Effects of Maize Varieties on Biomass Yield and Silage Quality of Maize–Soybean Intercropping in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
o This work is interesting, well designed and written. However, it seems incomplete of clear data about fermentation (microbes, conditions and community analysis) to fit within the journal. Some points should be addressed
§ The fermentation and the microbial community or inoculates for silage fermentations is not clear in the manuscript.
§ What are the microorganisms used, what is the relation between these microbes and the biomass verities used should be clarified? Is the fermentation used here is indigenous? What other factors that could affect the results obtained here and change the scenario should be clear.
§ In abstract, please clarify the abbreviations used AT THE FIRST MENTION see for example l18-19
§ CLARIFY the plants in figure1 for the respective reader
§ L114 add space (. After 60……)
§ Rephrase L 117
§ Please describe the varieties names at Tables 1,,2,3 and fig 2
§ Table 4 first column is confusing for the reader, please clarify
§ Rephrase l285-286 as (It was previously reported that…..)
§ Paragraph L285-291: The authors should explain in more details the relationship betwwen the intercropping and the changes in plant characteristics, factors and reasons affecting this changes should be clear. Details about the soil analysis characteristics used for this study should be clarified and other significant factors also should be addressed.
§ Paragraph starting fron l292, please clarify the variety not to use abbreviation all the time during discussion. The varieties and other studies previously used any Varity should be discussed.
§ The discussion part need to be improved and discussed in depth not to mentions that our study agree with so and disagree with so..
§ L299-303, very long sentence, rephrase
§ L333 correct Clostridium
§ Correct format of scientific names at L377,423, 426, 469, ..etc
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are very grateful for the reviews provided. We appreciate the time and effort the reviewers have put in reviewing our manuscript. Some suggestions were very helpful, we adjusted them accordingly in the manuscript. Regarding suggestions of which we disagree, we have explained why. Please see below, in blue, our detailed response to reviewer’s comments. All changes made to the manuscript are using the track changes in the manuscript file.
1.The fermentation and the microbial community or inoculates for silage fermentation is not clear in the manuscript.
AU: Thanks for your question. This experiment mainly studied the effects of maize varieties on the biomass and silage quality of maize-soybean intercropping, and did not use inoculants. The biomass yield of artificial planted pasture in Tibetan Plateau is low, which cannot meet the needs of livestock for feed in winter and spring. Maize-soybean intercropping can improve the biological yield. Due to the high altitude in northwest Sichuan, plant growth and silage fermentation may be limited by low temperature, so it is important to select suitable maize varieties to improve the yield and quality of forage in this region.
2.What are the microorganisms used, what is the relation between these microbes and the biomass verities used should be clarified? Is the fermentation used here is indigenous? What other factors that could affect the results obtained here and change the scenario should be clear.
AU: Thanks for your question. No microbial additives were added in this experiment, and fermentation was carried out in the test site (Bamei Town, Ganzi Prefecture), the treatment factors in this experiment are maize varieties, and other factors should be kept consistent as far as possible, such as fertilization amount, soil conditions, management measures, etc.
3.In abstract, please clarify the abbreviations used AT THE FIRST MENTION see for example l18-19
AU: We are sorry for this confusion. We modified “CP, WSC, NDF, ADF and NH3-N/TN“ that appeared for the first time into “crude protein, water-soluble carbohydrate, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, and ammonia nitrogen to total nitrogen” respectively. Please see Line 19-24.
4.CLARIFY the plants in figure1 for the respective reader
AU: We are sorry for this confusion. We marked the plants represented by different symbols in Figure 1. Please see Line 113.
5.L114 add space (. After 60……)
AU: We are sorry for this confusion. We added space here, please see Line 129.
6.Rephrase L 117
AU: Thanks for your suggestion. We changed this sentence to “One part was used to determine the chemical composition of fresh samples before silage, and the other part was put into a polyethylene bag, which was vacuumed and sealed with the vacuum pump (no additives).” Please see Line 122.
7.Please describe the varieties names at Tables 1,,2,3 and fig 2
AU: Thanks for your suggestion. We described the abbreviation as variety name in the annotation of Table 1, 2, 3 and Figure 2, such as “M1S, M1 (maize, Rongyu Silage No. 1) and S (soybean, Nanxiadou 25) intercropping; M2S, M2 (maize, Yayu 04889) and S intercropping; M3S, M3 (maize, Demeiya No.1) and S intercropping; M4S, M4 (maize, Zhenghong 505) and S intercropping.” Please see Line 197.
8.Table 4 first column is confusing for the reader, please clarify
AU: We are sorry for this confusion. We modified and described the first column of Table 4. Please see Line 275-283.
9.Rephrase l285-286 as (It was previously reported that…..)
AU: Thanks for your suggestion. We reworded this sentence as “it was previously reported that”. Please see Line 317.
10.Paragraph L285-291: The authors should explain in more details the relationship betwwen the intercropping and the changes in plant characteristics, factors and reasons affecting this changes should be clear. Details about the soil analysis characteristics used for this study should be clarified and other significant factors also should be addressed.
AU: Thanks for your suggestion. We have completed the modification on Line 316-330, the details are as follows ” Intercropping has proved to be an effective way to increase crop yield and land equivalent ratio. In this study, the yield of different maize varieties intercropped with soybean showed differences. It was previously reported that the yield was affected by crops varieties [26,27]. In this study, except for maize varieties, other factors such as field management and climate conditions were consistent. We found that the yield of different maize varieties was different, which may also be related to maturity. In this study, there was no significant difference in biomass yield among the four maize varieties, but the dry matter yield of Rongyu Silage No.1 and Zhenghong 505 was significantly higher than that of Yayu 04889 and Demeiya No.1. This may be because Rongyu Silage No.1 and Zhenghong 505 were in the late milk ripening stage, while Yayu 04889 and Demeiya No.1 were in the early milk ripening stage, and it was previously reported that the higher the maturity of maize, the more dry matter content [28]. In this study, the yield and plant height of soybean between different treatments were significantly different (p < 0.05), it may be that different maize varieties had different morphological characters and had different shading effects on soybeans,[29], led to the corresponding changes in soybean morphology, growth and development, as well as corresponding changes in biomass yield and plant height [30].”
We supplemented the detailed information about soil samples in Materials and Methods, And in this experiment, excepted for maize varieties, the soil conditions were consistent.
11.Paragraph starting from l292, please clarify the variety not to use abbreviation all the time during discussion. The varieties and other studies previously used any Varity should be discussed.
AU: Thanks for your suggestion. We changed the abbreviations appearing in the discussion to the name of the variety corresponding to the treatment. Please see Line 322.
12.The discussion part need to be improved and discussed in depth not to mentions that our study agree with so and disagree with so.
AU: Thanks for your suggestion. We carefully checked and revised the full article, and further improved the discussion part.
13.L299-303, very long sentence, rephrase
AU: Thanks for your suggestion and we all agreed. We rewrote this sentence into “In this study, the yield and plant height of soybean between different treatments were significantly different (p < 0.05), it may be that different maize varieties had different morphological characters and had different shading effects on soybeans,[29], led to the corresponding changes in soybean morphology, growth and development, as well as corresponding changes in biomass yield and plant height [30].” Please see Line 326-331.
14.L333 correct Clostridium
AU: Thanks for your correlation. We changed “Clostridium” to italic, and checked and modified the full article. Please see Line 374.
15.Correct format of scientific names at L377,423, 426, 469, ..etc
AU: We are sorry for this confusion. We have checked and revised the format of all references. Please see Line 417-536.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper entitled „Effects of maize varieties on biomass yield and silage quality of maize-soybean intercropping in Qinghai Tibet Plateau” focused on selection maize varieties suitable for intercropping with soybean in high altitude area. Authors evaluated biomass yield, plant height, nutritional composition and silage quality made of maize with soybean. They also used membership function analysis. The obtained results are interesting from cognitive and practical point of view. Authors found two maize varieties that are the best for silage production with soybean in high altitude areas such as Ganzi Prefecture.
The manuscript is good written, but it needs major revisions.
First, keywords should be different from the words used in title.
L 47 – It is “buffer energy” – it should be “buffer capacity”
L 48 – What do you mean by “acidic environment”?
M&M. In Experimental site description there is no information about soil conditions and fertilization level. There is no information about pluvio-thermal conditions in year of study.
There is no information how plants height was measured.
L 131 - Please give reference to RFV formula.
L 136 – It is “Fermentation profile: - it should be “pH measurements and ammonium determination. Fermentation profile covers not only pH and ammonium but also lactic, acetic and butyric acid concentration.
L – 181 – Yields should be converted in to t ha-1.
Table 2, 3, 4 – RFV is value without any unit, so remove %.
Why Authors resigned from presentation the results of DDM and DMI just focused only on showing the RFV value.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are very grateful for the reviews provided. We appreciate the time and effort the reviewers have put in reviewing our manuscript. Some suggestions were very helpful, we adjusted them accordingly in the manuscript. Regarding suggestions of which we disagree, we have explained why. Please see below, in blue, our detailed response to reviewer’s comments. All changes made to the manuscript are using the track changes in the manuscript file.
1.First, keywords should be different from the words used in title.
AU: Thanks for your suggestion. We changed the original keywords to “intercrop yield; mixture silage; fermentation quality; membership function”. Please see Line 28.
2.L 47 – It is “buffer energy” – it should be “buffer capacity”
AU: Thanks for your correlation. We are sorry for this error. We have changed “buffer energy” to “buffer capacity”. Please see Line 50.
3.L 48 – What do you mean by “acidic environment”?
AU:Thanks for your question. “Acidic environment” means the interior of the material is at a low pH level. To avoid ambiguity, we revised the “acidic environment” to “low pH level”. Please see Line 51.
4.M&M. In Experimental site description there is no information about soil conditions and fertilization level. There is no information about pluvio-thermal conditions in year of study.
AU: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added information about soil conditions, fertilizer level , and pluvio-thermal conditions during planting. Please see Line 84-91, 106-110.
5.There is no information how plants height was measured.
AU:Thanks for your question. Our previous description may not be detailed enough. The revised details are: Before harvest, randomly selected a maize-soybean strip in each plot. According to the planting density ratio of maize and soybean, took 8 maize plants (4 plants in each row) and 16 soybean plants (8 plants in each row) for plant height measurement. Please see Line 118-120.
6.L 131 - Please give reference to RFV formula.
AU: We are sorry for this confusion. We have added reference to RFV formula (Rohweder,D.; Barnes, R.; Jorgensen, N. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science. 1978, 47,747-759. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1978.473747x.).
7.L 136 – It is “Fermentation profile: - it should be “pH measurements and ammonium determination. Fermentation profile covers not only pH and ammonium but also lactic, acetic and butyric acid concentration.
AU: Thanks for your correlation. We revised the “Fermentation profile” to “pH and NH3-N”. Please see Line 150.
8.L – 181 – Yields should be converted in to t ha-1.
AU: Thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the unit of yield in this article to “t ha-1”.
9.Table 2, 3, 4 – RFV is value without any unit, so remove %.
AU: We are sorry for this error. We have removed % for RFV in this article.
10.Why Authors resigned from presentation the results of DDM and DMI just focused only on showing the RFV value.
AU:Thanks for your question. DDM is digestible dry matter, which is inversely proportional to acid detergent fiber; DMI is the random intake of dry matter, which is inversely proportional to NDF; RFV is a relative feeding value and a comprehensive evaluation index for the quality of roughage that is widely used at present. Because DMI can not fully reflect the quality of the feed, it also needs to consider the digestion and absorption efficiency of the feed, so this article did not elaborate on DDM and DMI, but applied RFV.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
