An Evaluation of Growth Characteristics of Faba Bean Cultivars

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors!

The study of weed control methods without the use of pesticides is an important trend in the modern world. Strong crop competition can be important in reducing weeds. However, the manuscript needs some changes. Please read the comments below and include them in your manuscript before submitting.

1. The entire manuscript should be placed on the mdpi template.
2. I suggest changing the title - focusing on the competitiveness of crops, removing the phrase "weed control" (the current title suggests that the experiment was carried out in the presence of weeds).
3. In my opinion, information from lines 62-68 should be transferred to the discussion.
4. "Seed size" should be changed to "seed weight".
5. The seed weight results should appear in the Results section, not the Materials and Methods section.
6. Why did the authors decide on such a level of fertilization? It seems overstated as to the practical fertilization of the described plant.
7. I propose to add air temperature distribution for the duration of the research for both locations.
8. The information on lines 146-147 is unnecessary (they are further included in the table caption, duplication is unnecessary).
9. Tables 8, 9 - in my opinion pink should be replaced with some other color to create more contrast.
10. Final conclusions are missing.

Author Response

The study of weed control methods without the use of pesticides is an important trend in the modern world. Strong crop competition can be important in reducing weeds. However, the manuscript needs some changes. Please read the comments below and include them in your manuscript before submitting.

Response: Thank you very much for your encouraging remarks about the manuscript. We have modified the manuscript based on the excellent feedback provided. Once again thank you for your time

1. The entire manuscript should be placed on the mdpi template.

Response 1: We have transferred the manuscript to the mdpi template. A file named Agronomy_revised_mdpi is attached herewith. 

2. I suggest changing the title - focusing on the competitiveness of crops, removing the phrase "weed control" (the current title suggests that the experiment was carried out in the presence of weeds).

Response 2: Ok, thanks. we agree with your kind suggestion. The phrase "weed control" has been removed from the title in a revised copy of the MS.

3. In my opinion, information from lines 62-68 should be transferred to the discussion.

Response 3: Ok, we have moved this information to the discussion section. Please refer to lines 256 - 261 on pages 9 and 10 in the revised copy of MS.

4. "Seed size" should be changed to "seed weight".

Response 4: Ok, this is changed in revised copy throughout.

5. The seed weight results should appear in the Results section, not the Materials and Methods section.

Response 5: Ok, we have removed the seed weight data from Table 1 and included it as a separate Table (Table 10) in the discussion section where seed weight has been discussed in relation to the comparative suppression ability of six cultivars. 

6. Why did the authors decide on such a level of fertilization? It seems overstated as to the practical fertilization of the described plant.

Response 6: Ok, we agree that this seems a bit overstated, so we have removed the phrase 'applied after every 3 weeks' Actually, plants were fertilized regularly as and when they show signs of nutrient deficiency. Generally, nutrients drain out pretty quickly with daily watering events.

7. I propose to add air temperature distribution for the duration of the research for both locations.

Response 7: Ok, thanks. We have added a new graph (Figure 1; page 3) for air temperature (ave. min and max temp.) of both sites for the season.

8. The information on lines 146-147 is unnecessary (they are further included in the table caption, duplication is unnecessary).

Response 8: Ok, agreed. We have removed this information from M&M section.

9. Tables 8, 9 - in my opinion pink should be replaced with some other color to create more contrast.

Response 9: Ok, this is a good suggestion again. The pink is replaced with purple in both Tables in the revised copy.

10. Final conclusions are missing.

Response 10: Thanks for highlighting this. We have added a conclusion at the end of the discussion section (pl see lines: 321-324).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript agronomy-1230802 entitled “An evaluation of growth characteristics of faba bean cultivars for weed control” by submitted by Shabbir et al., deals with an interesting subject regarding the competitiveness against weeds of six different faba bean cultivar tested in two different climatic environments in a pot experiment.

Considering the topic investigated, the experiment and the whole manuscript, I believe that is of potential interest for readers of Agronomy and fall within its scope.

In general, the manuscript is interesting, well written and follows a solid scientific logic. However, some information are needed in the material and methods section. Discussion is sufficient considering the results of the experiment. The introduction needs small changes.

My specific comments, which I hope will help the authors to improve the manuscript, are reported in the attached files.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The manuscript agronomy-1230802 entitled “An evaluation of growth characteristics of faba bean cultivars for weed control” by submitted by Shabbir et al., deals with an interesting subject regarding the competitiveness against weeds of six different faba bean cultivar tested in two different climatic environments in a pot experiment.

Considering the topic investigated, the experiment and the whole manuscript, I believe that is of potential interest for readers of Agronomy and fall within its scope.

In general, the manuscript is interesting, well written and follows a solid scientific logic. However, some information are needed in the material and methods section. Discussion is sufficient considering the results of the experiment. The introduction needs small changes.

My specific comments, which I hope will help the authors to improve the manuscript, are reported in the attached files.

Response: We really appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for your insightful comments on the paper. We also appreciate your encouraging remarks, these mean a lot to us!

We have addressed all the specific comments made on the pdf copy of the MS. All changes have been highlighted in red color in the revised copy (attached).

1. Please, it could have been better if the manuscript was formatted using the appropriate MS word template.

Response 1: Sorry for the inconvenience. We try to submit both word and pdf versions in future.

2. Running head: not foreseen for this journalResponse 2: Sorry, this was included as a mistake. we removed it in the revised version.

3. I suggest to insert a brief description of the activity that did you carried out

Response 3: Ok thanks, we have added the following information in the abstract "we assessed the growth traits (biomass, height, leaf area, relative growth rate, and branch number) of six faba bean cultivars and ranked them for their potential ability to compete with weeds". 

4. Here, I suggest to add a phrase on the positive role of Faba bean on soil fertiltiy.

Response 3: Ok thanks, we have modified the statement to reflect the suggestion " Faba bean (Vicia faba L. var. major), is a winter legume crop and in Australia, it is valued for its role as a break crop in rotations and its ability to improve soil fertility by establishing a symbiotic association with nitrogen-fixing bacteria" 

5. Please, add more details on the specific treatments or varieties tested in order to meet the lack of knowledge.

Response 5: Ok thanks, we have provided more details about the cultivars tested (see lines 60, 61) in the revised MS.

6-7. Add altitude

Response 6-7: altitude for both sites is added with GPS locations.

8. Please, add brief description of the climate of two experimental sites. Please, cite that at both site temperature was recorded by weather station.

Response 8: Ok thanks. We have added Figure 1 based on ave. temperatures (monthly min and max) for both sites for the growing season.

9. replicates

Response 9: corrected, thanks.

10. In my opinion. This phrase could be stay above. 

Response 10: ok thanks, this phrase has been moved up in the section as suggested.

11. declare, inside brackets, the factor studied.

Response 11: Thanks. We have used only one-way ANOVA so the sentence is modified accordingly (see the line: 123).

12. add the zadoks growth scale or bbch growth stages

Response 12. Thanks for your kind suggestion. We have provided bbch growth stages following Weber and Bleiholder (1990).

13. move in the results section.

Response 13. The figure 1 (now 2) has been moved to the results section and referred therein.

14-16: P-Value

Response 14-16: the format of the P-value has been corrected throughout

17. increase the size of the images and reduce the thickness of the lines 

Response 17. The size of figure 2 (now 3) has been increased with A and B stacked over each other. The size of lines is reduced.

18. In general, this phrase con be acceptable, however, you did not test the differences among the site be statistical analysis. Leave the sentence this way but keep in mind for your future work that it is not an orthodox approach. 

Response 18. Ok, thanks for your kind suggestion. 

19. use an unique style for the caption.

Response 19: The pink color boxes are replaced with purple to increase the contrast.

20. in the whole manuscript use "and" instead of "&"

Response 20. Ok, thanks for the suggestion. We have modified this throughout the MS 

21. Sowing density should be also considered.

Response 21. Yes, agreed. The effect of sowing density along with several other agronomic parameters needs to be tested. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have found major problems with this manuscript. In Table 3, the mean separation by the lower-case letters does not seem to be right. The difference between any two means which exceeds the LSD value is considered significant. The cultivar PBA Warda is significantly different from PBA Nasma (11.81-8.69=3.2), which exceeds the LSD value of 2.79. The authors say otherwise. Similarly, in Table 4, PBA Nanu and PBA Warda are significantly different (26.43-22.40=4.03), which exceeds the LSD of 3.98. Also, PBA Warda and PBA Nasma are significantly different. The authors have reported these cultivars not significant. Even in Table 5 and 6, similar mistakes appear.

Because this paper is about the growth characteristics of Faba bean cultivars to control weeds, the abstract should contain a brief statement about the plant. 

The title is misleading: Modify the title like An evaluation of Growth Characteristics of Faba Bean Cultivars for Weed Control.

Table 1, How will the difference in seed size impact the results? The authors have used LSD values in Tables 3 and others. How were means separated?

A Table showing the ANOVA with F-values, df and probability values at least for the 4th stage of growth is desirable. Interactions are important here to see.

How were the interaction least square means separated?

In the Results, Line 152: Always provide the F-value, the degrees of freedom and the and p-values. 

 

  

Reviewer 2 Report

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS

Change the title because it does not fully reflect the content of the work!

 Line 23 - keywords: Vicia faba var. major, minor or equine? Clear, please!

Line 44: Vicia faba L. var. major, minor or equine? Clear, please

 Lines 75-76: The authors say nothing about area coverings to defend against birds. This is important because it affects the photoperiod and therefore the growth of plants.

Line 132 - Table 2. Delete Y

Line 152: P<0.003. Change because other significance levels are reported later (0.001; 0.05%).

 Line 190 - Table 5. 1115ab? Check, please!

Line 225 - Table 8. A Narrabri leaf area too low? Check, please!

 Why did the Warda cultivar report a high leaf area and biomass despite having the lowest number of branches? Check, please! If this is correct, at line 204 add, after (table 7): PBA Warda, despite having good values, was heavily penalized by the smaller number of branches.

In the discussion section the authors report citations regarding the topic but on other species (protein pea, soybean, wheat), but not on the Vicia faba var. major (broad bean or faba bean), or on Vicia faba var. minor or Vicia faba var. equine.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx