Experimental Study of Quizalofop-p-Ethyl Herbicide Drift Damage to Corn and the Safety Amount of Drift Deposition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article, 'Evaluation of herbicide damage of quizalofop-p-ethyl drift to Corn', is an important one concerning the drift hazard of quizalofop-p-ethyl on corn. The article needs some extensive revisions mentioned below before its acceptance to this journal:

1. Mention the area of corn grown where quizalofop-p-ethyl is being used.

2. L 16: mention a brief description of the methodology before reporting the results in the abstract section.

3. L 39-40: Is this the final recommendation from the study? Rephrase this w.r.t. the results of this study.

4. L 50: Is it a true statement or did the authors just predict this?

5. Along with the ref. 5, and 6, include the following relevant ref.: https://www.isws.org.in/IJWSn/File/2017_49_Issue-1_63-66.pdf 

6. L 65: What do you mean by gramineous weeds?

7. What was the need for this study? What was the hypothesis? Where is the novelty statement?

8. In the methodology, the treatment details are not clearly mentioned. It was also not clear about the pot study and validation in the field. Need to elaborate this part clearly.

9. The results part is well-written, I enjoyed reading this. 

10. In the discussion part, the authors need to discuss properly about the bioassay part of the study, which is missing in the MS.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my manuscript, please see the attachment for detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The main objective of the paper is not clear. You already used shield/blocking curtains or to prevent drift to corn. You might have investigated drift effect of quizalofop-p-ethyl in field corn to mitigate its effect and adjust  conditions of herbicide spray solution/ mixture (adjuvants) for better performance/physical properties and for safety to corn.  You may use drift retardant compounds and test their effects on drift.

2. Field experiment was done once, however as well known Field trials should be conducted at least twice (two consecutive seasons).

3.The tested herbicide is normally used at 3-4 leaf stage for grass weeds  or 15-20 days after soybean emergence. What was the growth stage of corn plants when soybean was sprayed?? so you can test the phytotoxicity on corn at this time ( growth stage)

4. What were the main weeds associated with corn/soybean intercropping? and what were the weeds controlled by quizalofop?

5. It is advisable to use the terminology "Intercropping" instead of "compound planting mode"?

6. Did you wait longer than 14 days?? corn may recover.

7. What about the ultimate corn grain yield after drift effect occurred? did measure it?

8. Why did the authors make calculation based on area of 667m² not hectare?

9. Chlorophyll Fluorescence? photosynthetic parameters , biochemical studies? Plant biomass (fresh- dry), All can be used to bioassay drift or phytotoxicity effect.

10. References need to be more recent and updated

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language generally through the manuscript is proper, However, slight revision is required to make it suitable for publication in Agronomy Journal. A limited number of changes are needed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my manuscript, please see the attachment for detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This draft has been greatly improved, the method is fully described, and the result layout is reasonable. The authors have made great efforts. However, there is a very important problem that the final standard to determine whether the herbicide is harmful to crops is whether the yield is reduced, and the yield data in this experiment are lacking, so the current results are not enough.

And, the title of this manuscript does not present sufficient information about the study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your professional advice and comments, please see attached for my detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the MS well following the suggestions given. In my view, it may be accepted now.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you again for your patience in reviewing my manuscript with your professional advice and comments, and I wish you well in your work and life.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your response to the comments and suggestions.

However some points are still need to be clarified.

1. The field experiment still needs to be done twice since the environmental conditions may vary among seasons, and thus affect the behavior of herbicide and the test plant (maize) , not to mention the climate change issue. You have mentioned that there was a flooding effect this season which did not allow you to record the yield (point #7)

2. In manuscript, line 319 and 320 : It can also be seen from the figure that there was almost no weed growth between the soybean rows, indicating that this herbicide was used with good results. but when I asked for the main weeds controlled by the herbicide quizalofop, you mentioned weed species that can NOT be controlled by the grass herbicides under the test! (they are broadleaf weeds except for barnyardgrass). So, how did you manage other weeds allowing the soil to be free from weeds. If you used other pre-emergence herbicide,  that would interfere with your study and may affect results

3. In such studies, it is usually advised to record the yield as the final indicator/parameter for the drift effect! If the yield was not significantly changed, the drift effect would be underestimated (although drift effect should be reduced all the time)

4. In point 7: Your reply: Due to environmental and climatic conditions, the corn did not have enough time to grow to harvest, so we were unable to measure the yield. That means the experiment should have conducted twice to test for the climatic conditions influence on maize and herbicides

5. In point 8: As matter of fact and scientific rules agreed upon for writing, the calculations should always be related to the area of Hectare (as SI unit), no mater what the actual area you used was.

6. There are corrections / inquiries thorough the manuscript  were not changed or answered.

 

Thank you and best of luck.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is proper, However, slight revision is required to make it suitable for publication . A limited number of changes are needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you again for your patience in reviewing my manuscript with your professional advice and comments, please see attached for my detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Again, this manuscript has been greatly improved, the method is fully described, and the result layoout is reasonable. The authors have made great efforts.

First, authors referred the agricultural industry standard of the People's Republic of China (NY/T 1155.8-2007) to evaluate tha safety of quizalofop-p-ethyl to corn. Because this agricultural industry standard is not mandatory to use the yield data as the reference standard to evaluate the safety of  herbicide to crops, I think this manuscript can be accepted.

Secondly, the authors cited the references ( 20 and 21) about soybean and rice to evaluate the symptom levels for corn, it is not rigorous enough.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for reviewing my manuscript in your busy schedule, please find my response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf