Effect of Fungicide Protection of Sugar Beet Leaves (Beta vulgaris L.): Results of Many Years Experiments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article reports on an 11-year-long experiment on the effectiveness of fungicide applications on sugar beet leaves, which is a rare long-cycle pesticide effectiveness evaluation experiment. I think this paper is suitable for publication in this journal, but there are the following issues that need to be minor revised or improved:

1.     In addition to the fungicides examined by the authors, were the other agricultural inputs or agronomic practices applied in these experimental fields consistent from year to year? Were there any changes that would affect the results of the experiments?

2.     In addition to fungicide treatment, the authors have other information such as temperature, rainfall, fertility, etc. Can the authors integrate these factors for systematic analysis and summarize the relationship between the effect of different fungicides with these factors, the relationship between the effect of different application times with these factors, so as to better guide the application of fungicides. But this is just a suggestion , and I'm not sure that such correlations can be found.

3.     The authors need to introduce some specific experimental index in the experimental methods, for example: the specific amounts of various fungicides used in the field experiments.

Author Response

The authors are grateful for the review of the manuscript. The article was supplemented and improved in accordance with the comments and suggestions by two reviewers:

• the mathematical and statistical analysis of the results was extended - the standard deviation (SD) of the results of the assessment of damage to beet leaves was calculated,
• Figures 1 and 2 show the SD value graphically,
• trade names of fungicides used in the field experiment during the research period are given,
• the doses of fungicides applied in the field experiment were given,
• the name and technical parameters of the sprayer used for application of fungicides in the field experiment were given,
• the names of sugar beet diseases that occurred during the research period were given.

Supplements and corrections in the manuscript are in red.

The authors also answer questions:

1. In the field experiments, the element of variability was the application of fungicides (experimental factor). Other agricultural practices were similar in subsequent years. The variability of weather and soil conditions is shown in tables 1-3.
2. The authors analyzed the dependence of sugar beet foliage on rainfall conditions (results in the manuscript). Such an analysis of dependence on air temperature was also performed. However, the results were not statistically significant (not reported in the paper).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID agronomy-2111821

Manuscript title: Effect of fungicide protection of sugar beet leaves (Beta vulgaris L.): Results of many years experiments. Iwona Jaskulska et al.

The aims of authors in the present manuscript was to evaluate the effect that the foliar application of fungicides in sugar beet cultivation had on leaf infestation and damage, the Leaf Area Index, leaf yield, and a plant foliage index during 11-years.

The initial objective of the manuscript is good and tends to the contribution of sustainability in productive systems. This aspect is relevant in the management of any crop of agronomic interest, but mainly in those intended for human and/or animal consumption.

Although the study was conducted for an extensive period (11 years), I consider that the data shown in this version lack valuable information for the understanding of readers. On the other hand, the information is not presented clearly; the use of tables makes the quick interpretation of the displayed results tedious.

For the acceptance of this work, the authors should include omitted information and add data not shown as detailed below:

1- Include the brand and concentration of the fungicides used.

2- Detail the concentration used in the tests and the equipment used for the applications.

3- In the three spraying condition, detail the fungicide used and not the chemical group to which they belong.

4- In Figures 1 and 2 include error bars (SD or SEM).

5- Table 4, the description of the results show differences or similarities that are not supported by any statistical analysis, nor are the SD or SEM shown.

6- The authors do not give details of why they express the protection of the treatments with fungicides in sugar beet leaf yield and as foliage index. This last point is crucial for the work. The authors detail in the introduction that the importance of sugar beet lies mainly in its root. The importance of the leaves for any plant is clear, but in this case the protection should be expressed in root yield and not as a leaf mass to root mass ratio. Therefore, the data corresponding to root yield should be included in this manuscript.

7- It would be desirable that the authors give details about the main diseases that affected the crop in the different years, this would help to understand the protection by the different fungicides.

Author Response

The authors are grateful for the review of the manuscript. The article was supplemented and improved in accordance with the comments and suggestions:

• the mathematical and statistical analysis of the results was extended - the standard deviation (SD) of the results of the assessment of damage to beet leaves was calculated,
• Figures 1 and 2 show the SD value graphically,
• trade names of fungicides used in the field experiment during the research period are given,
• the doses of fungicides applied in the field experiment were given,
• the name and technical parameters of the sprayer used for application of fungicides in the field experiment were given,
• the names of sugar beet diseases that occurred during the research period were given.       

The authors also answer question: A thorough and extensive analysis of the impact of fungicide protection on the yielding and technological quality of sugar beet roots is the subject of the second scientific article. This article is already submitted to the editorial board of another scientific journal and its results cannot be included in this manuscript. However, in this paper, the range of root yields in the years of research and depending on the method of fungicide protection was given.

Supplements and corrections in the manuscript are in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf