Optimizing Weed Management for the New Super-Forage Moringa oleifera
, Evyatar Asaf 1,2, Zohar Ben-Simhon 3, Miri Cohen-Zinder 4, Ariel Shabtay 4, Zvi Peleg 2 and Ran Nisim Lati 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript titled “Development of Integrated Weed Management for the New Super-Forage Moringa oleifera” was assessed the effectiveness of various weed control methods in Moringa oleifera. Weeds are a big problem in many crops. They can reduce yields by up to 30%. In the management of weeds, it is very important to use herbicides safely so that they are not fitotoxic to the crop and do not adversely affect the quality of the yield. In this manuscript, the authors assessed chemical and non-chemical methods of weed infestation management in Moringa oleifera.
However, the manuscript requires some changes and corrections:
In the materials and methods chapter the meteorological data is requested because temperature and rainfall have a big influence on herbicide effectiveness and weed infestation of crops.
In chapter 2.3. the active ingredients used in the experiment need to be specified. Please explain the main principle when choosing these substances.
The test results presented in percent can not be analyzed statistically. Such data must be transformed earlier e.g. according to the arcsin√x formula.
Please present the mass units in the figures and tables in kg ha-1 or g ha-1.
In table 1, please present unit of “Crop initial stand’.
In Result chapter please describe influence the meteorological condition on effectiveness of herbicides.
The titles of chapters should not be overly descriptive. Please change the titles of chapters 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
I suggest to replace the covariance of variance to standard deviation or standard error.
In this manuscript the chapter Conclusion has a form of discussion instead of summary. In your conclusions, please specify clearly which protection methods are most favorable for Moringa oleifera.
Author Response
May 18th 2021
Dear Editor,
Agronomy,
Enclosed please find the revised version of manuscript entitled: "Optimizing Weed Management for the New Super-Forage Moringa oleifera" [Agronomy-1218661] submitted to Agronomy within the special issue: New Crops for Arid Regions. Aall comments made by the editor and reviewers have been addressed in the revised version. We would like to thank the reviewers for their useful comments. Below please find the response and point by point list of changes to the original manuscript.
Reviewer #1
- In the materials and methods chapter the meteorological data is requested because temperature and rainfall have a big influence on herbicide effectiveness and weed infestation of crops.
As suggested, we added new supplementary Figure S2 with the meteorological conditions during the growth period. Under the Mediterranean basin there are no summer rain and this was spelled out in the text.
2. In chapter 2.3. the active ingredients used in the experiment need to be specified. Please explain the main principle when choosing these substances.
As suggested, we revised the text and added the rational for the selection of specific herbicides. The active ingredients were specified in supplementary Table S2.
3. The test results presented in percent can not be analyzed statistically. Such data must be transformed earlier e.g. according to the arcsin√x formula.
We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment, and the data was reanalyzed as suggested.
4. Please present the mass units in the figures and tables in kg ha-1 or g ha-1.
Units were edited as suggested.
5. In table 1, please present unit of “Crop initial stand’.
The units were added as requested.
6. In Result chapter please describe the influence the meteorological condition on the effectiveness of herbicides.
Indeed, temperature conditions might affect the effectiveness of herbicide application. We revised the Discussion section and discuss this aspect.
7. The titles of chapters should not be overly descriptive. Please change the titles of chapters 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
Edited as suggested
8. I suggest to replace the covariance of variance to standard deviation or standard error.
The statistical parameter that we used is the coefficient of variance. It is the standard deviation divided by the mean. This analysis provides more reliable interpretation of the variance (compared to the standard deviation was suggested) due to the high specificity for each treatment.
9. In this manuscript the chapter Conclusion has a form of discussion instead of summary. In your conclusions, please specify clearly which protection methods are most favorable for Moringa oleifera.
We revised the conclusion section and the suggested protection methods were spelled out.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Introduction
-I suggest to include the idea of sustainable development and only then to incorporate IWM
- The aim of the study was not to assess the safety of the methods used, but their effectiveness. Residues of active ingredients were not studied. The manuscript analyzed chemical or non-chemical weed control, not IWM
Materials and methods
- please standardize coordinate notation;
- What is the richness of soil on which the experiment was conducted
- Please add the history of weather conditions
- Table S1. - lack of uniform date records; Why is the year entered twice (columns first and third)?
- Table S2. - please write units correctly; In which crop phenological growth stage application herbicides?
- Table S3. - Please correct the writing of sequential numerals.
- Resultts
- 173 - Diuron is not herbicides, only active ingredient
- It is not possible to write about the safety of treatments as the residues of active ingredients were not tested. Necessary modification.
- Table S4. - What does mean: N.S.? Not significant?
-
in tables please: add % for CV to their header, not in the middle; what are the other species
- Figure S2 - Change Double for double
- Discussion
- This study did not examine the safety of the methods used, only their effectiveness.
- Conclusion
-
Conclusions need to be reworded. They should relate to the content of the paper. This one did not examine the safety of the herbicides used. Similarly, flame methods were not tested.
-
I suggest you add photos to your paper documenting the experiment.
Author Response
May 18th 2021
Dear Editor,
Agronomy,
Enclosed please find the revised version of manuscript entitled: "Optimizing Weed Management for the New Super-Forage Moringa oleifera" [Agronomy-1218661] submitted to Agronomy within the special issue: New Crops for Arid Regions. Aall comments made by the editor and reviewers have been addressed in the revised version. We would like to thank the reviewers for their useful comments. Below please find the response and point by point list of changes to the original manuscript.
Reviewer #2
- I suggest to include the idea of sustainable development and only then to incorporate IWM
As suggested, the idea of sustainable development was mentioned firstly (lines 56-59), and only then IWM.
2. The aim of the study was not to assess the safety of the methods used, but their effectiveness. Residues of active ingredients were not studied. The manuscript analyzed chemical or non-chemical weed control, not IWM
Realizing that the terminology regarding the safety evaluations might be confusing, we specified our objectives, and changed the term ‘safety’ into ‘crop-safety’ throughout the paper. Furthermore, to avoid confusion we specified the specific crop-safety parameters that were used (crop stand and yield). Using the term ‘crop-safety’ to determine the impact of weed control tools has on the crop is common. Regarding the IWM comment, this is true. Our study did not evaluate actual IWM and this objective was removed. We also revised the title accordingly.
3. Please standardize coordinate notation
The coordinates were standardized.
4. What is the richness of soil on which the experiment was conducted
We do not have this information.
5. Please add the history of weather conditions
Weather conditions during growth period were added in the supplementary Figure S1.
6. Table S1. - lack of uniform date records; Why is the year entered twice (columns first and third)?
Corrected
7. Table S2. - please write units correctly; In which crop phenological growth stage application herbicides?
Application time added to the Table. Phenological growth stage at herbicides application time was mentioned in line method section.
8. Table S3. - Please correct the writing of sequential numerals.
Corrected
9. 173 - Diuron is not herbicides, only active ingredient
Corrected as suggested.
10. It is not possible to write about the safety of treatments as the residues of active ingredients were not tested. Necessary modification.
See comment #2. The term ‘safety’ referred to the crop stand and yield. This was spelled out to avoid confusion.
11. Table S4. - What does mean: N.S.? Not significant?
Yes, this was added to the Tables a footnote.
12. in tables please: add % for CV to their header, not in the middle; what are the other species
% added to the header. Other species were added.
13. Figure S2 - Change Double for double
Corrected
14. This study did not examine the safety of the methods used, only their effectiveness.
See comments #2 and #10.
15. Conclusions need to be reworded. They should relate to the content of the paper. This one did not examine the safety of the herbicides used. Similarly, flame methods were not tested.
The conclusions were edited to suit the objective of this study.
16. I suggest you add photos to your paper documenting the experiment.
As suggested, photos were added to the supplementary data.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Item 44 from the reference list was not quoted in the work.
Author Response
May 18th 2021
Dear Editor,
Agronomy,
Enclosed please find the revised version of manuscript entitled: "Optimizing Weed Management for the New Super-Forage Moringa oleifera" [Agronomy-1218661] submitted to Agronomy within the special issue: New Crops for Arid Regions. Aall comments made by the editor and reviewers have been addressed in the revised version. We would like to thank the reviewers for their useful comments. Below please find the response and point by point list of changes to the original manuscript.
Reviewer #3
- Item 44 from the reference list was not quoted in the work.
The reference was added to the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments for the authors:
Line 17: I would provide full Latin name at the first appearance in the abstract, and in the introduction.
Line 18: What is “I” in the brackets?
Line 20 define the abbreviations for pre-emergence and post-emergence herbicides and use them later on.
Line 22: define percentage of weight reduction, “minor” does not mean here anything
Line 35: family name does not go in Italic
Line 46: it seems as a smaller font in the text?
Line 52-53: the same comment as in the line 17
Line 54: are herbicides the most efficient practice for weed control worldwide? What about herbicide resistance in the USA?
Line 85: reduce the reliance on herbicides
Line 92: here you have used PRE and POST without previous referring
Line 110: I know what you have meant, but I suggest rephrasing “bed” to plot
Line 133: add pressure used for spraying and driving speed
I think it would be useful if the authors provide here which herbicides were used in this research. It is OK to stand in the Supplementary material
Table S2: information regarding active ingredient product and producer needed. All tables have to stand alone. More information regarding MOA in the table is needed. “Catotenoids” is not MOA. Define PRE and POST here as well
Line 179: give exact number, remove “~”
Comments for all figures: a legend has to stand on the bottom part of the figure
Line 199: as the first comment
Figure 1: I suggest using grams (g) instead of kg
Line 212: Have a question: you have provided irrigation for the herbicide activation, have you had some rain during estimation period? The authors may consider providing meteorological data for each year
Line 225: “but also effective” more effective or less effective? A word is missing
For M&M: add a formula how you calculate % of biomass reduction, as well as % of injuries
Need to return to the line 118: what is moringa yield? And how it is quantified? Whole plant or what?
Line 251: common names for each species
Line 252: repeated from M&M
Line 392: corn maize
Adding a table or tables with presented weeds in weedy checks should be included in the supplementary material
Author Response
May 18th 2021
Dear Editor,
Agronomy,
Enclosed please find the revised version of manuscript entitled: "Optimizing Weed Management for the New Super-Forage Moringa oleifera" [Agronomy-1218661] submitted to Agronomy within the special issue: New Crops for Arid Regions. All comments made by the editor and reviewers have been addressed in the revised version. We would like to thank the reviewers for their useful comments. Below please find the response and point by point list of changes to the original manuscript.
Reviewer #4
- Line 17: I would provide full Latin name at the first appearance in the abstract, and in the introduction.
As suggested, the full Latin name was added to the abstract
- Line 18: What is “I” in the brackets?
The word that stands for “I” (integrated was added).
- Line 20 define the abbreviations for pre-emergence and post-emergence herbicides and use them later on.
As suggested, the relevant abbreviations were added and used.
- Line 22: define percentage of weight reduction, “minor” does not mean here anything
The exact value was added to the text.
- Line 35: family name does not go in Italic
Corrected
- Line 46: it seems as a smaller font in the text?
The font was corrected.
- Line 52-53: the same comment as in the line 17
The full Latin names were added.
- Line 54: are herbicides the most efficient practice for weed control worldwide? What about herbicide resistance in the USA?
Indeed, herbicide resistance in the USA is a huge problem. Yet, herbicides are the most commonly used control mean. The resistance problem was mentioned as a motivation for adoption of non-chemical control means and development of IWM (lines 54-55).
- Line 85: reduce the reliance on herbicides
Corrected as suggested.
- Line 92: here you have used PRE and POST without previous referring
PRE and POST were previously referred to in line 70.
- Line 110: I know what you have meant, but I suggest rephrasing “bed” to plot
Corrected as suggested.
- Line 133: add pressure used for spraying and driving speed
As requested, the spraying pressure was added to the text. Spraying was performed manually, thus, driving speed is not relevant but only the applied volume (200 L per ha).
- I think it would be useful if the authors provide here which herbicides were used in this research. It is OK to stand in the Supplementary material
The herbicides used for the field experiments are listed in Table S-2. It was added to the text in this section.
- Table S2: information regarding active ingredient product and producer needed. All tables have to stand alone. More information regarding MOA in the table is needed. “Catotenoids” is not MOA. Define PRE and POST here as well
Table S2 was edited as requested: the name of the product and producers were added. Additionally, the MOA and the application timing were spelled out.
- Line 179: give exact number, remove “~”
The exact values were added to the text.
- Comments for all figures: a legend has to stand on the bottom part of the figure
The legends were originally placed on the bottom part of the figure, however, they were removed by the journal formatting process.
- Line 199: as the first comment
The names were edited as requested.
- Figure 1: I suggest using grams (g) instead of kg
We believe that using kg is more suitable for showing weed high biomass in this case.
- Line 212: Have a question: you have provided irrigation for the herbicide activation, have you had some rain during estimation period? The authors may consider providing meteorological data for each year
Meteorological data (temp) were added as suggested. We had no precipitation during the experiments, this was spelled out in the method section.
- Line 225: “but also effective” more effective or less effective? A word is missing
The title revised.
- For M&M: add a formula how you calculate % of biomass reduction, as well as % of injuries
As suggested, equations were added.
- Need to return to the line 118: what is moringa yield? And how it is quantified? Whole plant or what?
More details were added about the yield evaluation.
- Line 251: common names for each species
Common names were added.
- Line 252: repeated from M&M
The sentence was deleted.
- Line 392: cornmaize
Corrected.
- Adding a table or tables with presented weeds in weedy checks should be included in the supplementary material.
Data about the weed species and their biomass\cover in the weedy check is already presented in the supplementary data at Tables S5, S8 and S11.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I accept the changes introduced by Authors.
Author Response
May 21th 2021
Dear Editor,
Agronomy,
Enclosed please find the revised version of manuscript entitled: "Optimizing Weed Management for the New Super-Forage Moringa oleifera" [Agronomy-1218661] submitted to Agronomy within the special issue: New Crops for Arid Regions. Aall comments made by the editor and reviewers have been addressed in the revised version.
Reviewer #2
- Please correct the product name in the table S2. The product name also consists of the formulation and the active ingredient content. Please change also the unit of dose in this table (it is not "gr as ha").
All data was added to the table as suggested.
- Please use the same abbreviation n.s. or N.S. in all tables.
Corrected as suggested.
- In table S9, % is still repeated in the rows. It is already in the header of the table.
Corrected as suggested.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Please correct the product name in the table S2. The product name also consists of the formulation and the active ingredient content. Please change also the unit of dose in this table (it is not "gr as ha").
Please use the same abbreviation n.s. or N.S. in all tables.
In table S9, % is still repeated in the rows. It is already in the header of the table.
Author Response
May 21th 2021
Dear Editor,
Agronomy,
Enclosed please find the revised version of manuscript entitled: "Optimizing Weed Management for the New Super-Forage Moringa oleifera" [Agronomy-1218661] submitted to Agronomy within the special issue: New Crops for Arid Regions. Aall comments made by the editor and reviewers have been addressed in the revised version.
Reviewer #2
- Please correct the product name in the table S2. The product name also consists of the formulation and the active ingredient content. Please change also the unit of dose in this table (it is not "gr as ha").
All data was added to the table as suggested.
- Please use the same abbreviation n.s. or N.S. in all tables.
Corrected as suggested.
- In table S9, % is still repeated in the rows. It is already in the header of the table.
Corrected as suggested.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
