Can Nitrogen Fertilization and Intercropping Modify the Quality and Nutrient Yield of Barley–Field Bean Forage?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Intercropping is used in many countries. It has many advantages and is one of the elements of sustainable agriculture, as it allows for more efficient use of environmental resources. The effectiveness of intercropping depends on many factors, one of which is the proper selection of crop species. This cultivation system can also be used to produce animal feed in the form of green fodder or silage. The research presented in the manuscript is consistent with the thematic scope of the Agronomy journal, although it has a small novelty aspect.

 

In my opinion, the manuscript requires thorough corrections and re-editing. Most important notes

1. Applying such a large dose of nitrogen to field beans, which are legumes, is unjustified. It does not bring any new cognitive values or have any practical application.

2. The methodology states that three cultivation systems were tested: sole barley, sole field bean , intercropping. This should also be the case in statistical analysis. In my opinion, the authors should compare the values of the assessed parameters for these three factor levels.  And the authors seem to introduce further factors. In intercropping, is it possible to harvest barley and field beans separately for green fodder? Of course, you can introduce, but as an additional and not the basic element, a comparison of the properties of barley or field beans in sole cropping and intercropping. In my opinion, the approach taken by the authors in this manuscript is inappropriate.

3. How were the values of the tested parameters (crude protein concentration; ether extract concentration; neutral-detergent fiber concentration; acid-detergent fiber concentration; non-fibrous carbohydrate concentration; total digestible nutrient concentration) calculated for 'combined forage'? In  line [324-325] is “Due to the additive design of IC, data obtained by barley and field bean as sole crops are from a two-fold large unit surface area and were averaged to be compared to IC data, which were conversely summed because obtained by barley and field bean on a single unit surface area”. Have differences in biomass obtained per unit area for barley and field beans been taken into account??

4. When describing the results, the impact of the examined factors on individual features should be discussed. That is, we discuss the protein content and the impact of fertilization or cultivation system on this parameter. Then we discuss the next parameter. This makes it much easier for the reader to understand and evaluate the results achieved

Author Response

please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript describes follow-on work from a previous paper that dealt with barley and field bean yields. It provides important quality data for these species and their mixture. I wonder about the quality date, specifically how quality often increases with maturity; however, the authors explain this as a factor of including more seeds with higher quality in the overall forage. Perhaps that is true, but I wonder if it could also have been related to seeding rate in the intercropped treatment.

The grammar is a bit challenging and could really use some improvements.

L98-107: Does “additive design” refer simply to intercropping the field bean with barley. Or is this why the same seeding rate was used for each species regardless of whether they were grown together or alone. Typically, seeding rates are reduced for each species when grown in polyculture compared to their monoculture seeding rate. Regardless, I think it would be important to describe why the seeding rates for the individual species were the same in the monoculture and in the 2-way mixture and how this might affect quality results (e.g., would it affect stem morphology or size in barley due to competitive effects of the higher overall seeding rate, and thus affect the quality measurements noted?).

L277: write out Table

L322-328: I am not sure what this paragraph means in terms of the definition of “combined.” I think it is mainly a language issue. However, I also think that something like this should be explained in the methods section if there was some type of data transformation completed. The following comments about this paragraph reflect my understanding, but it may be that I have misinterpreted what is being stated so bear that in mind when evaluating the following two sentences: The surface area of the samples would not affect nutrient concentrations in the harvested forage. Further, everything is equalized based on nutrient yield per unit area so why the change? It seems that this paragraph also implies that “combined forage” was defined differently before this point in the manuscript.

L431-432: I assume this means the “production of barley seeds or spikes” not of “ears.” Even if yes, however, was this measured in the previous paper on yield? If yes, fine; if no, it may be important to further explain how this was ascertained.

 

Figures

Letters should be within each figure to indicate which one is a, b, c, etc. The letters are only in the figure title currently.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs moderate improvement.

Author Response

please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, list of abbreviations should be added in this article

Introduction

Well done

Materials and Methods

This section prepared in good manner. However, there is no information about the soil properties and climatic data of the study location

Discussion section

 Line 469 add the following citations after "………..most limiting factor

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42106-023-00253-4

https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2014.920499

 

Line 464 add the following citation after "…… competitiveness for light

 https://hrcak.srce.hr/41577

                                           

Author Response

please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I still believe that the use of such high nitrogen fertilization in field beans is not justified. The results confirm the known fact that doses higher than 50 kg are ineffective. Justifying nitrogen fertilization in barley grown for green fodder, the authors refer to a publication on durum wheat. In line [37-39] the authors write that ‘What is more, intercropping cereals with grain legumes can contribute to the EU goal of reducing nitrogen (N) fertilizer use in Europe…’ This aspect has been omitted.

The method of presenting and describing the results adopted by the authors makes it difficult to read the manuscript and understand the results obtained.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have addressed concerns and made adequate revisions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although improvements could still be made, it is readable as-is.