Yield and Quality of Forages in a Triple Cropping System in Southern Kyushu, Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Method
I am concerned about the basic science in this paper. The paper states that there were three replicates. But how were the plots and replicates organised? It is impossible for the reader to establish whether the plots were indeed true replicates and whether there were any confounding variables. There needs to be a diagram or a more detailed explanation of where the plots were relative to each other and on what basis they were randomised.
Where all the plants effectively scattered around one field? Where they separated? How did you avoid edge effects? Were they sown together?
What is the control? Was there a non-climate disaster control? Was there a non-triple cropped control?
Also where is the study site? Give co-ordinates (lat/long/altitude) or a map.
I don’t like the term “normal” for climate. Please state the mean annual temperature and mean annual rainfall and then compare the actual conditions with these.
Section 2.4 more detail required? What was a summary of the procedures? You can’t give a web link to the actual procedure. How many samples were taken and when?
Results
Give standard error of mean values.
Figure 2: remove the top two x-axis labels for clarity. They are the same.
Sub-headings would assist the reader.
Line 226: 800degC is very hot. What are all these references to degC?
Generally a quite confused section. I think the authors need to clarify exactly what they have been measuring and how they differ.
SI units are DM m-2 rather than DM/m2
Discussion
Do we need the abbreviation CGR?
Line 362: CGR (crop growth rate) was positively related to DM production? This seems a bit too obvious to me.
Line 366: IR now stated instead of Italian Ryegrass.
Author Response
Answers to the comments by Reviewer 1
Dear Sir (Reviewer 1),
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the submitted manuscript (Agronomy-480464).
I would like to answer to your comments as listed below.
1. Method
Question 1:
I am concerned about the basic science in this paper. The paper states that there were three replicates. But how were the plots and replicates organised? It is impossible for the reader to establish whether the plots were indeed true replicates and whether there were any confounding variables. There needs to be a diagram or a more detailed explanation of where the plots were relative to each other and on what basis they were randomised.
Where all the plants effectively scattered around one field? Where they separated? How did you avoid edge effects? Were they sown together?
Answer 1:
I revised the first paragraph in 2.3 Experimental design and treatments as follows:
One plot area for each cultivar in both spring maize and Italian ryegrass was sized at 3 × 3.5 m (10.5 m2) and border between plots was set at 1.25 m wide, and thus, one replicated block had an area of 13 × 3 m (39 m2) in both the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 growing seasons. Arrangement of maize and Italian ryegrass cultivars was allocated in a randomized block design with three replicated blocks (replications). Pearl millet was cultivated in the whole of block (39 m2) with three replications. Sowing time of each crop was the same among cultivars. Sampling was conducted to avoid the edge effect of each plot.
Question 2:
What is the control? Was there a non-climate disaster control? Was there a non-triple cropped control?
Answer 2:
In this study, there was no-climate disaster control. Because if we need to examine the cropping system without affecting climatic disasters, experiment in the environmental control facility (CEF) is needed. However, it is unrealistic that forage crops are cultivated in CEF same as in an ornamental flower cultivation. The control of cropping system relative to the present triple cropping is the double cropping of maize and Italian ryegrass, which is quite common and possible to refer to the yielding data in the examined area.
Question 3:
Also where is the study site? Give co-ordinates (lat/long/altitude) or a map.
Answer 3:
The study site is located at 31°49'39'' N, 131°24'46'' E and 27 m above sea level.
Therefore, in the first paragraph of 2. Materials and methods, the sentence was revised as follows:
In the experimental site (31°49'39'' N, 131°24'46'' E, 27 m above sea level), southern Kyushu,
Question 4:
I don’t like the term “normal” for climate. Please state the mean annual temperature and mean annual rainfall and then compare the actual conditions with these.
Answer 4:
Mean temperature and precipitation were averaged for data in 30 years from 1980-2010, as shown in Figure 1.
And I revised the sentence in 2.2. Climatic conditions as follows:
than that in a normal year (based on averages for 1980-2010),
Question 5:
Section 2.4 more detail required? What was a summary of the procedures? You can’t give a web link to the actual procedure. How many samples were taken and when?
Answer 5:
Two plant samples of each plant fraction per replication, totally 6 samples for each cultivar, were dried at 72°C for 72 hours in an air-forced oven and dried plant samples at harvest were ground to pass through a 1-mm sieve.
I inputted the references as follows:
32. ANKOM Technology Corporation. ANKOM - Automation Made Simple, 2019. URL: Available online: https://www.ankom.com/, ANKOM Technology, Macedon, NY.
2. Results
Question 6:
Give standard error of mean values.
Answer 6:
I inputted the standard error bars in both Figures 2 and 3, except for the case when the size of symbols was larger than the length of the error bars.
Question 7:
Figure 2: remove the top two x-axis labels for clarity. They are the same.
Sub-headings would assist the reader.
Answer 7:
In Figure 2, since the sampling interval was different among 3 crops, I cannot remove the x-axis even in the top two x-axes.
I inputted the subheading in each of crop, such as (a) Spring maize, (b) Pearl millet, (c) Italian ryegrass.
Question 8:
Line 226: 800degC is very hot. What are all these references to degC?
Generally a quite confused section. I think the authors need to clarify exactly what they have been measuring and how they differ.
Answer 8:
X-axis in Figure 5 is the effective cumulative temperature (ECT), which is the sum of the difference between daily mean temperature and the ceiling base temperature (10°C) over the growth periods. For the early-heading maize cultivars in the examined area, ECT is usually in a range of 1050-1100°C.
Question 9:
SI units are DM m-2 rather than DM/m2
Answer 9:
I changes to the unit of DM m-2 from DM/m2.
3. Discussion
Question 10:
Do we need the abbreviation CGR?
Answer10:
In Line 362 where CGR is firstly dedicated, I defined the abbreviation of crop growth rate as CGR.
Question 11:
Line 362: CGR (crop growth rate) was positively related to DM production? This seems a bit too obvious to me.
Answer 11:
It is almost true that the positive correlation existed between CGR and DM yield. However, even for both spring maize and pearl millet, higher yielder was derived from cultivars and years where higher CGR was recorded in the later growth periods. This seems to analyze the reason of high DM yield by using CGR.
Question 12:
Line 366: IR now stated instead of Italian Ryegrass.
Answer 12:
Line 366: I changed IR to Italian ryegrass.
I would like to ask you to review the manuscript, which was revised based on your suggestion as listed from Answers 1-12.
Reviewer 2 Report
Li et al., evaluated the yield and quality of forages in a triple cropping system in southern Kyushu, Japan. Although, the manuscript contains some interesting results; however, article needs substantial work to make it worth of publication. For instance, it is not clear either only one plot (10.5 m2) was used for whole experiment or there were other plots too? There is no data set regarding soil properties considering initial soil nutrient status could have significant results during time course of study. Information regarding prior crop grown on field is missing. How, crop growth rate was evaluated and what is difference between plant height and plant length? There are repetition of text in manuscript and needs to be fixed. Important forage quality analysis such as proteins, minerals and energy contents are missing. Discussion lacks solid reasons and logics along with references to support the research results. Conclusion reports results instead of a solid conclusion and needs to be revised. Therefore, I do recommend a thorough revision of article.
Specific comments:
L-19: Change Spring-maize to spring maize, Pearl millet to pearl millet. Please do such changes throughout the manuscript body text.
L-21: Either authors evaluated any disease infestation during course of study? if not please delete text.
L-22: How authors evaluated annual dry matter yield? Needs to add information in methodology.
L-24: Rewrite the sentence as “The observed total digestible nutrients (TDN) were higher in spring maize (up to 68.2% and 76.8%) pearl millet (up to 60.?% and 67.9%) and ryegrass (up to 71.6% and 68.6%) during first and second growing seasons, respectively. Be consistent with digits after decimal point
L-27-28: Change text to ……………………… cropping system is feasible for obtaining high yields with more digestible nutrients in the region.
L-51, 59, 67: Be consistent with writing scientific names.
L-63: PM?, define abbreviation first.
L-71: [24] or [24]]?
L-76: IR?, define abbreviation first.
L-80: Correct the reference.
L-85: ??“Blast-disease resistant Italian ryegrass?
L-95: Delete “study” after extension to avoid repetition.
L-104-107: Authors need to re-examine the sentence. Not sure how the two year rotation can mitigate the adverse effects of climatic disasters, especially typhoon or heavy rainfall? Should authors write “evaluating the performance of crops under prevailing climatic conditions”?
L-108: MZ stands for?
L-108-111: Why researchers changed the genotypes during second growing seasons? Needs to justify such changes while evaluating the genotypes among each other.
L-136: How many plots (10.5 m2) in total were there for whole experiment or it was just one plot (10.5 m2) having subsets of treatments? Could authors justify why plot size was small and either there was a non-experimental area along with main plots to keep disease/pest infestation under control? If plot size was 10.5 m2, how it was allocated to three spring maize genotypes during second year?
L-139-142: Two genotypes were tested during first year and 3 during second growing season. Needs to add information in text about additional plots added to accommodate the third genotype? What was previous crop on those plots? How researchers could compare two genotypes verses three genotypes especially having different traits and names?
L153: Was there any scientific reason for a temporal (after each 3 weeks) plant samplings in case of pearl millet, especially when authors were looking to see the effect on final forage harvest and quality? Were there enough plants left to evaluate the final forage TDN?
L-146-163: Text could be combined to avoid repetitions such as “cattle manure 3 kg/m2 and slaked lime at 0.15 kg/m2”, “row spacing” “plant emergence ………………………………… each plant fraction”,
L-166: How plant samples were collected? How they were treated in field? Needs some information to understand well the methods.
L-190-1192: Was there any statistical difference between plant heights (though mentioned in figure 2 at 2 dates only) assuming plant heights were average on 3/5 plants per treatment and then considering replications? It would be great to see standard error with plant height values to check the variations under field conditions.
L-192-194: Better to add “although a significant temporal effects were observed during both study years where maximum plant height was recorded at harvest”.
Figure 2a: Either the SE is missing in figure or too small. In second case, the last sampling date (17 weeks) could be significantly different among genotypes? Needs to check the figure and data again. Same comments for Figure 2C.
Figure 3ab: Change Y-axis legend to “Tillers density (tillers m-2)”.
Figure 5a-c: Change Y-axis legend to “Crop growth rate (g m-2 day-1)”.
Discussion: Needs substantial work to improve the discussion. Discussion section lacks solid reasoning and key references to support the findings. Also needs to avoid repetitions such as “L-371-374” already mentioned in L 104-107.
L-384: Authors have mentioned crude proteins, an important forage quality parameter. However, it is difficult to find protein related results in manuscript and will suggest to include such important findings to strengthen the manuscript.
L-386-389: looks like more conclusion, whereas in conclusion section, authors mentioned the results (L-392-398). Needs to write the conclusion.
Author Response
Answers to the Comments by Reviewer 2
Dear Sir (Reviewer 2),
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the submitted manuscript (Agronomy-480464).
I would like to answer to your comments as listed below.
General comments:
Li et al., evaluated the yield and quality of forages in a triple cropping system in southern Kyushu, Japan. Although, the manuscript contains some interesting results; however, article needs substantial work to make it worth of publication. For instance, it is not clear either only one plot (10.5 m2) was used for whole experiment or there were other plots too? There is no data set regarding soil properties considering initial soil nutrient status could have significant results during time course of study. Information regarding prior crop grown on field is missing. How, crop growth rate was evaluated and what is difference between plant height and plant length? There are repetition of text in manuscript and needs to be fixed. Important forage quality analysis such as proteins, minerals and energy contents are missing. Discussion lacks solid reasons and logics along with references to support the research results. Conclusion reports results instead of a solid conclusion and needs to be revised. Therefore, I do recommend a thorough revision of article.
Answers to General comments:
I revised the first paragraph in Materials and methods, 2.3 Experimental design and treatments as follows:
One plot area for each cultivar in both spring maize and Italian ryegrass was sized at 3 × 3.5 m (10.5 m2) and border between plots was set at 1.25 m wide, and thus, one replicated block had an area of 13 × 3 m (39 m2) in both the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 growing seasons. Arrangement of maize and Italian ryegrass cultivars was allocated in a randomized block design with three replicated blocks (replications). Pearl millet was cultivated in the whole of block (39 m2) with three replications. Before the present study, the previous triple cropping system in the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 growing seasons [13, 15] was examined in the field with the same manure and chemical fertilizer application. Sowing time of each crop was the same among cultivars. Sampling was conducted to avoid the edge effect of each plot.
As for crop growth rate, I revised to input the calculation method in 2.3 Experimental design and treatments as follows:
Crop growth rate (CGR) was evaluated by the difference of the DM yield (g/m2) at the present and that at the previous sampling, divided by the sampling period (day) for each crop and cultivar.
As for 4. Discussion, I revised to infer the data from the previous studies and discuss with the data obtained in 3. Results.
Specific comments:
L-19: Change Spring-maize to spring maize, Pearl millet to pearl millet. Please do such changes throughout the manuscript body text.
Answer: I revised the crop name as spring maize and pearl millet in the whole of the text.
L-21: Either authors evaluated any disease infestation during course of study? if not please delete text.
Answer: I deleted “disease infection or”.
L-22: How authors evaluated annual dry matter yield? Needs to add information in methodology.
Answer: As for annual dry matter yield, I revised to input the calculation method in 2.3 Experimental design and treatments as follows:
Annual DM yield was calculated with the summation of the average of DM yield in each crop for each growing season.
L-24: Rewrite the sentence as “The observed total digestible nutrients (TDN) were higher in spring maize (up to 68.2% and 76.8%) pearl millet (up to 60.?% and 67.9%) and ryegrass (up to 71.6% and 68.6%) during first and second growing seasons, respectively. Be consistent with digits after decimal point.
Answer: I revised the sentence as follows:
The observed total digestible nutrients (TDN) were higher in spring maize (up to 68.2% and 76.8%), pearl millet (up to 60.0% and 67.9%) and Italian ryegrass (up to 71.6% and 68.6%) during the first and second season, respectively,
L-27-28: Change text to ……………………… cropping system is feasible for obtaining high yields with more digestible nutrients in the region.
Answer: I revised the sentence as follows:
The results suggest that the present established triple cropping system is feasible for obtaining high yields with more digestible nutrients in the region.
L-51, 59, 67: Be consistent with writing scientific names.
Answer: I revised the scientific name of crops as follows:
Maize (Zea mays L.), Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) Leeke), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorm Lam.).
L-63: PM?, define abbreviation first.
Answer: I changed to pearl millet from PM.
L-71: [24] or [24]]?
Answer: I changed to [24].
L-76: IR?, define abbreviation first.
Answer: I changed to Italian ryegrass from IR.
L-80: Correct the reference.
Answer: I revised to [29], only.
L-85: ??“Blast-disease resistant Italian ryegrass?
Answer: I revised to “Blast-disease resistant Italian ryegrass”.
L-95: Delete “study” after extension to avoid repetition.
Answer: I revised to delete “study”.
L-104-107: Authors need to re-examine the sentence. Not sure how the two year rotation can mitigate the adverse effects of climatic disasters, especially typhoon or heavy rainfall? Should authors write “evaluating the performance of crops under prevailing climatic conditions”?
Answer: I revised the paragraph as follows:
In the experimental site (31°49'39'' N, 131°24'46'' E, 27 m above sea level), southern Kyushu, high frequency of typhoons happens from late July to September, when heavy-wind resistant pearl millet was scheduled for cultivation in the present study. Heavy rainfall happens in September and October, when juvenile Italian ryegrass was cultivated due to high lodging resistance.
L-108: MZ stands for?
Answer: I changed to spring maize from MZ.
L-108-111: Why researchers changed the genotypes during second growing seasons? Needs to justify such changes while evaluating the genotypes among each other.
Answer: I added the sentence in the last paragraph in 2.1 Crop species.
In the 2017-2018 season, spring maize switched cultivars with RM 78 and 90 to those with RM 90 and 108, due to earlier sowing by 20 days in spring, while “Anjou 284, RM 90” was examined in both seasons (Figure 1).
L-136: How many plots (10.5 m2) in total were there for whole experiment or it was just one plot (10.5 m2) having subsets of treatments? Could authors justify why plot size was small and either there was a non-experimental area along with main plots to keep disease/pest infestation under control? If plot size was 10.5 m2, how it was allocated to three spring maize genotypes during second year?
Answer: As written in the answer to general comments, I added the paragraph in 2.3 Experimental design and treatments.
One plot area for each cultivar in both spring maize and Italian ryegrass was sized at 3 × 3.5 m (10.5 m2) and border between plots was set at 1.25 m wide, and thus, one replicated block had an area of 13 × 3 m (39 m2) in both the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 growing seasons. Arrangement of maize and Italian ryegrass cultivars was allocated in a randomized block design with three replicated blocks (replications). Pearl millet was cultivated in the whole of block (39 m2) with three replications.
L-139-142: Two genotypes were tested during first year and 3 during second growing season. Needs to add information in text about additional plots added to accommodate the third genotype? What was previous crop on those plots? How researchers could compare two genotypes verses three genotypes especially having different traits and names?
Answer: I added the sentence for the previous crop in the first paragraph in 2.3 Experimental design and treatments.
Before the present study, the previous triple cropping system in the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 growing seasons [13, 15] was examined in the field with the same manure and chemical fertilizer application.
The reason for the switching maize cultivars was written in 2.1 Crop species.
In the 2017-2018 season, spring maize switched cultivars with RM 78 and 90 to those with RM 90 and 108, due to earlier sowing by 20 days in spring, while “Anjou 284, RM 90” was examined in both seasons (Figure 1).
L153: Was there any scientific reason for a temporal (after each 3 weeks) plant samplings in case of pearl millet, especially when authors were looking to see the effect on final forage harvest and quality? Were there enough plants left to evaluate the final forage TDN?
Answer: The constant interval of sampling was needed to calculate crop growth rate (CGR). As for the sampling method, I added the sentence in the first paragraph in 2.3 Experimental design and treatments.
Sampling was conducted to avoid the edge effect of each plot.
And, evaluation of the crop TDN was estimated using the regression equation from the ADF concentration of the crop.
L-146-163: Text could be combined to avoid repetitions such as “cattle manure 3 kg/m2 and slaked lime at 0.15 kg/m2”, “row spacing” “plant emergence ………………………………… each plant fraction”,
Answer: I deleted the repeated description for the application of cattle manure and slaked lime.
However, the methods of plant measurement remains due to slight variation of methods depending on crop species.
L-166: How plant samples were collected? How they were treated in field? Needs some information to understand well the methods.
Answer: I added the number of plants to be sampled and methods of sampling for each crop in 2.3 Experimental design and treatments.
L-190-192: Was there any statistical difference between plant heights (though mentioned in figure 2 at 2 dates only) assuming plant heights were average on 3/5 plants per treatment and then considering replications? It would be great to see standard error with plant height values to check the variations under field conditions.
Answer: I revised Figure 2 for plant height to be easily understood for standard error of the mean data.
L-192-194: Better to add “although a significant temporal effects were observed during both study years where maximum plant height was recorded at harvest”.
Answer: I added the phrase as suggested in the end of the first paragraph in 3. Results.
Figure 2a: Either the SE is missing in figure or too small. In second case, the last sampling date (17 weeks) could be significantly different among genotypes? Needs to check the figure and data again. Same comments for Figure 2C.
Answer: I am so sorry, but the letters for the significant difference were missing in the first manuscript and thus, I revised the Figures 2(a) and 2(c) in the revised manuscript.
Figure 3ab: Change Y-axis legend to “Tillers density (tillers m-2)”.
Answer: I changed Y-axis legend to “Tillers density (tillers m-2)”.
Figure 5a-c: Change Y-axis legend to “Crop growth rate (g m-2 day-1)”.
Answer: I changed Y-axis legend to“Crop growth rate (g m-2 day-1)”.
Discussion: Needs substantial work to improve the discussion. Discussion section lacks solid reasoning and key references to support the findings. Also needs to avoid repetitions such as “L-371-374” already mentioned in L 104-107.
Answer: I revised to infer the data from the previous studies and discuss with the data obtained in 3. Results. I deleted the sentence in L-371-374.
L-384: Authors have mentioned crude proteins, an important forage quality parameter. However, it is difficult to find protein related results in manuscript and will suggest to include such important findings to strengthen the manuscript.
Answer: We don’t have the data for crude protein in the whole of three crops in two growing seasons, yet and thus, we quitted to mention the data of crude protein.
L-386-389: looks like more conclusion, whereas in conclusion section, authors mentioned the results (L-392-398). Needs to write the conclusion.
Answer: I rewrote the conclusion based on the comments in L-386-389.
I would like to ask you to review the manuscript, which was revised based on your suggestion.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments - Revised manuscript:
Li and colleagues revised the manuscript entitled “Yield and quality of forages in a triple cropping system in southern Kyushu, Japan”. Although, revision improved some aspects of the manuscript, however, there are still many flaws need to be fixed. For instance, author did not mention how two year crop rotation can mitigate adverse effects of climatic disasters. Crop species section is poorly written and difficult to understand the methodology. Similarly, it is difficult to follow the ideas in result’s as well as discussion sections. Authors need substantial improvement in discussion section to support their results. Particularly it is important not to repeat results in conclusion section, rather should include solid concluding remarks. What is difference between plant height and plant length? Is it necessary to mention plant emergence in methodology when it is not reported in results sections? What was the control in this study and why it was not mentioned in the methodology section? Current manuscript does not satisfy to all requests, therefore, I think authors should address all questions raised during first as well as second revision.
Specific comments:
L20-21: The speculative sentence “The growth of the three crops was not reduced by climatic disasters such as typhoon and heavy rainfall” is not a conclusion of current study. This study was not planned to evaluate the effect of climatic disasters; if so, authors need to add information regarding what happened when experiment conducted under non-disaster conditions in comparison with current study. Therefore, in my opinion, this sentence is not a better fit in abstract.
L22 and L25-26: Authors need to be more careful while using SI units. DM/m2 and g/m2.
L26: delete “in the first and second seasons, respectively” as already stated in L25.
L27-28: I think authors want to say “….more digestible nutrients in the forages” rather than “….more digestible nutrients in the region”?
L65-66: It is wise to rephrase sentence when authors do not have crude protein results in the manuscript.
L70-71: Parentheses issues in sentence.
L94: Perhaps “The present study was an extension of previous trials [13,15]………”
L95: Delete “temperate”
L96-100: Suggested text is “The new multi-forage cropping system should be examined for growth and forage quality in building a stable herbage production system for beef cow calf and dairy cows under the variable climatic conditions during summer and autumn in the region”. The second part of sentence “triple forage cropping system over a couple of years should be determined to evaluate the feasibility of the cropping system in southern Kyushu, Japan” could be a better fit in Discussion section for further studies.
L103-106: The sentence needs to rephrase to simplify the idea. For instance, “The experimental site was situated in southern Kyushu (31°49'39'' N, 131°24'46'' E, 27 m above sea level), facing high frequency of typhoons from late July to September, whereas heavy rainfall during September to October”.
L116-119: A confusing statement.
L102-119: It is difficult to follow the ideas or details in Crop species section; in fact, I should say it is very confusing. For instance “The triple cropping system was examined for the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 growing seasons, combining spring maize with 1) two cultivars, “Solido, relative maturity (RM) 78” and “Anjou 284, RM 90” cultivated from April to mid-July in the 2016–2017 season, and three cultivars “Snow Dent, RM 108”, “Neo Dent Acyl,RM 90” and “Anjou 284, RM 90” cultivated from early March to early July in the 2017–2018 season, and 2) pearl millet, “NatsuItalian” from mid-July to mid-September and 3) heat-tolerant (blast-disease tolerant) lines of Italian ryegrass (“Kyushu 1” and “Kyushu No. 2”).” Can be simplified as “Two spring maize cultivars [(Solido relative maturity (RM) 78, Anjou-284 RM 90)] were cultivated from April to mid-July (2016-2017), whereas three cultivars (Snow Dent RM-108, Neo Dent Acyl RM 90, Anjou-284, RM 90) during early March to early July during 2017-2018. The pearl millet “NatsuItalian” was grown from mid-July to mid-September, whereas heat tolerant blast disease tolerant lines of Italian ryegrass (Kysuhu-1, Kyushu-2) were planted …………………….?????”.
Authors need to focus on methodology section to make it clear and easy to follow. Secondly, it is confusing when read, “We then compared the triple cropping system with the non-disease tolerant Italina ryegrass “Hanamiwase”. How non disease tolerant can be compared with disease tolerant? Either this experiment was organically tested for disease resistance test or forage produce and quality test under triple cropping system? Authors, therefore need to improve this section with much care.
L106-109: Authors did not satisfy the previous comments that how the two year crop rotation can mitigate the adverse effects of climatic disasters, especially typhoon or heavy rainfall? Should authors write “evaluating the performance of crops under prevailing climatic conditions” instead of “……..to evaluate the feasibility of these crops to increase yield while mitigating the effects of climate disaster in southern Kyushu, Japana”?
L109: Delete “in southern Kyushu, Japan” to avoid repetition as already mentioned in first sentence L10-105.
L137-139: Some link is missing to connect climatic conditions and effective cumulative temperature. It is difficult to understand introducing ECT here. Better to place where it was discussed against crop growth rate in L180-183.
L142-151: It is confusing to follow the experimental design and plot dimensions. One plot measures 3 × 3.5 = 10.5 m2 with border of 1.25 m and making one replicated block of 13 ×3 = 39 m2?
L149: Figure 1 states different sowing times whereas sentence states “sowing time of each crop was the same among cultivars”??
L149-150: What sampling was conducted to avoid the edge effect of each plot?
L152: Delete “each”
L153-154: Was there any logic to change the maize plant density from 13.3 plant m-2 to 8.89 m-2 during second growing year?
L155-156: Either authors want to say “Chemical fertilizer was split applied three times at the rate 18 g m-2 of N, P2O5 and K2O during each growing season”.
L158: What is difference between plant height and plant length in maize? Authors did not mention it in revision.
L175: We cannot find results related to plant emergence in manuscript. Therefore, is it ok to explain plant emergence in methodology?
L186: Difficult to follow what exactly authors want to say “Two plant samples of each plant fraction per replication, totally 6 samples for each cultivar……..”? I am sure there will be a simple way to explain your idea in methodology. In fact, I should say to rewrite the whole methodology section to make it clear and simple.
L187: Either it was air-forced oven or forced air oven?
L187: “at harvest” makes no sense in this sentence or at least at its present position within sentence.
L212-214: Either this statement is not true or there might be an issue in Y-axis of Figure 2b. Figure 2b shows lower plant height at 8 weeks during 2017-2018 compared to 2016-2017. Needs to verify the Y-axis that is about 250 during 2016-2017 and about 200 during 2017-2018 (Fig. 2b).
L215-216: Needs to recheck the statement as it appears significant differences among three cultivars at 23 weeks after sowing for plant height. However, lettering shows non-significant differences between Hanamiwase and Kyushu 1? Authors need to be careful while revising the manuscript as well as lettering in Figure 2c.
L219-220: Authors need to rephrase sentence “although significant temporal variations were observed in plant height, however, maximum heights were recorded at final harvest in all cultivars”.
L357: “and.” ???
L364: TDM?
L428-430: Is it no repetition of what already said in L423-426? Authors should avoid such errors in manuscript and should introduce new text in conclusion.
Author Response
Dear Sir (Reviewer 2),
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the revised manuscript (Agronomy-480464).
I would like to answer to your comments as listed below.
General Comments - Revised manuscript:
Li and colleagues revised the manuscript entitled “Yield and quality of forages in a triple cropping system in southern Kyushu, Japan”. Although, revision improved some aspects of the manuscript, however, there are still many flaws need to be fixed. For instance, author did not mention how two year crop rotation can mitigate adverse effects of climatic disasters. Crop species section is poorly written and difficult to understand the methodology. Similarly, it is difficult to follow the ideas in result’s as well as discussion sections. Authors need substantial improvement in discussion section to support their results. Particularly it is important not to repeat results in conclusion section, rather should include solid concluding remarks. What is difference between plant height and plant length? Is it necessary to mention plant emergence in methodology when it is not reported in results sections? What was the control in this study and why it was not mentioned in the methodology section? Current manuscript does not satisfy to all requests, therefore, I think authors should address all questions raised during first as well as second revision.
Answer to the General Comments:
1) As for mitigation of climatic disasters, I revised the abstract section as follows:
The growth of the three crops reached to harvest even though was not reduced by climatic disasters such as typhoon and heavy rainfall occurred.
2) As for crop species section, I revised the paragraph following the comment as follows:
A triple cropping system with early-spring sowing of maize, early-summer sowing of pearl millet, and twice-cut late-summer sowing of Italian ryegrass was conducted evaluating the performance of crops under prevailing climatic conditions to evaluate the feasibility of these crops to increase yield while mitigating the effects of climatic disaster in southern Kyushu, Japan. Two spring maize cultivars [(Solido, relative maturity (RM) 78, Anjou-284, RM 90)] were cultivated from April to mid-July (2016-2017), whereas three cultivars (Snow Dent, RM-108, Neo Dent Acyl, RM 90, Anjou-284, RM 90) during early March to early July during 2017-2018. The pearl millet “NatsuItalian” was grown from mid-July to mid-September, whereas heat tolerant blast disease tolerant lines of Italian ryegrass (“Kyushu 1”, “Kyushu No. 2”) were planted from mid-September to mid-March, compared with the non-disease tolerant “Hanamiwase”.
3) As for the conclusion section, I revised to escape the repetition as follows:
In both the first and second seasons, combination of spring maize, pearl millet and twice-cut Italian ryegrass yielded 4098 and 4339 g DM/m2, respectively, with 2357 and 2938 g/m2/year of TDN, achieved higher DM and TDN yields compared with those which surpass 3100 g DM/m2 of yield in the common maize and Italian ryegrass cropping and successfully avoided yield loss due to the typhoon in mid-September.
4) I revised the Discussion section to follow the Results section.
As for Specific comments:
Comment 1 (L20-21): The speculative sentence “The growth of the three crops was not reduced by climatic disasters such as typhoon and heavy rainfall” is not a conclusion of current study. This study was not planned to evaluate the effect of climatic disasters; if so, authors need to add information regarding what happened when experiment conducted under non-disaster conditions in comparison with current study. Therefore, in my opinion, this sentence is not a better fit in abstract.
Answer 1: I changed this sentence to “The growth of the three crops reached to harvest even though was not reduced by climatic disasters such as typhoon and heavy rainfall occurred.”
Comment 2 (L22 and L25-26): Authors need to be more careful while using SI units. DM/m2 and g/m2.
Answer 2: I revised the unit to g m-2.
Comment 3 (L26): delete “in the first and second seasons, respectively” as already stated in L25.
Answer 3: I deleted “in the first and second seasons, respectively”.
Comment 4 (L27-28): I think authors want to say “….more digestible nutrients in the forages” rather than “….more digestible nutrients in the region”?
Answer 4: I changed to “….more digestible nutrients in the foragesregion”.
Comment 5 (L65-66): It is wise to rephrase sentence when authors do not have crude protein results in the manuscript.
Answer 5: I revised the sentence to “The crop has a leafy forage structure and high crude protein concentration before heading within 2 months from sowing [20].”
Comment 6 (L70-71): Parentheses issues in sentence.
Answer 6: I revised the sentence to “Magnaporthe grisea (Herbert) Barr, alternately stated as [(anamorph Pyricularia grisea (Cooke) Saccardo [24] in perennial ryegrass, and by Pyricularia oryzae Cavara in Italian ryegrass [25].”.
Comment 7 (L94): Perhaps “The present study was an extension of previous trials [13,15]………”
Answer 7: I revised the sentence to “The present study was an extension study of previous trials [13,15]…………”
Comment 8 (L95): Delete “temperate”
Answer 8: I deleted “temperate”.
Comment 9 (L96-100): Suggested text is “The new multi-forage cropping system should be examined for growth and forage quality in building a stable herbage production system for beef cow calf and dairy cows under the variable climatic conditions during summer and autumn in the region”. The second part of sentence “triple forage cropping system over a couple of years should be determined to evaluate the feasibility of the cropping system in southern Kyushu, Japan” could be a better fit in Discussion section for further studies.
Answer 9: I revised the text following comment to “This The new multi-forage cropping system should be examined for growth and forage quality in building a stable herbage production system for beef cow and calf and dairy cows farming under the variable climatic conditions in during summer and autumn in the region, and the growth ability and forage quality of the triple forage cropping system over a couple of years should be determined to evaluate the feasibility of the cropping system in southern Kyushu, Japan”.
Comment 10 (L103-106): The sentence needs to rephrase to simplify the idea. For instance, “The experimental site was situated in southern Kyushu (31°49'39'' N, 131°24'46'' E, 27 m above sea level), facing high frequency of typhoons from late July to September, whereas heavy rainfall during September to October”.
Answer 10: I revised the sentence following comment to“The experimental site was situated in southern Kyushu (31°49'39'' N, 131°24'46'' E, 27 m above sea level), facing high frequency of typhoons from late July to September, whereas heavy rainfall during September to October”.
Comment 11 (L116-119): A confusing statement.
Comment 12 (L102-119): It is difficult to follow the ideas or details in Crop species section; in fact, I should say it is very confusing. For instance “The triple cropping system was examined for the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 growing seasons, combining spring maize with 1) two cultivars, “Solido, relative maturity (RM) 78” and “Anjou 284, RM 90” cultivated from April to mid-July in the 2016–2017 season, and three cultivars “Snow Dent, RM 108”, “Neo Dent Acyl, RM 90” and “Anjou 284, RM 90” cultivated from early March to early July in the 2017–2018 season, and 2) pearl millet, “NatsuItalian” from mid-July to mid-September and 3) heat-tolerant (blast-disease tolerant) lines of Italian ryegrass (“Kyushu 1” and “Kyushu No. 2”).” Can be simplified as “Two spring maize cultivars [(Solido relative maturity (RM) 78, Anjou-284 RM 90)] were cultivated from April to mid-July (2016-2017), whereas three cultivars (Snow Dent RM-108, Neo Dent Acyl RM 90, Anjou-284, RM 90) during early March to early July during 2017-2018. The pearl millet “NatsuItalian” was grown from mid-July to mid-September, whereas heat tolerant blast disease tolerant lines of Italian ryegrass (Kysuhu-1, Kyushu-2) were planted …………………….?????”.
Authors need to focus on methodology section to make it clear and easy to follow. Secondly, it is confusing when read, “We then compared the triple cropping system with the non-disease tolerant Italian ryegrass “Hanamiwase”. How non disease tolerant can be compared with disease tolerant? Either this experiment was organically tested for disease resistance test or forage produce and quality test under triple cropping system? Authors, therefore need to improve this section with much care.
Answers 11 and 12: I revised the phrase following comment to “Two spring maize cultivars [(Solido, relative maturity (RM) 78, Anjou-284, RM 90)] were cultivated from April to mid-July (2016-2017), whereas three cultivars (Snow Dent, RM-108, Neo Dent Acyl, RM 90, Anjou-284, RM 90) during early March to early July during 2017-2018. The pearl millet “NatsuItalian” was grown from mid-July to mid-September, whereas heat tolerant blast disease tolerant lines of Italian ryegrass (“Kyushu 1”, “Kyushu No. 2”) were planted from mid-September to mid-March, compared with the non-disease tolerant “Hanamiwase”.”
Comment 13 (L106-109): Authors did not satisfy the previous comments that how the two year crop rotation can mitigate the adverse effects of climatic disasters, especially typhoon or heavy rainfall? Should authors write “evaluating the performance of crops under prevailing climatic conditions” instead of “……..to evaluate the feasibility of these crops to increase yield while mitigating the effects of climate disaster in southern Kyushu, Japan”?
Answer 13: I revised the sentence following comment to “evaluating the performance of crops under prevailing climatic conditions”.
Comment 14 (L109): Delete “in southern Kyushu, Japan” to avoid repetition as already mentioned in first sentence L103-105.
Answer 14: I deleted “in southern Kyushu, Japan”.
Comment 15 (L137-139): Some link is missing to connect climatic conditions and effective cumulative temperature. It is difficult to understand introducing ECT here. Better to place where it was discussed against crop growth rate in L180-183.
Answer 15: I moved the description of effective cumulative temperature (ECT) to the lines following crop growth rate in L193-195.
Comment 16 (L142-151): It is confusing to follow the experimental design and plot dimensions. One plot measures 3 × 3.5 = 10.5 m2 with border of 1.25 m and making one replicated block of 13 ×3 = 39 m2?
Answer 16: I revised the paragraph as follows:
Arrangement of maize and Italian ryegrass cultivars was allocated in a randomized block design with three replicated blocks (replications). Field was allocated to three blocks and one block with an area of 13 × 3 m (39 m2) was divided into three plots for each cultivar, sized at 3 × 3.5 m (10.5 m2) with the border at 3 × 1.25 m (3.75 m2) between plot (cultivar) plot area for each cultivar in for both spring maize and Italian ryegrass was sized at 3 × 3.5 m (10.5 m2) and border between plots was set at 1.25 m wide, and thus, one replicated block had an area of 13 × 3 m (39 m2) in both the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 growing seasons.
Comment 17 (L149): Figure 1 states different sowing times whereas sentence states “sowing time of each crop was the same among cultivars”??
Answer 17: I changed the sentence to “Sowing time of each crop was the same among cultivars in each growing season.”
Comment 18 (L149-150): What sampling was conducted to avoid the edge effect of each plot?
Answer 18: I changed the sentence to “Sampling was conducted to avoid the edge effect of each plot by getting plants at least two rows inner from the edge.”
Comment 19 (L152): Delete “each”
Answer 19: I deleted “each”.
Comment 20 (L153-154): Was there any logic to change the maize plant density from 13.3 plant m-2 to 8.89 m-2 during second growing year?
Answer 20: I added the following sentence as “Decrease in plant density during the second growing season was due to escape from the risk of lodging of higher RM cultivars if grown under the high density.
Comment 21 (L155-156): Either authors want to say “Chemical fertilizer was split applied three times at the rate 18 g m-2 of N, P2O5 and K2O during each growing season”.
Answer 21: I change the sentence following the comment to “Chemical fertilizer was split applied three times at the rate 18 g m-2 of N, P2O5 and K2O during each growing season”.
Comment 22 (L158): What is difference between plant height and plant length in maize? Authors did not mention it in revision.
Answer 22: Plant height is the length of plants from the soil to the top of the plant, while plant length is the length to measure the plant from the soil to the top of leaves when they are straightly elongated. Therefore, at the vegetative phase, plant length is used to be larger than plant height, while after flowering, it showed almost similar with plant height.
However, since no data for plant length were shown in Result section, I deleted plant length in this sentence for spring maize as well as for pearl millet and Italian ryegrass in Lines 178 and 188, respectively.
Comment 23 (L175): We cannot find results related to plant emergence in manuscript. Therefore, is it ok to explain plant emergence in methodology?
Answer 23: I deleted the text for plant emergence as “Plant emergence was measured 2 weeks after sowing, and pPlant attributes such as plant height, ………………”.
Comment 24 (L186): Difficult to follow what exactly authors want to say “Two plant samples of each plant fraction per replication, totally 6 samples for each cultivar……..”? I am sure there will be a simple way to explain your idea in methodology. In fact, I should say to rewrite the whole methodology section to make it clear and simple.
Answer 24: I changed the sentence following the comment to “Plant samples were fractionated into each plant fraction and dried at 72°C for 72 hours in a forced air oven.”
Comment 25 (L187): Either it was air-forced oven or forced air oven?
Answer 25: I changed to “forced air oven”
Comment 26 (L187): “at harvest” makes no sense in this sentence or at least at its present position within sentence.
Answer 26: I changed to show the plant stage at harvest for each crop as follows.
“Dried plant fractions at harvest for milk-yellow ripe stage in spring maize, stem-elongating to pre-heading stage in pearl millet and early heading stage in Italian ryegrass were ground to pass….”
Comment 27 (L212-214): Either this statement is not true or there might be an issue in Y-axis of Figure 2b. Figure 2b shows lower plant height at 8 weeks during 2017-2018 compared to 2016-2017. Needs to verify the Y-axis that is about 250 during 2016-2017 and about 200 during 2017-2018 (Fig. 2b).
Answer 27: I changed the sentence following the comment to “For pearl millet “NatsuItalian”, plant height tended to be lower by 40 cm at 8 weeks from sowing at the second than at the first growing season did not differ significantly between the two cropping seasons (Figure 2b).”
Comment 28 (L215-216): Needs to recheck the statement as it appears significant differences among three cultivars at 23 weeks after sowing for plant height. However, lettering shows non-significant differences between Hanamiwase and Kyushu 1? Authors need to be careful while revising the manuscript as well as lettering in Figure 2c.
Answer 28: I changed the sentence following the comment to “it was significantly higher in “Hanamiwase” than in “Kyushu No. 2” the differences among cultivars disappeared at harvest of the first- and second-cut plants.”
Comment 29 (L219-220): Authors need to rephrase sentence “although significant temporal variations were observed in plant height, however, maximum heights were recorded at final harvest in all cultivars”.
Answer 29: I deleted this phrase, “although significant temporal variations were observed in plant height, however, maximum heights were recorded at final harvest in all cultivars”.
Comment 30 (L357): “and.” ???
Answer 30: I deleted “and.”
Comment 31 (L364): TDM?
Answer 31: I changed from “TDM” to “TDN”.
Comment 32 (L428-430): Is it no repetition of what already said in L423-426? Authors should avoid such errors in manuscript and should introduce new text in conclusion.
Answer 32: I deleted the repetition of DM and TDN yields in the first and second growing season in the triple cropping system in a conclusion section and introduce new text in conclusion as follows:
In both the first and second seasons, combination of spring maize, pearl millet and twice-cut Italian ryegrass yielded 4098 and 4339 g DM/m2, respectively, with 2357 and 2938 g/m2/year of TDN, achieved higher DM and TDN yields compared with those which surpass 3100 g DM/m2 of yield in the common maize and Italian ryegrass cropping and …”.
I would like to ask you to review the manuscript, which was revised based on your suggestion.
Sincerely,
Yasuyuki Ishii
Corresponding author
of Agronomy-480464
