Effect of Planting Density and Row Spacing on the Yielding and Morphological Features of Pea (Pisum sativum L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the introduction does not pay attention to whether peas are sensitive to other stressors (diseases, pests, weeds) and what role they may have on pea yield and yield stability. Or is variety choice important?

Tables 3 and 5 show four-year averages, but it is not clear whether these averages can actually be derived and relied upon. There is no statistical explanation.

The notes below the tables do not explain everywhere what the letters next to the indicators mean. It is also not clear why they are in the same tables for some indicators and not for some.

I doubt the conclusion of the first sentence (The length of the growing season of pea in Europe may limit its yield potential in relation to crops obtained at lower latitude and a longer growing season.). The authors did not investigate this.  It can very much depend on the meteorological conditions during the season, on the variety chosen, on other practices. The authors could think more about formulating conclusions.

Author Response

1. A detailed description of the Batuta variety and its features can be found in Materials and methods.
2. Tables 3 and 5 were supplemented with letter symbols of the significance of the examined features in the years of the study.
3. The results of the experiments carried out in southern Europe and Asia indicate a higher yielding of peas in these parts of the world, as presented in the Introduction.

Reviewer 2 Report

The research topic undertaken by the authors potentially could have practical application, if the authors had more clearly  and correctly described the research results. However, the level of article preparation is average and needs to be improved (remarks given below and in the manuscript text):

“Experimental design" needs to be improved and refined (yellow highlighted in the manuscript).

Results and Discussion: This chapter requires completion and data verification (notes are marked in the text).

I have big reservations about the form presented in the tables of the statistical analysis of the research results. In its present shape, it is hardly understandable to the reader. Below the table, it should be clearly explained why the results were summarized in this way. Moreover, significant differences in the yield (A, B) between individual years of the study were incorrectly marked in the result table regarding the yield. The current marking is incorrect and causes a misinterpretation of the test results in their description. In all tables, all letter symbols (lower case letters) should be included consistently, even if the statistical differences did not emerge. Statistical analysis shows that the outcome features determined almost exclusively the years of the study. It is well known that the weather conditions in the years of research strongly modify the yield and its quality. What is surprising, however, is the lack of variability in the size of the resulting traits, e.g. between extreme sowing densities. In view of the above research, do they show that regardless of whether we sow, for example, 50 or 100 seeds per unit area, the yield in a given year will be similar ...?

The references corresponds to the subject of research and they are sufficient (27).

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. The Experimental design and crop management part has been supplemented and improved according to the guidelines.
2. The results of the research, their description, in particular, the letter markings were corrected and supplemented.
3. Strongly differentiated rainfall and their distribution in the following years of research, especially in the generative phase, probably contributed to the lack of a significant influence of the analyzed factors on the yield of seeds and protein.
4. The amendments and supplements in the text marked by the Reviewer have been incorporated.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript with the title “Effect of planting density and row spacing on the yielding and morphological features of pea (Pisum sativum L.).” is interesting and easy to read and understand.

I have only some suggestions for the authors.

I would add in the abstract some finding that I liked from the results section. “What is interesting here is the effect of the mean monthly temperature and the total precipitation on pea yielding. In the years with a lower mean monthly temperature in June and July, the pea seed yield was  significantly higher than in the years with a higher temperature” – So you can say: “An interesting finding was represented by a significantly increase of pea yealds in the years with lower monthly temperature together with a decrease in the years with higher temperature.”

Row 36: “In Europe, although a higher pea planting density increases the plant weight yield, however its impact on yielding is, usually, inconsiderable”. Please reformulate because it is very difficult to understand the meening here

Row 57: “The research of the effect of the sowing density” better this way “The research of the sowing density effect

Row 68-69: “The content of phosphorus was very high (90 mg.kg-1 of soil), potassium – high (134 mg.kg-1 of soil), magnesium – low (28.7 mg.kg-1 of soil).” Here you must cite the table because it is the first time you present the soil chemical properties and it is no need to keep the values as they are already in the table. You could say: “high phosphorus and potassium level and low magnesium content”.

Table 2 would look better as a figure or two figures first with precipitation distribution and second with temperature fluctuation

I am also suggesting to add some pictures with the crop, I would have expect to see some visual aspects in this manuscript.

I like that you have discussed a lot all significat results.

I think only some minor changes could improve significantly the overview of the manuscript.

Author Response

1. Notes on the influence of the monthly average temperature and rainfall sum are included in the Pea seed yield chapter.
2. Line 36 has been deleted.
3. The numerical data concerning the content of macronutrients in soil, repeated in the text and in the table 1, has been removed.