Productive and Nutritional Characteristics of Native Grasses from the Floodplain Banks Ecosystem in the Colombian Orinoquia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with actual problem of tropical agriculture and livestock production. The authors intend to propose a way to prevent strong degradation of savanna ecosystem under forage production for livestock. The obtained experimental data (except for some strange values in Tables 3-5) can be a basis to plan forage crops. However, the developed approach (that is to cultivate single-species crops) cannot lead to quite sustainable agriculture because of possible skew in ecosystem species composition and biodiversity. Moreover, the obtained data demonstrate that different native grass species can make different and complementary contribution into resulting forage digestibility, so it would be worth to study possible beneficial effect of multi-species crops or regime of crop rotation. I suppose this aspect of the problem of sustainable agriculture should be noted in the Discussion section (additionally to the text in lines 581-588) that would be in accordance with the journal title.

Lines 23-24: Here is first mention of abbreviations DMD, CP, ADF unexplained. Readers of the article cannot know in advance that explanations are placed further (lines 192-194).

Line 51: in context of the study area, maybe, geomorphological term “levee” (the Spanish equivalent is “el dique”) is more suitable than “banks” and “banket”

Lines 40-41, 50-52: Are there wild ungulates in these grass ecosystems? Does the use of banks in extensive livestock breeding destroy natural grazing ecosystems?

Line 54: “Panicum versicolor (white grass)”. Here, the species’ author name is missed.

Table 1: the abbreviations OC, TN, CEC should be explained

Lines 168-170: why different plant densities were implemented?

Table 3: why is the same SEM value for variables GF, DM and DM (%) in all rows (not like for Height)?

Table 4: the same question for all variables presented.

Table 5: the same question for all variables presented.

Lines 523-524: “ashes, a fraction that represents the inorganic mineral component (incombustible) that plants absorb from the soil [48].” Maybe, this explanation would be suitable in line 193.

Lines 608-609: “Considering that the observed productive and chemical composition of the native grass were obtained without any agronomic management”. This state contradicts the phrase in lines 162-168 about fertilizers that were applied in course the experiment attempted.

Remarks on grammar (each of these cases made it difficult for me to understand the meaning of the phrase):

Line 12: “several ecosystems”? should be “severe”?

Line 41-42: “In the area exists a monomodal rainfall regime”. Here, the predicate is placed before the subject that contradicts English rules.

Line 59-60: “that is mainly used for grazing ruminants sustainable and soil cover”. Here, it seems that some verb(s) is(are) missed.

Line 96: “native plants performed similar than introduce species”??? 1) should be “introduced” instead “introduce”? 2) should “better than” be instead “similar than”?

Line 187: “a 50 mm diameter ring cup”. Should “circle cup” be instead “ring cup”?

Line 200-204: “it grass type and jt cutting age”, …, “represents de fixed effect of it grass type”. Special format is necessary for symbols “it”, “jt”, and “de”

Line 206: “distributed ≈ N (0, s²)” is unclear phrase

Line 230-231: “when the species and cutting days, effects were evaluated independently”. There is wrong comma before the word “effects”, and "day" should be written instead "days" 

Line 527: “grass reach their maturity” – should the word “grasses” be placed here?

Line 609: “grater response”. Should the word “greater” be placed here?

Author Response

Dear reviewer

The authors appreciate the insightful comments.

We attach the all corrections and answers

First reviewer’s responses

 Comment

The article deals with actual problem of tropical agriculture and livestock production. The authors intend to propose a way to prevent strong degradation of savanna ecosystem under forage production for livestock. The obtained experimental data (except for some strange values in Tables 3-5) can be a basis to plan forage crops. However, the developed approach (that is to cultivate single-species crops) cannot lead to quite sustainable agriculture because of possible skew in ecosystem species composition and biodiversity. Moreover, the obtained data demonstrate that different native grass species can make different and complementary contribution into resulting forage digestibility, so it would be worth to study possible beneficial effect of multi-species crops or regime of crop rotation. I suppose this aspect of the problem of sustainable agriculture should be noted in the Discussion section (additionally to the text in lines 581-588) that would be in accordance with the journal title.

Response: was corrected in the text

Lines 23-24: Here is first mention of abbreviations DMD, CP, ADF unexplained. Readers of the article cannot know in advance that explanations are placed further (lines 192-194).

Response: Corrected

Line 51: in context of the study area, maybe, geomorphological term “levee” (the Spanish equivalent is “el dique”) is more suitable than “banks” and “banket”

Response: revising the reported physiographic units the following terms are usually mentioned: bank/levee: banco, flat: bajío, basin: estero. In this way, we consider that bank is a valid name used to describe the studied unit

Lines 40-41, 50-52: Are there wild ungulates in these grass ecosystems? Does the use of banks in extensive livestock breeding destroy natural grazing ecosystems?

Response: Usually you can find domestic cattle mainly and not wild ungulates. On the other hand, It is important to emphasize that these areas have been used for animal feed for decades, with extensive management that does have a negative impact on the ecosystem. Then, he objective of this work is to generate knowledge about the dynamics of growth and nutritional variation of these plants that allows to establish technological packages that contemplate the use of mixtures of these forage species in animal nutrition, making use of a technical management, avoiding processes of overgrazing and promoting the establishment of a permanent vegetative layer for soil protection and carbon sequestration potential.

Line 54: “Panicum versicolor (white grass)”. Here, the species’ author name is missed.

Response: Corrected

Table 1: the abbreviations OC, TN, CEC should be explained

Response: Corrected

Lines 168-170: why different plant densities were implemented?

Response: Because plants have different growth habits, some have stolons, others rhizomes, other bunch and others stems. Table 1 explains

Table 3: why is the same SEM value for variables GF, DM and DM (%) in all rows (not like for Height)?

Response: height was measured on average in 15 plants. Once reviewing the presence of atypical data, some data could be observed that increased the variability of the information, so they were removed. In this way, the number of plants evaluated in each treatment (n) at the end of the experimental period presented slight variations, which influenced the determination of the SEM

Table 4: the same question for all variables presented.

Response: In this case, the SEM was related to the variation observed within each measured variable (CP, Ash, Ca and P) which differs in each case and this determines different SEM values.

Table 5: the same question for all variables presented.

Response: In this case, the SEM was related to the variation observed within each measured variable (NDF, ADF, ligning and DMD) which differs in each case and this determines different SEM values.

Lines 523-524: “ashes, a fraction that represents the inorganic mineral component (incombustible) that plants absorb from the soil [48].” Maybe, this explanation would be suitable in line 193.

Response: Corrected in the text

Lines 608-609: “Considering that the observed productive and chemical composition of the native grass were obtained without any agronomic management”. This state contradicts the phrase in lines 162-168 about fertilizers that were applied in course the experiment attempted.

Remarks on grammar (each of these cases made it difficult for me to understand the meaning of the phrase):

Response: The fertilization used was only to facilitate the establishment of the plants. However, it is necessary to remember that once established (93 days later), a leveling cut was made to start the experimental phase. It was in this phase that no type of amendment was made and therefore the growth condition simulated conditions without any agronomic management.

Line 12: “several ecosystems”? should be “severe”?

Response: Corrected in the text

Line 41-42: “In the area exists a monomodal rainfall regime”. Here, the predicate is placed before the subject that contradicts English rules.

Response: Corrected in the text

Line 59-60: “that is mainly used for grazing ruminants sustainable and soil cover”. Here, it seems that some verb(s) is(are) missed.

Response: Corrected in the text

Line 96: “native plants performed similar than introduce species”??? 1) should be “introduced” instead “introduce”? 2) should “better than” be instead “similar than”?

Response: Corrected in the text

Line 187: “a 50 mm diameter ring cup”. Should “circle cup” be instead “ring cup”?

Response: ring cup is the technical name of the instrument used in NIRS equipment.

Line 200-204: “it grass type and jt cutting age”, …, “represents de fixed effect of it grass type”. Special format is necessary for symbols “it”, “jt”, and “de”

Response: Corrected in the text

Line 206: “distributed ≈ N (0, s²)” is unclear phrase

Response: this expression indicates that random effects and error term are assumed to distributed normally with 0 mean and constant variance. It is a common expression utilized in mixed model analysis.

Line 230-231: “when the species and cutting days, effects were evaluated independently”. There is wrong comma before the word “effects”, and "day" should be written instead "days" 

Response: Corrected in the text

Line 527: “grass reach their maturity” – should the word “grasses” be placed here?

Response: Corrected in the text

Line 609: “grater response”. Should the word “greater” be placed here?

Response: Corrected in the text

English corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have compared the growth and nutritional value of the native grass species with introduced grass at different periods of time in the floodplains ecosystem in the Colombian Orinoquia. The experiment was carried out using CRD (factorial) (line 151). However, in the results section, only the interactions have depicted in Tables 3, 4 and 5 and no average effect of the grass species and cutting period have been described. Therefore, there is a need to work on it.   

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer

The authors appreciate the insightful comments.

We attach the all corrections and answers

Second reviewer’s responses

Comment

 The authors have compared the growth and nutritional value of the native grass species with introduced grass at different periods of time in the floodplains ecosystem in the Colombian Orinoquia. The experiment was carried out using CRD (factorial) (line 151). However, in the results section, only the interactions have depicted in Tables 3, 4 and 5 and no average effect of the grass species and cutting period have been described. Therefore, there is a need to work on it.   

 Response: Thanks for the observation; however, in the first part of the results section the following is described:

“All the studied productive and chemical composition variables showed statistical differences over the studied experimental period (p < 0.05), except for green forage yield (GF). Thus, the results and discussion will be focus on the evaluated grass type X cutting age interaction” 

As you can see, the results presentation are based on the significant effects. In the case of green forage production the values of individual effects of grass type and cutting age are reported in the 3,1 Forage yield section, trough the following paragraph:

 Forage yield variables during the growth of the evaluated grass under the “bank” physiographic position are shown in Table 3.  Green forage production (tons/ha) did not undergo significant changes during the experimental period (p > 0.05). However, when the species and cutting day effects were evaluated independently, differences were observed (p < 0.05). The “control” grass and P. plicatulum had the highest yields, with values of 7.41 – 7.36 tons GF/ha, respectively. A. purpussi, Paspalum sp. and A. com-presus plants presented a GF production below the control grass in a 28.3 %, 36.2 % and 38.4 %, respectively.  A. purpussi yielded similarly to Paspalum sp. (5.31 – 4.73 tons GF/ha, respectively), while A. compresus yielded the least (3.82 tons GF/ha). In terms of cutting days, the highest green forage production occurred at 40 and 50 days with 6.27 – 6.37 tons GF/ha, respectively.

 Suggestions regarding English were made in the document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments:

The aim of this study is to determine the forage yield and nutritional value of native grass adapted to the physiographic position of “banks” in the floodplain savannahs of the Colombian Orinoquia. In general, the research has certain significance. However, there are some problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication. If the following problems are well-addressed, this reviewer believes that the essential contribution of this paper are important for sustainability. The credibility of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed due to the limitations of the data analysis utilized in the study. The authors left out a lot of information in “Materials and Methods”, and need to supplement the data of near-infrared spectroscopy and related mathematical statistics analysis. And the manuscript needs careful editing and particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Based on the following deficiencies, I would recommend making major changes before reviewing it for publication in Sustainability.

Abstract

1.       L21-23. The sentence “Grass A. purpussi, Paspalum sp., and P. plicatulum presented similar protein, ash, and higher Ca:P ratio compared with Mulato grass. P. plicatulum also achieved a similar forage production.” is ambiguities.

2.       L23-24. Please provide the full name for abbreviations appear at the first time “Regression analysis indicated that DMD was affected by CP and ADF levels”.

Introduction

1.      Relevant research background of application of near-infrared spectroscopy to analysis of chemical components in forage grass needs to be supplemented. This section should be completed to support your methodology.

2.      Paragraph 2&3 are similar and should be merged into one paragraph.

3.      The introduction has been describing forage yield and nutritional evaluation, but there is no relevant literature to provide theoretical support for specific parameters such as CP, ADF and DMD.

4.      In paragraph 4-6, it only describes the phenomenon and clarifies the fact, but does not explicitly express the corresponding research progress. This whole paragraph is just forcing the subject into the research, it is difficult to draw the scientific questions of the research. The author needs to explain the reason why the introduced grass gradually replaced the native grass, the specific parameters used in nutrient assessment and the research progress in forage yield and nutrient assessment.

5.      In general, the “Introduction” lacks background description of each conclusion, which cannot explain the necessity clearly to carry out this research.

Materials and Methods

1.      Please provide relevant evidence as to why the calibration formula in reference [37]is used and how the calibration model in reference [37] can be used in this study. It is suggested that model establishment and calibration with the results of actual measurement data sets. If the independent validation set of this study is used to verify the precision, the accuracy of the results may be better ensured.

2.      2.3. The last paragraph is recommended to supplement the information of NIR spectroscopy analysis, please explain that the chemical composition has been measured by instrumentation, but why use a mixed linear model for repeated measures in 2.4. It also provides a reference for repeated measurement using the mixed linear model.

3.      As described in the abstract, near-infrared spectroscopy has a spectral range of 780-2526nm, but the wavelength range in Part 2.3 of “Materials and Methods” is beyond this range. Please check and correct it.

4.      L217, “Finally, a multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to predict DMD.” The author only fitted DMD when fitting the linear model. Please explain the reason for the linear model simulation of DMD.

5.      One-way analysis of variance and interaction analysis are included in the results section. Please supplement the analysis of test results and use of software used in the “Materials and Methods”.

Results

1.       L302, please check and correct any errors in parentheses in the last sentence “(0.2 % y 0.21 %)”.

2.       In “3.4. Association between nutritional composition variables”, the first paragraph seems to be unfinished. Please supplement it. And the use of "between " in the first sentence is wrong, please correct it. The second paragraph should supplement the p-value of R², denoted by the symbol “*”.

3.       Another obvious problem with this paper is lack verification of the simulation results. You need to explain your simulation results in detail and why you got such results.

Discussion

1.       The discussion in general was not thorough enough. The first half of the discussion just keeps going that native grass were found to be similar or higher than the “control” grass. For example, the fourth paragraph of 4.1 describes the results without combining and comparative analysis with the existing research progress.

2.       It is suggested to change the sequence of the contents in paragraph 5 and paragraph 6. Because the first half of 4.2 deals with correlations and regression analysis, it jumps abruptly to the paragraph 5 to find nutritional alternatives. The paragraph 6 can be mentioned first about the importance of nutritional alternatives, and then look for nutritional alternatives.

3.       L536 This discussion simply says that “which are consistent with literature reports”, but does not explain the reason. It should explain the mechanism and possible causes of the relationship between DMD and other nutrients and summarize the relevant literature.

Tables and Figures

1.      In Table 1, please check the unit "meq/100 g)"? Please use international standard units and supplement the brackets.

2.      Table 1 and 3-5 is not a three-line table, please use the same format as other tables.

3.      Figure 1 does not meet the map production standards, supplement the scale and other relevant elements.

4.      Figure 3, The length of the horizontal and vertical coordinates in this figure should be consistent, and the R² and MSE values on the table and the number of samples will be convincing.

References

1.       There are obvious errors and inconsistent formats in the references. For example, reference 5 has two authors. Please check others.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

The authors appreciate the insightful comments.

We attach the all corrections and answers

Third reviewer’s responses

 Abstract

1. L21-23. The sentence “Grass A. purpussi, Paspalumsp., and P. plicatulum presented similar protein, ash, and higher Ca:P ratio compared with Mulato grass. P. plicatulum also achieved a similar forage production.” is ambiguities.

Response: Corrected in the text

2. L23-24. Please provide the full name for abbreviations appear at the first time “Regression analysis indicated that DMD was affected by CP and ADF levels”.

 Response: Corrected in the text

 Introduction

1. Relevant research background of application of near-infrared spectroscopy to analysis of chemical components in forage grass needs to be supplemented. This section should be completed to support your methodology.

Response: the importance of nutritive evaluation and the NIRS usefulness was included in the introduction section

2. Paragraph 2&3 are similar and should be merged into one paragraph.

Response. Corrected in the text

3. The introduction has been describing forage yield and nutritional evaluation, but there is no relevant literature to provide theoretical support for specific parameters such as CP, ADF and DMD.

Response: The information was added to text

4. In paragraph 4-6, it only describes the phenomenon and clarifies the fact, but does not explicitly express the corresponding research progress. This whole paragraph is just forcing the subject into the research, it is difficult to draw the scientific questions of the research. The author needs to explain the reason why the introduced grass gradually replaced the native grass, the specific parameters used in nutrient assessment and the research progress in forage yield and nutrient assessment.

Response. Corrected in the text

5. In general, the “Introduction” lacks background description of each conclusion, which cannot explain the necessity clearly to carry out this research.

 Response: Suggestions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 were corrected in the text

 Materials and Methods

1. Please provide relevant evidence as to why the calibration formula in reference [37]is used and how the calibration model in reference [37] can be used in this study. It is suggested that model establishment and calibration with the results of actual measurement data sets. If the independent validation set of this study is used to verify the precision, the accuracy of the results may be better ensured.

Response: We specified in the document that equations was established with different forage species collected and analyzed around Colombia. The following paragraph was included:

The used calibration equations were constructed with spectra of 2020 forage resources of three families (Grass forages – n=1418, legume forages – n=320, and other forage plants – n= 282), sampled since 2014 - 2016 from different livestock regions of Colombia [19].

2. 2.3. The last paragraph is recommended to supplement the information of NIR spectroscopy analysis, please explain that the chemical composition has been measured by instrumentation, but why use a mixed linear model for repeated measures in 2.4. It also provides a reference for repeated measurement using the mixed linear model.

Response: Corrected in the text.

3. As described in the abstract, near-infrared spectroscopy has a spectral range of 780-2526nm, but the wavelength range in Part 2.3 of “Materials and Methods” is beyond this range. Please check and correct it.

Response: reviewing the text, in the abstract what is mentioned about the nirs is the following: “

On each sampled date, biomass production on 1m2 frame was estimated, and the chemical com-position were analyzed using near-infrared spectroscopy”

And in section 2.3 what is described is the following:  “…….using a FOSS NIR Systems DS6500 model equipment, by scanning at 400 – 2498 nm range”.

In this way, we do not observe the discrepancy

4. L217, “Finally, a multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to predict DMD.” The author only fitted DMD when fitting the linear model. Please explain the reason for the linear model simulation of DMD.

Response: your  suggestion was taken into account and the following was added:

“Finally, a multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to predict DMD, as this fraction constitute the proportion of forage material potentially digestible by ruminants animals and is an important parameter to evaluate feed quality [42].”

5. One-way analysis of variance and interaction analysis are included in the results section. Please supplement the analysis of test results and use of software used in the “Materials and Methods”.

Response: At the end of the section 2.4 Statistical analysis, was specified the following:

“All the analyses were performed using the statistical package Infostat (Universidad de Córdoba , Córdoba, Argentina)[41]”

 Results

1. L302, please check and correct any errors in parentheses in the last sentence “(0.2 % y 0.21 %)”.

Response: corrected in the text

2. In “3.4. Association between nutritional composition variables”, the first paragraph seems to be unfinished. Please supplement it. And the use of "between " in the first sentence is wrong, please correct it. 

Response: corrected in the text

The second paragraph should supplement the p-value of R², denoted by the symbol “*”.

Response: Following your suggestion, we add the p-value obtained for the regressor variables CP and ADF. For R2, the p-value was not specified since this is a model adjustment parameter and its significance is not usually evaluated. It is only used to estimate the proportion of the variance that is explained by the regression.

3. Another obvious problem with this paper is lack verification of the simulation results. You need to explain your simulation results in detail and why you got such results.

Response: we explained the results shown in figure 3 in the results section.

 Discussion

1. The discussion in general was not thorough enough. The first half of the discussion just keeps going that native grass were found to be similar or higher than the “control” grass. For example, the fourth paragraph of 4.1 describes the results without combining and comparative analysis with the existing research progress.

Response: we tried to improve the discussion according to your suggestions

2. It is suggested to change the sequence of the contents in paragraph 5 and paragraph 6. Because the first half of 4.2 deals with correlations and regression analysis, it jumps abruptly to the paragraph 5 to find nutritional alternatives. The paragraph 6 can be mentioned first about the importance of nutritional alternatives, and then look for nutritional alternatives.

Response: your suggestion was taken into account.

3. L536 This discussion simply says that “which are consistent with literature reports”, but does not explain the reason. It should explain the mechanism and possible causes of the relationship between DMD and other nutrients and summarize the relevant literature.

 Response: corrected in the text

 Tables and Figures

1. In Table 1, please check the unit "meq/100 g)"? Please use international standard units and supplement the brackets.

Response: we eliminate the brackets. We revised the use of meq/100g and it is considered a valid unit commonly use in soil test report.

2. Table 1 and 3-5 is not a three-line table, please use the same format as other tables.

Response: the format of the tables was corrected and unified

3. Figure 1 does not meet the map production standards, supplement the scale and other relevant elements.

Response. Figure 1 changed

4. Figure 3, The length of the horizontal and vertical coordinates in this figure should be consistent, and the R²and MSE values on the table and the number of samples will be convincing.

Response: Figure 3 was modified according with your suggestions.

 References

1. There are obvious errors and inconsistent formats in the references. For example, reference 5 has two authors. Please check others.

Response: The references were corrected

English corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors were asked to present the average effects and interaction effects of the growth,  and nutritional value of the native grass species with introduced grass but there is compliance on these points.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

The authors appreciate the insightful comments.

We attach the new versión with some modifications and  with the grammar review

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments:

The manuscript has been thoroughly modified accordingly. However, there are some descriptions and the format still need to be further improved. Some are as following:

1.       L23. Change “MD” to “DM”.

2.       L68. Change “affirms” to “affirmed”.

3.       L86-88. Change “nutritive” to “nutritional”, the same below, and change “digestility” to “digestibility”.

4.       L94-95. Change “compositión” to “composition”, change “theses” to “these”.

5.       L98-100. Change “realibility” to “realizability”, change “nutrients” to “nutrient”, change “concentration” to “concentrations” before “simultaneously”, and change “an” to “and”.

6.       L102. Change “form” to “from”.

7.       L102-104. This sentence is confusing and need to be rearranged, and has grammatical errors. It is suggested that this sentence can be divided into two sentences.

8.       L291. This sentence is grammatically incorrect. Change “-” to “to”.

9.       L329. Change “between 0.32% – 0.44%” to “from 0.32% to 0.44%” or change “-” to “and”. the same below.

10.    L331. Change “-” to “and”.

11.    L415. Change “others” to “other”.

12.    L439. Change “considered” to “considered as”.

13.    L474. Note the rules for writing Latin names of plants.

14.    L571. Change “indicate” to “indicated”.

Tables and Figures

1.      Table 3, check and correct “0,8” and “B. Mulato”. Please unify the Latin name format of plants.

2.      Table 5, complete the “Lignin (%” brackets.

3.      Table 3, check and correct “-0.,47”.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

The authors appreciate the insightful comments.

We attach the all corrections and answers

1. Change “MD” to “DM”.

Response: corrected

2. Change “affirms” to “affirmed”.

Response: corrected

3. L86-88. Change “nutritive” to “nutritional”, the same below, and change “digestility” to “digestibiliy”.

Response: corrected

4. L94-95. Change “compositión” to “composition”, change “theses” to “these”.

Response: corrected

5. L98-100. Change “realibility” to “realizability”, change “nutrients” to “nutrient”, change “concentration” to “concentrations” before “simultaneously”, and change “an” to “and”.

Response: corrected

6. Change “form” to “from”.

Response: corrected

7. L102-104. This sentence is confusing and need to be rearranged, and has grammatical errors. It is suggested that this sentence can be divided into two sentences.

Response: corrected

8. This sentence is grammatically incorrect. Change “-” to “to”.

Response: corrected

9. L329. Change “between 0.32% – 0.44%” to “from 0.32% to 0.44%” or change “-” to “and”. the same below.

Response: corrected

10. L331. Change “-” to “and”.

Response: corrected

11. L415. Change “others” to “other”.

Response: corrected

12. L439. Change “considered” to “considered as”.

Response: corrected

13. L474. Note the rules for writing Latin names of plants.

Response: corrected

14. L571. Change “indicate” to “indicated”.

Response: corrected

Tables and Figures

1. Table 3, check and correct “0,8” and “B. Mulato”. Please unify the Latin name format of plants.

Response: corrected

2. Table 5, complete the “Lignin (%” brackets.

Response: corrected

3. Table 3, check and correct “-0.,47”.

Response: corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

It would have been more appropriate if included the average effect of grass species and the cutting age effect in Tables 3 & 4. Otherwise, it is fine now.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your appreciation

English spelling was corrected