The Weed-Suppressive Ability of Summer Cover Crops in the Northern Grains Region of Australia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors indicate that they did Shapiro-Wilk test for normality. They used √ transformation for weed biomass and that log transformation for crop biomass data. The authors should provide W values for both sets of data before and after transformation with p-values and degrees of freedom. This would ensure that the transformations stabilized the variance.
Because the analyses were based upon transformed data, are the results presented are back-transformed or based upon the original data?
The reason for using two different transformations is important to be included in the manuscript. The authors should indicate in all of the Figures that the results presented were based upon data transformations.
Line 11: The weed suppression ability was evaluated.
Line 16: Avoid wordy sentence. "These studies identified teff grass as an important summer crop option". The word inclusion is redundant.
Line 30: summer fallow lands.
Author Response
The authors indicate that they did Shapiro-Wilk test for normality. They used √ transformation for weed biomass and that log transformation for crop biomass data. The authors should provide W values for both sets of data before and after transformation with p-values and degrees of freedom. This would ensure that the transformations stabilized the variance.
Response: First, we would like to thank the reviwer 1 for providing an excellent feedback to improve this manuscript. As suggested, we have included the W and p-values and degrees of freedom of both sets of data (crop species and weeds biomasses) and for both sites in a supplementary Table 1. The relevant text in lines 160, 162-163 of materials and methods section is also added.
Because the analyses were based upon transformed data, are the results presented are back-transformed or based upon the original data?
Response: The results were presented based on original data, but we have realized this mistake and we now have presented all results of crop and weed biomasses based on backtransformed data, and all relevant text in abstract and Results section has been modified. The Figure 1 is also redone based on backtranformed data. The caption of the Figure 1 is modified to indicate the presentation of data format.
The reason for using two different transformations is important to be included in the manuscript. The authors should indicate in all of the Figures that the results presented were based upon data transformations.
The two different transformations were used because not all data sets passed the normatlity text with one kind of transformation. We have included following text in the caption of Figure 1 'The cover crop and weed biomass data were transformed before analysis and a back transformed data for both cover crop weed biomasses are presented' (see lines 209-211)
Line 11: The weed suppression ability was evaluated.
Response: Corrected, see line 11
Line 16: Avoid wordy sentence. "These studies identified teff grass as an important summer crop option". The word inclusion is redundant.
Resonse: Agreed and corrected, Corrected, see lines 16-17
Line 30: summer fallow lands.
Response: corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of the manuscript plants-1810472
The authors of the manuscript made an attempt to assess weed suppressive ability of teff, millet and buckwheat as summer cover crops in the conditions of Northern Grains Region in Australia. The paper is quite short and correlation between cover crop biomass and weed growth suppression can’t be considered as novelty. However considering problems with weed herbicide resistance in the world, research concerning non-chemical weed management including cover crops are needed. Some sections need some minor corrections. Therefore I recommend to accept the manuscript after minor revision.
Title
The title is well formulated and adequate to the topic of research
Abstract
The abstract is correctly written. The most important data are included.
Line 38 and 47 – Please decide sow thistle or sowthistle. In the line 47 the Latin name should be abbreviated or deleted.
Line 57 – residue, not “reside”
Aim of the study
The aim of the study is clearly and correctly formulated.
Introduction
The Introduction is correctly written and provides relevant information.
Materials and methods
Materials and methods are well described however this section needs some minor corrections.
Lines 100 – 101: (Table 1) should be placed in this phrase after the fragment „was reflected in the 2021 climate data” and not at the end of the phrase. Table 1 presents the data from Camden only.
Lines 115-116 – please include full Latin name of teff grass, Latin names of buckwheat and white French milet should be abbreviated because they appear for the second time
Figure 1 is of poor quality (poor resolution)
Results
The results are generally well presented and described, some minor corrections are needed.
Line 198 – The phrase should be corrected. There is no verb in this phrase. Moreover according to the statistical analysis differences between buckweat, millet and teff biomass in Landsdowne are not significant.
Discussion
Lines 267-270 – Figure 5 should be deleted from this phrase. Fig. 5 concerns only teff and the phrase suggest that it concerns all cover crops. Moreover according to the rules of scientific paper composition authors don’t referre to tabels and figures in the discussion section.
Line 272 – Table 1 should be deleted from the phrase.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors of the manuscript made an attempt to assess weed suppressive ability of teff, millet and buckwheat as summer cover crops in the conditions of Northern Grains Region in Australia. The paper is quite short and correlation between cover crop biomass and weed growth suppression can’t be considered as novelty. However considering problems with weed herbicide resistance in the world, research concerning non-chemical weed management including cover crops are needed. Some sections need some minor corrections. Therefore I recommend to accept the manuscript after minor revision.
Response: We would like to sincerely thank you, reviewer 2 for the valuable feedback and insights about the manuscript.
Title
The title is well formulated and adequate to the topic of research
Response: Thanks
Abstract
The abstract is correctly written. The most important data are included.
Response: Thanks
Line 38 and 47 – Please decide sow thistle or sowthistle. In the line 47 the Latin name should be abbreviated or deleted.
Response: We have corrected it to sowthistle throughout, thanks.
Line 57 – residue, not “reside”
Response: Corrected, thanks.
Aim of the study
The aim of the study is clearly and correctly formulated.
Response: Ok, thanks.
Introduction
The Introduction is correctly written and provides relevant information.
Response: Ok, thanks.
Materials and methods
Materials and methods are well described however this section needs some minor corrections.
Lines 100 – 101: (Table 1) should be placed in this phrase after the fragment „was reflected in the 2021 climate data” and not at the end of the phrase. Table 1 presents the data from Camden only.
Response: Corrected as suggested, thanks.
Lines 115-116 – please include full Latin name of teff grass, Latin names of buckwheat and white French milet should be abbreviated because they appear for the second time
Response: The full name of teff grass was described in earlier section (line 74), so we have just added abbreviation, other names were abbreviated as suggested.
Figure 1 is of poor quality (poor resolution)
We have provided original images so we would request production editor to use high quality images.
Results
The results are generally well presented and described, some minor corrections are needed.
Line 198 – The phrase should be corrected. There is no verb in this phrase. Moreover according to the statistical analysis differences between buckweat, millet and teff biomass in Landsdowne are not significant.
Response: This sentence was deleted as it was redundent.
Discussion
Lines 267-270 – Figure 5 should be deleted from this phrase. Fig. 5 concerns only teff and the phrase suggest that it concerns all cover crops. Moreover according to the rules of scientific paper composition authors don’t referre to tabels and figures in the discussion section.
Response: Ok, agreed. These reference to Fig. 5 are deleted.
Line 272 – Table 1 should be deleted from the phrase.
Response: deleted
