Londra P. and A. Sgoubopoulou. 2020. Comparison of Soil EC Values from Methods Based on 1:1 and 1:5 Soil to Water Ratios and ECe from Saturated Paste Extract Based Method. Water 2020, 12(4), 1010; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12041010
Zhang, H.; Schroder, J.L.; Pittman, J.J.; Wang, J.J.; Payton, M.E. Soil salinity using saturated paste and 1:1 soil to water extract. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2005, 69, 1146–1151
Khorsandi, F.; Yazdi, F.A. Gypsum and texture effects on the estimation of saturated paste electrical conductivity by two extraction methods. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2007, 38, 1105–1117
Αlso in table 2 write the concentrations of ions in the saturation extract. If you obtained the saturation paste extract then why not mention the ECe of the extract but the EC (1:1). Please give more explanations
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
Re: We would like to thank the reviewer for his time dedicated to our manuscript.
Data must be provided from how many soil samples the results of Table 2 have been obtained.
Re: Four soil samples were collected per each replication; more details have been added (please see lines 84-85)
In particular, the data on soil salinity need to be presented in more detail. The method of calculating the EC (1:1) needs to be clarified, i.e how many grams of soil were used, how long the soils remained in equilibrium, etc.
Re: Electrical conductivity of soil was estimated using EC1:1 method (because the soil is sandy with 86.95% sand) by adding 100 ml distilled water to 100 g oven-dried soil and the mixture was shaken for 30 minutes. After preparing the extract, the EC was determined using conductivity meter. More details have been added (lines 87-90)
You need to added references that have dealt with the problem of the conversion of the EC (1: 1) into ECe.
Re: References have been added (line 89)
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your corrections.
Unfortunately, coming to conclusions based on two years of research does not convince me.
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewer for his time dedicated to our manuscript. The present field study was repeated in two consecutive seasons which is commonly accepted for release. Results in both seasons were consistent and seasonal differences were not significant. The weather conditions in both seasons were about the long-term average (Table 1) and no extreme events were recorded. Therefore, we drew the conclusion over the two growing seasons.