Sustainable Control of Galinsoga parviflora with Oxyfluorfen, Flumioxazin, and Linuron Application in Two Soils Cultivated with Garlic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the manuscript is consistent with the scope of the Journal. The present paper is prepared in the usual manner for scientific work, both the division into chapters.

Below are some comments that should be included in the manuscript.

1. In the "Materials and Methods" chapter, please describe briefly how you marked the physicochemical attributes of the soils or at least please state by what methods they were determined. Now there is nothing about it.

2. Expand the "Introduction" chapter justifying the validity of your research.

3. The characterization of linuron, flumioxazin and oxyfluorfen should be very detailed, including with the manufacturer. Now this characteristic in the "Introduction" chapter (line 59-64) is very sketchy. It can be either in the "Introduction" chapter or in the "Materials and Methods" chapter.

4. As each experimental unit consisted of pots with a capacity of 0.3 dm³, the doses of linuron, flumioxazin and oxyfluorfen should be presented per 1 kg of soil and not per 1 ha. enlarge the font in Figures 2, 4 and 6 as it is now difficult to read.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you for your kind help and that of the reviewers. All comments are valuable and helpful in reviewing and improving our paper.

Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript, which we hope you will approve. The authors made an effort to present the manuscript in clear and concise English, in addition, the manuscript was analyzed by a native speaker.

All changes in the manuscript have been marked by red color and below are the responses to the comments from each reviewer of the article. Below are all the changes made according to the suggestions of each reviewer.

Best regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have evaluated the article (sustainabilty-1975453) entitled “Sustainable control of Galinsoga parviflora with oxyfluorfen, flumioxazin, and linuron application in two soils cultivated with garlic” submitted for publication in ‘Sustainability’. The topic of study is interesting but the manuscript is written and organized with very poor understanding, and therefore cannot be considered for publication.

1.       My major concern is about the data analysis and results presentation. The authors did three independent experiments; therefore, efficacy of three herbicides tested cannot be determined. In order to compare these herbicides, the authors should take herbicides as factor and re-analyze data accordingly.

2.       The authors should present primary data with actual levels of all three herbicides tested. Data presented in Figs either is of qualitative nature or derived.  Primary quantitative data is missing, which is the major limitation of study.

3.       Tested weed was grown with garlic but the authors did not present garlic data at all. Again, it is a limitation of study.

4.       Novelty and rationale of study is not clear. Authors have to state the current state of existing knowledge and novel aspect of this study.

5.       Language used is poor and needs through editing by some native person.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you for your kind help and that of the reviewers. All comments are valuable and helpful in reviewing and improving our paper.

Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript, which we hope you will approve. The authors made an effort to present the manuscript in clear and concise English, in addition, the manuscript was analyzed by a native speaker.

All changes in the manuscript have been marked by red color and below are the responses to the comments from each reviewer of the article. Below are all the changes made according to the suggestions of each reviewer.

Best regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the manuscript is appropriate and original. It fits into the theme of the journal Sustainability.
The objective of the study conducted by Dilma F. de Paula et al. was to evaluate the control of Galinsoga parviflora with applied herbicides in soils grown with garlic from two regions of Brazil. The infestation of Galinsoga parviflora is a serious problem in agricultural crops from an economic point of view for producers as well as an environmental one. The authors undertook a study to investigate the agronomic effectiveness of herbicides at rates lower than those recommended on the product label.
Therefore, I believe that the prepared work achieves this goal well by spreading the knowledge of existing possible lower and effective herbicide doses to destroy the weed infestation of Galinsoga parviflora in garlic crops, which can be of great importance for sustainable development.

The abstract does not raise any major objections. The contained content informs about the available knowledge on the subject taken up. The introduction properly presents the problematic and the purpose of the research. Layout, structure and division of content correct. Subsections correctly described. Proportion between the various parts of the work and the order correct and not objectionable. The content of the subsections is supported by literature that is current and useful to the subject of the manuscript. The authors correctly used terminology, and skillfully and correctly conducted considerations supporting them with numerous studies by other authors.  The work is well organized and comprehensively described. It is scientifically justified and not misleading. A few errors in the entries in the References section draw attention. (Please use abbreviations of journal names, write journal numbers in italics). Minor linguistic corrections should also be made.

The paper, with minor corrections, can be published in the journal Sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you for your kind help and that of the reviewers. All comments are valuable and helpful in reviewing and improving our paper.

Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript, which we hope you will approve. The authors made an effort to present the manuscript in clear and concise English, in addition, the manuscript was analyzed by a native speaker.

All changes in the manuscript have been marked by red color and below are the responses to the comments from each reviewer of the article. Below are all the changes made according to the suggestions of each reviewer.

Best regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript with the title: "Sustainable control of Galinsoga parviflora with oxyfluorfen, flumioxazin, and linuron application in two soils cultivated with garlic" presents the results of weed control experiments on two different soil types to suppress a significant weed with a world importance.

At the same time, the experiments were carried out in laboratory conditions, with the test growing weeds in pots.

In the case of the active substances oxyfluorfen, flumioxazin, and linuron, the negative effects on the reduction of dry matter mass (to the 80% level) and the level of the corresponding doses were determined on soils from two different growing regions of Brazil.

The importance of the research can be appreciated especially when it is intended to use an amount below the permitted dose against a targeted weed. At the same time, in the case of other weeds, there is a risk of the development of herbicide resistance at a faster rate in the case of such dose determinations.

The results obtained were presented in sufficient detail, and their reliability was verified with appropriate statistical evaluation.

After reading the manuscript, I recommend checking the spelling of the scientific names again and correcting the related errors (e.g. Pseudomonas marginalis pv. marginalis in row 46.).

Taking the above into account, I recommend accepting the manuscript and publishing the article after the suggested corrections.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you for your kind help and that of the reviewers. All comments are valuable and helpful in reviewing and improving our paper.

Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript, which we hope you will approve. The authors made an effort to present the manuscript in clear and concise English, in addition, the manuscript was analyzed by a native speaker.

All changes in the manuscript have been marked by red color and below are the responses to the comments from each reviewer of the article. Below are all the changes made according to the suggestions of each reviewer.

Best regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have evaluated the revised version of manuscript (sustainabilty-1975453) entitled “Sustainable control of Galinsoga parviflora with oxyfluorfen, flumioxazin, and linuron application in two soils cultivated with garlic” submitted for publication in ‘Sustainability’. The authors improved only minor suggestions but the major concerns remained unattended/ the authors cannot incorporate the desired information.  Therefore, the manuscript cannot be considered for publication. Major concerns which remain unattended are:

1. My major concern was about the data analysis and results presentation. The authors did three independent experiments; therefore, efficacy of three herbicides tested cannot be determined. In order to compare these herbicides, the authors should take herbicides as factor and re-analyze data accordingly. 

The authors declined to analyse the data as suggested. I still believe that the results of three independent experiments cannot be compared with each other.

2. The authors should present primary data with actual levels of all three herbicides tested. Data presented in Figs either is of qualitative nature or derived.  Primary quantitative data is missing, which is the major limitation of study.

The authors did not incorporate the above comment as well. In fig 2, 4 and 6, actual levels of herbicides tested are not given. Without primary data and rigorous statistical analysis, data cannot be accepted for publication.

3. Tested weed was grown with garlic but the authors did not present garlic data at all. Again, it is a limitation of study.

The authors declined to add crop data.

In my opinion, with above said limitations the manuscript cannot accepted for publication.

Author Response

                                                                                                           December 3^rd, 2022

Viçosa, MG, Brazil

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for your kind help and that of the reviewers. All comments are valuable and helpful in reviewing and improving our article.

Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript, which we hope you will approve. All changes in the manuscript have been marked using "Track Changes" so that they are easily visible to editors and reviewers.

Reviewer 2

1. The herbicides were compared and the data added in the article in bar graph format (Figure 7), in addition, these data were cited in the article discussion (Line 252 to 273).
2. No chromatographic analyses were performed to detect the three herbicides within the weed, but only injury level and dry biomass analysis were performed to assess control and growth reduction. These analyses are common in the weed area. Figures 2, 4 and 6 refer to these data on the consequence of the use of herbicides on the weed, as a control analysis.

The chromatographic analyses were not performed in this study due to their high cost and the need for validation of methods, because the objective was to evaluate the control of weeds in a simple and useful way to rural producers. The use of chromatographic analysis is useful for studies of absorption, translocation and metabolism of herbicides in weeds. The control images (Figures 1, 3, and 5) are qualitative, by way of illustration and complement to Figures 2, 4, and 6.

3. The data on garlic have been added to the article in the introduction topic (line 54 to 60).

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments raised during 1st and 2nd evaluations are not incorporated. I have the same comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#2,

We do not agree with your comment, as all your comments have been incorporated into the manuscript in the second round, such as the statistical analysis and the addition of figures and discussion (see the file marked change), please,

Best regards,

Prof. Dr. Kassio Ferreira Mendes

Weed Scientist - Federal University of Viçosa