Effects of Harvest Time on the Yield and Forage Value of Winter Forage Crops in Reclaimed Lands of Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is an interesting and emerging one, because soil salinization is an environmental problem in some area, and results can be of interest for the readership of the Journal, but the submission has many flaws.
My main concern is about ‘Material and Methods’ section.
The authors did not properly describe the method of conducting the experiments and they are not consistent in their descriptions. (line 94 - three cereal crops, line 97 - both cereal crops, line 13 – only barley). There is a lack of information on the experiment factors, size of plots, number of repetitions, the scope of research. The pattern of experiment is completely incomprehensible. There is no agrotechnical information - "according to tradition" (lines 102) - this is not a description of agrotechnics.
Other comments:
DDM and DMI - no explanation of abbreviations (line 137).
Indeks SPAD determines the relative chlorophyll content of the leaves, not the chlorophyll content (line 120).
In Fig. 1, the average multi-years temperature and rainfall are missing.
Statistics are missing in table 2, so the description "(…) the chemical characteristics didn’t show any dramatic decrease or increase…” says nothing (line 159-160)
In table 3, the same LAI values belong to different homogeneous groups (4.6).
The description of the results in paragraph 215-224 is not correct and consistent with the data in Figure 2. The same remark applies to lines 236-241.
The discussion is superficial and does not explain the results obtained. Sometimes, it repeats the results instead of explaining them (lines 291-295, 328-331).
Paragraph 296-302 - no connection with the topic of the paper.
Paragraph 310-313 - the description of the weather conditions should be in another place.
Abstarct is incomprehensible, there is no research method, factors, etc. but there are unnecessary data on soil characteristics.
Line 74 – varieties, not species
Line 52-53 - Latin names of the species should be given
Line 149 – korea or Korea?
Conclusion and title should be shortened.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Hello!
I read your paper impressively, and I hoped you would review my paper, and I am honored that you have reviewed my paper.
I really appreciate that you took your time to read my paper and shared your knowledge.
Your meticulous review and comments made me think a lot.
I revised not only your request but also the request of two other reviewers, so please check it.
I reflected your request as much as possible, and I did my best, so I have no regrets.
Once again, thank you for giving me your time to read my paper, and I think our relationship is special even though it is online.
I hope your paper will continue to be published, and let's all do our best for good research!
Good luck.
Have a nice day!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Experimental work is very conventional, in terms of the use of progressive methods very simple. The authors confirmed the known results. However, this type of experimentation is needed for sustainable crop production. Theoretical and practical reasons for this study are reasonable and practical. The analytical work of the authors is good. The authors measured SPAD and LAI, but should define the optimum for each parameter.
What is the water use efficiency of experimental crops?
I suggest to conduct experiments in a controlled environment with a simulation of different environmental interactions.
The discussion is mostly confirmatory and does not sufficiently substantiate the reasons or results. I recommend adding some new information about the current research.
I would have also expected a more critical discussion. Discussion and writing should be improved so that the manuscript is easy to follow, making this work less powerful and attractive. The authors were able to add new, more specific conclusions, and perspectives for the future. Some arguments need a clearer and stricter presentation. I would like to give you the opportunity to thoroughly rework or optimize the work, although in some places the authors have discussed the results in a very appropriate way.
Which kind of traits are useful from a practical point of view to optimize production process
We have to understand, how plants will work under climate extremes and than to adapt agro-technologies (Photosynth Res (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11120-021-00861-z). Read/include more references throughout all the manuscript specifically in the discussion to increase the value of the paper https://doi.org/ 10.3390/agronomy11020241 ; Which kind of adaptive mechanisms for sustainable saline agriculture do you suggest for plants grown in saline soil?
Why triticale has a great potential of adaptability to harmful soil and climatic conditions?
Please improve this version of MS, and add new pieces of information.
I recommend that MAJOR revisions are needed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Hello!
I read your paper impressively, and I hoped you would review my paper, and I am honored that you have reviewed my paper.
I really appreciate that you took your time to read my paper and shared your knowledge.
Your meticulous review and comments made me think a lot.
I revised not only your request but also the request of two other reviewers, so please check it.
I reflected your request as much as possible, and I did my best, so I have no regrets.
Once again, thank you for giving me your time to read my paper, and I think our relationship is special even though it is online.
I hope your paper will continue to be published, and let's all do our best for good research!
Good luck.
Have a nice day!
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
In the present manuscript, the most suitable silage winter barley was selected for cultivation in reclaimed land in Korea’s Central Western area aiming to investigate the soil environment, crop growth characteristics, dry weight, and forage value.
Lines 12-15: the aim of the study is not clearly stated and is not in agreement with the presented results in the following lines.
Line 51: "salt-tolerant or not". What is the meaning of this phrase?
Line 52: "lead"?
Lines 71-72: unfinished sentence.
Line 98: What is a in 10a stands for? You should use international units such as hectare.
Why the authors use the PSB parameters in Table 2? According to the Materials and Methods they tested three cereals and not only barley, while the experiment was repeated for two years which just not justifies the PSB parameter.
Tables 3 and 4: the statistics should be presented according to the ANOVA analysis, as indicated in the Table. The authors should not compare only the general means.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Hello!
I read your paper impressively, and I hoped you would review my paper, and I am honored that you have reviewed my paper.
I really appreciate that you took your time to read my paper and shared your knowledge.
Your meticulous review and comments made me think a lot.
I revised not only your request but also the request of two other reviewers, so please check it.
I reflected your request as much as possible, and I did my best, so I have no regrets.
Once again, thank you for giving me your time to read my paper, and I think our relationship is special even though it is online.
I hope your paper will continue to be published, and let's all do our best for good research!
Good luck.
Have a nice day!
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I looked carefully at the revision version of the manuscript. Unfortunately, I did not receive a response to my remarks and comments. Corrections are made selectively, with no comments. For example: For example:
Indeks SPAD determines the relative chlorophyll content of the leaves, not the chlorophyll content (line 120).
The chlorophyll content is determined in units of µg per leaf. The SPAD index measures the relative chlorophyll content in leaves.
In table 3, the same LAI values belong to different homogeneous groups
4.6b, 4.6ab - This error has not been corrected.
Line 74 – varieties, not species
"(…) quality of barley grains change according to the characteristics of cultivated species, weather conditions, and agricultural practice"
Barley is a species and the quality of its grain may vary between cultivars
In addition, the lack of numbered lines makes checking the paper very difficult and significantly extends the work time.
For this reason, I do not accept the paper in this form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Hello!
Once again, I am sorry and thank you for taking your time to read my paper.
I revised the part you pointed out again, and please check.
I'm really sorry for making it difficult to check the numbered lines.
I will always think about this part and be careful when I modify it next time.
Thank you again for giving me a chance to revise it.
I hope you are healthy and happy.
Have a nice day!
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have carefully revised the paper. So I suggested it should be accepted for publication in the journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Hello!
Thank you so much for accepting my efforts. I will continue to make efforts for more advanced research and papers. Always be healthy and happy.
Have a nice day!
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors should provide a detailed response letter and addresse each comment separately. Moreover, the revised manuscript have numbered lines to make easier to identify the corresponding changes.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Hello!
I'm really sorry for making it difficult to check the numbered lines.
I will always think about this part and be careful when I modify it next time.
Line 51: Line 52: Lines 71-72: Line 98: Modified all and deleted PSB. This part can be checked in the contents submitted after the first revision, but only this part is uploaded again so that the reviewer could see it easily.
Lines 12-15: This part has been revised again.
Tables 3 and 4: the statistics should be presented according to the ANOVA analysis, as indicated in the Table. The authors should not compare only the general means : It was written as to check whether statistically significant results or interactions were shown according to ANOVA. In the last part, I think the results were properly analyzed, such as whether the data on growth characteristics and forage value were high or low according to each crop and growth stage were analyzed.
“Grain yield response to cultivar and harvest time of the first crop in rice ratooning in southwestern Japan”
Please have a look at this paper that analyzed ANOVA in a similar way to mine. They wrote: "3.2 Grain yield and its components of the first crop: In 2019, there was an interaction between cultivar and harvest time for the grain yield of the first crop (Table 3). For Koshihikari, grain yield did not differ between the two harvest times of the first crop.” It can be seen that the last sentence is presented similarly to my paper. That's why I respect your opinion on this part, but I don’t know how to revise it for a better result.
I thought a lot and tried to apply your opinion. Now I'll just wait for your results. Thank you for your time so far. Once again, thank you for taking your time to read my paper. Thank you again for giving me a chance to revise it.
I hope you are healthy and happy.
Have a nice day!
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
