Macronutrient Applications and Irrigation Regimes Impact Weed Dynamics and Weed Seedbank Augmentation in Solanum melongena L. Fields

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The current manuscript entitled “Macronutrient Applications and Irrigation Regimes Impact Weed Infestation and Weed Seedbank Augmentation in Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) Fields” by Zargar et al. deal with studied the influence of macronutrient rates and drip irrigation regimes on the composition of weed populations and potential contamination of the soil by weed seedbanks in the eggplant field. After a careful reading, I found this manuscript interesting and acceptable for publication in Agriculture MDPI. I have minor suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. My specific comments are:

1.      The last line of the abstract should indicate the relevance of the findings of this study and the novelty that would contribute to the current state of the art.

2.      Section 2.1: Source of environmental/climatic data is desired.

3.      Comma missing before “respectively”.

4.      Tukey adjustment? I think it should be Tukey’s post-hoc.

5.      Units should be corrected thoroughly. E.g. m3/ha-1 should me m3·ha-1. If we are using -1 then / should not be added.

6.      Regression should be written as multiple regression.

7.      Rectify the syntax errors throughout the paper.

8.      Discussion requires major improvements in terms of comparison with recent work published on the impact of weed infestation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We gratefully acknowledge the detailed revision of the text and useful suggestions to improve the paper by the reviewer. We have closely followed suggestions and introduced the required changes in the text. Main changes are addressed into the manuscript. Below, we have included reviewer comments and our responses.

We have revised the manuscript for edits/changes as you suggested. All the comments addressed in the text through in YELLOW.

• Abstract of the manuscript revised. The suggested sentences added to the end of the abstract.
• Meteorological source of the region added to the M&M.
• Tukey’s post-hoc replaced. And mentioned units revised.
• Discussion part revised.

We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication, although we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

Yours sincerely,

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I have evaluated the manuscript, “Macronutrient Applications and Irrigation Regimes Impact Weed Infestation and Weed Seedbank Augmentation in Egg- plant (Solanum melongena L.) Fields” where authors have investigated the impacts of various macronutrients’ application rates and drip irrigation on weed flora in egg plant. The authors have reported changes in weed flora with nutrients application. My overall assessment is that the paper can be accepted for publication with several necessary changes. I have appended each change below:

 

i.                The abstract is extremely raw and gives no information regarding the treatments used and their impact. For example, authors state that “results demonstrated that nutrient rates contributed to a significant increase in weed numbers by 27.1 to 37.6% due to an increase in the number of annual weeds (annual winter weeds and annual early spring weeds), and increased soil moisture threshold ranging from 70 to 90%.” However, there is no idea which rate was responsible for this. Similarly, the frequencies or quantities of irrigation is not clear. Nevertheless, there are no concrete recommendations at the end of the abstract section. This section must be rewritten with all details.

ii.               The language of the manuscript deserves careful attention. There are plenty of long sentences. Please split all such sentences into smaller ones.

iii.              Please add scientific name along with the authors of all species at their first use in the manuscript

iv.             The objectives need to be refined. Furthermore, the introduction section must be terminated with a sound hypothesis. What authors expected from their treatments

v.              Weed seed bank is a complex trait and you could not conclude the changes in seed bank in short-lived experiments. Whether author sampled the weed seed bank before the initiation of the treatments? Further, seedbank is extremely dynamic and changes dramatically at spatial scales. Therefore, the seedbank part is not reliable!

vi.             Seedbank sampling was done by germination test. Please add further details. Was this germination in pots or Petri dishes? How you exactly determined seed bank? How species were identified? Through seed or seedlings? What about unidentified species?

vii.            The language is extremely confusing at most of the places in the manuscript. Please be very specific what do you mean

viii.           Figure 1 presents weed flora at the beginning of the study. I could not see any information in MM regarding the observation of weed flora at the initiation of the study

ix.             Another major question, how density was determined for perennial species? How the authors made a threshold for a single or multiple growths?

x.              Figs 3 and 4 represent a different classification of weeds than annuals and prennials. Why these were not introduced in MM section?

xi.             The manuscript results are too confusing as most of the things were not introduced in MM. For example, dependencies were just introduced in the results and these were never discussed in the abstract and MM sections

xii.            The soil seed bank at the start of experiment was never introduced in MM. The methods to determine seed bank are not clear.

xiii.           I suggest a very major revision and advise authors to add each detail for bringing the manuscript in a better shape.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We gratefully acknowledge the detailed revision of the text and useful suggestions to improve the paper by the reviewer. We have closely followed suggestions and introduced the required changes in the text. Main changes are addressed into the manuscript. Below, we have included reviewer comments and our responses.

We have revised the manuscript for edits/changes as you suggested. All the comments addressed in the text through in YELLOW.

• Abstract revised according to the reviewer suggestion. Treatments details added to the abstract.
• Scientific names of weeds along with the authors of all species at the first use added to the manuscript.
• The objective and introduction part revised.
• In fifth comment, we are agree with the reviewer, weed seed bank is a complex trait. We have studied weed seed bank situation beside other weed traits for three years to obtain a relative result. We may continue repeating this study in future.
• Density of perennial weeds was determined in number per meter quadrat based on the method of European weed research society (EWRS) (https://www.ewrs.org) were selected in each experimental plot. Weed density per m² in these areas was counted each year at 20 and 40 days after planting.
• English quality improved and revised in all over the text by our native colleague.
• Figures 3 and 4 represented a classification of perennial weeds. Authors were supposed that it is no needed to present details of such classification as they are well known in weed classification, and meanwhile it seems to us M&M section is large in the manuscript, so that we did not mentioned in detail. So, if you insist to explain in M&M then let us know to do it.

We have revised M&M section on most cases as reviewer suggested.

• Results section revised.
• The soil seed bank sampling and details were added to M&M and revised. The methods to determine seed bank are also added in detail.

  We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication, although we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

  Yours sincerely,

   

Reviewer 3 Report

Dears,

Review - Macronutrient Applications and Irrigation Regimes Impact Weed Infestation and Weed Seedbank Augmentation in Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) Fields

 

The work presents a very important theme about weed management and its impact on agricultural production. However, some tweaks seem to be needed to improve the text.

Suggestions follow:

 

The title: is too long, suggestion to shorten it to: “Macronutrient and irrigation impact of weed dynamic in Solanum melongena L. fields.”

 

Introduction: apparently it is necessary to describe a little more about the culture (Solanum melonagena), cycle details, etc.

 

Material and methods - The translation of the term "Material" is not correct (MATERILAS).

 

Page 3 - temperature, precipitation and relative humidity data should be presented in a graph, it greatly facilitates the interpretation and understanding of environmental conditions.

 

Page 3 - Check whether the way to present the units m³/ha^-1 is correct. Apparently, it would “m³. ha^-1”.

 

Results and Discussion – Page 4-5 - The first two paragraphs of the section are confusing, it does not make it clear, or not very clear, that the data were obtained in the present research or are general data. Rewrite and clarify.

 

Page 5 - Before presenting a table with data, you must write something about the data that are present in that table and call it in the text. Here it is on the contrary, adjust.

 

Page 7 - The equations on weed dynamics and fertilization and their respective descriptions should be in the material and methods section and not in the results and discussion section. Reorder.

 

I suggest improving the quality of figures 2, 3 and 4. They should be more self-explanatory, with good captions and logical internal data separation. It is very confusing to understand and interpret, making access difficult for the public who will read this article.

 

Table 3 and 4 - in general there are no statistics, comparing percentages of a given variable being a proper static test is not scientific/correct. Even if there are no differences, this information must be explicit in the caption of the table. Since this is not informative, in table 3 without statistics is everything the same or everything different? It has no parameter. Therefore, I suggest redoing the tables with due statistics.

 

I also suggest an intense review of the quality of the writing, including the English.

 

Regards.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We gratefully acknowledge the detailed revision of the text and useful suggestions to improve the paper by the reviewer. We have closely followed suggestions and introduced the required changes in the text. Main changes are addressed into the manuscript. Below, we have included reviewer comments and our responses.

We have revised the manuscript for edits/changes as you suggested. All the comments addressed in the text through in YELLOW.

• Title of the manuscript revised according to the reviewer suggestion.
• Introduction part revised in the different aspects.
• Meteorological data of the region added as text in the M&M in page 3. Due to the large amount of content in the materials and methods that we wrote in the text of the article, we wrote climate information in the text.
• Credit m³. ha^-1 revised throughout the text in Yellow.
• Page 4-5 - The first two paragraphs of the section revised and
• We moved Table 1 in page 5 after the text related to this table.
• We included the equations in section because we wanted to go straight to their results for a better understanding of how the findings are done. But if the reviewer insists then kindly let us know to move to the M&M.
• Figures revised.
• English quality of the text checked by our native colleague.

We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication, although we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

Yours sincerely,

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read the revised manuscript and response letter provided by the authors. The response letter says that the authors have made all the suggested changes. However, upon reading the manuscript, I realized that 90% of the suggestions were not incorporated. My major reservation was language for which the authors respond that their native colleague has improved the language. I have pointed several idiosyncrasies in grammar below.

 

The abstract is still a mess where author spell ton as tone. Is it a color or voice tone?

 

Based on my assessment I recommend another round of major revision to the manuscript.

 

 

Weed dynamic should be weed dynamics in the title

 

weed populations' composition should be weed flora competition in the third line of abstract

 

Experiment location should be deleted from the abstract

 

Tone is not the exact word ton or tons, please correct in the abstract

 

composition of weed species phytocenosis in eggplants, should be composition of weed flora

 

significant increase in weed numbers should be significant increase in weed density

 

, and increased soil moisture threshold ranging from 70 to 90% should be changed to with increased soil moisture threshold from 70 to 90%.

 

Pre-irrigation should be pre-irrigation when it is within the sentence

 

The conclusion of the abstract is a general know fact. This was never aim of the study. Just tell which of your treatments were better rather than telling other stories

 

watering regimes should be irrigation regimes throughout the manuscript

 

Weed management is one of the most important farming practices for improving the crop yield and yield components but can be successful based on a systematic approach, considering preserving an ecological balance. – the second part of this sentence is out of context

 

(Amaranthus retroflexus), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), and false chamomile (Matricaria perforata) where are the author names with the species names? The response letter says that you have added author names with the species at their first use. Please do not consider that reviewers have enough time to check your mistakes again and again.

 

The efficacy of nitrogen addition on seed germination can be also related to the maternal environment of the seed, hence, Vasileiadis et al. [26] reported no maternal efficacy. The second part of the sentence is contradictory and hence cannot be used. I doubt that your native speaker colleague has some problems in grammar which are not fixed in this manuscript

 

eggplant (Solanum melonagena L.) cultivation in Southern Russia, Daghestan condition. You have to use scientific name of the eggplant once and then writing eggplant is ok

 

tone manure should be ton manure or tons manure

 

least moisture capacity (LMC) is written this way throughout the manuscript. Don’t your native speaker colleague know that one time writing this way and then using LMC is enough?

 

SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used to survey data from all three field studies – what data survey is meant here?

 

Abutilon teophrasti [19], Portulaca oleracea [21], Setaria viridis [23], Echinochloa crus-galli[23], and Tripleurospermum inodorum [19]. Perennials: Convolvulus arvensis, Equisetum arvense, Cirsium arvense [4] – where are author names for the

 

The tables still contain no footnotes explaining different letters following means

 

Table 4 has two different abbreviations for hectare

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We gratefully acknowledge the detailed revision of the text and useful suggestions to improve the paper by the reviewer. We have closely followed suggestions and introduced the required changes in the text. We have revised the manuscript for edits/changes as you suggested. All the comments addressed in the text through ‘Track Changes’ function.

English language of the manuscript revised comprehensively, and addressed all of your comments it throughout the text. 

We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication, although we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear,

I believe that the suggestions were accepted and the corrections were made.

 

Best Regards.

Author Response

Thank you for accepting our manuscript.