Peanut (Arachis hypogea) Response to Low Rates of Dicamba at Reproductive Growth Stages
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting and important topic. The introduction provided the necessary background information on the issue that this paper is addressing and clearly outlines the purpose of the study. The methodology also contains the necessary information on how the research was undertaken and the data collected. I found the results well presented in tabular format but the supporting written material was extremely detailed in its comparison between treatments for the various measurements. It tended to duplicate what was presented in the tables and it would make this section more appealing to interested readers if there was a greater focus on the key trends in the data. The use of subheading in the results section would also be useful. The discussion was succinct but appropriate in its context and the conclusion was a good summation of the key findings with recommendations for future research provided. A few minor suggestions are provided below.
- Line 12 - Suggest writing out NIS in full as this is the first time it is mentioned.
- Line 29 – Part of the sentence is a different font size.
- Line 40 – Change 1 million soybean ha to 1 million ha of soybean.
- Line 47 – Remove one of the two times that drift is mentioned.
- Line 81 – Suggest changing Soil type was to Soil type in 2018 was ……….
- Line 85 – Suggest inserting peanuts after ‘Georgia-06G’.
- Line 86 – Change was planted to were planted.
- Line 88 – Change Peanut were planted to Planting was undertaken on……………
- Line 99 – Could this be reworded a little better.
- Line 133 – Suggest putting in 2017 at the start of the sentence.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented work is within the thematic scope of the journal, but its subject matter is regional and not very universal.
The introduction is relatively short but introduces sufficiently to the subject of the work.
The methodology raises some doubts:
the discrepancy in the dates of observations (in individual years) is surprising;
the herbicide impact assessment should cover three years of research (according to EPPO). Here we have two in varied soil conditions;
why the Authors' assumptions regarding the dose of dicamba - why 3 and 6% of the recommended dose (for which cultivation?). Are there any data on the drift or vapour movement of the herbicide, how far from the treatment site?
The resulting part is too extensive and accurate - after a few sentences, the reader starts to get lost.
No discussion items. The obtained results not compared to the knowledge of other Researchers or the actual observations from the fields.
Lack of discussion lowers the value of labour and even disqualifies it. It would be very interesting to compare the model tests (because the Authors performed such) with actual observations in neighbouring fields. The Authors' results themselves cannot be transferred to real conditions, which reduces their value.
Reducing and simplifying the resulting part and expanding the discussion part may make the presented manuscript much more attractive.
The work requires significant corrections.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Most of the explanations regarding the comments in the first review are satisfactory. In the revised version of the manuscript, the Authors took into account the most important suggestions and proposed changes. The result part has been divided into subsections, which makes it easier to read the work. Elements of discussion were also added, the lack of which was decisive for the quality of the work.
