Productivity, Biodiversity and Forage Value of Meadow Sward Depending on Management Intensity and Silicon Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study, titled “Productivity, biodiversity and forage value of meadow sward depending on management intensity and silicon application,” assessed the effects of management intensity (two or three cuts and amount of fertilizer) and silicon application (Si or 0 Si) on botanical composition, yield, and nutrient content. However, various comments should be addressed to improve the quality and clarity of this study.

- Please add some key numerical results to the abstract.

- Please rewrite the abstract to include the study's problem, clear objectives, and research perspectives.

- Keywords must be relevant and already mentioned in the abstract section, which is not the case for some of the keywords.

- Please restructure the ideas in the introduction section, starting from general to specific objectives.

Few or no references have been cited in the Materials and Methods section. Similarly, please indicate in the statistical analysis section whether or not the normality test was performed and, if not, which tests were used.

- Please present Table 1 in a diagram format to facilitate the determination of dry months.

- Please add deviation standards to all results (figures and tables). Please also add the exact p-values.

- Please avoid using the terms “we” and “our” !.

- Several references are outdated. If possible, please update them with the most recent references (no more than five years old). Please verify the relevance and compliance of all references with the study and journal's standards.

Best regards,

Author Response

Dear Editor,
We sincerely thank you for your thorough review and helpful comments on our manuscript submitted to “Sustainability”. Your comprehensive evaluation and constructive comments have significantly improved the quality of our article, helping it to meet the high standards of the journal. In response to your suggestions, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript and made all the recommended changes. We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments, which have significantly contributed to the improvement of our work. Your support and commitment to the development of our research are extremely important to us, and we sincerely appreciate your help.
Author's Reply to the Review Report 
Reviewer 1
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which helped to significantly improve the quality of our paper. We greatly appreciate the professional insights into our findings.
This study, titled “Productivity, biodiversity and forage value of meadow sward depending on management intensity and silicon application,” assessed the effects of management intensity (two or three cuts and amount of fertilizer) and silicon application (Si or 0 Si) on botanical composition, yield, and nutrient content. However, various comments should be addressed to improve the quality and clarity of this study.
- Please add some key numerical results to the abstract.
In the abstract section, we have changed the information as suggested by the Reviewer.
- Please rewrite the abstract to include the study's problem, clear objectives, and research perspectives.
We have made changes to the abstract in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions.
- Keywords must be relevant and already mentioned in the abstract section, which is not the case for some of the keywords.
We have made changes to the keywords according to the reviewer's suggestions.
- Please restructure the ideas in the introduction section, starting from general to specific objectives.
We have made changes to the introduction concept in line with the reviewer's comments.
Few or no references have been cited in the Materials and Methods section. Similarly, please indicate in the statistical analysis section whether or not the normality test was performed and, if not, which tests were used.
We have introduced the suggested changes to the methodology and statistical analysis of the results.
- Please present Table 1 in a diagram format to facilitate the determination of dry months.
Since the numbers better reflect the rainfall values, we have retained the current form of data presentation.
- Please add deviation standards to all results (figures and tables). Please also add the exact p-values.
As suggested, we have added standard deviations in the figures and included an additional table (Table 2) with the exact p-values.
- Please avoid using the terms “we” and “our” !.
In the revised manuscript, we have restricted some of these expressions, replacing them, e.g., In the present study
- Several references are outdated. If possible, please update them with the most recent references (no more than five years old). Please verify the relevance and compliance of all references with the study and journal's standards.
In Refereces, we have supplemented newer publications, adjusted their citations and list in accordance with the journal's standards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is relevant. The use of silicon, compounds in inorganic and organic forms, as fertilizers has been studied since the mid-18th century. However, to date, the technology has not been sufficiently developed and requires taking into account many factors, primarily soil acidity and organic matter content. The lowest content is noted for peat soils. The technology of introducing silicon is successfully used in rice growing. At the same time, rice straw has a high level of silicon, which complicates the use of this raw material for processing and as feed after processing.
Note:
1) Lines 55-61 «One of several possible methods of reducing the effects of drought stress, which often occurs during the growing season, is the use of a stimulant in the form of silicon. This element blocks the free escape of water from the plant and is responsible for reducing transpiration during drought (Ma 2004). Silicon is one of the components that stimulate plant growth and development (Capstaff and Miller 2018), but the effect of fertilization with this nutrient is visible mainly under stress conditions (Zargar et al. 2019), plants are less susceptible to lodging and drought (Sacała, 2009).»
Analysis of the effect of silicon requires additional information (Bocharnikova et al., 2023a, b; Matichenkov, Bocharnikova, 2023; Zhang et al., 2023; Bocharnikova et al., 2024; Shafiq et al., 2024). Thus, it was noted that silicon deficiency limits root growth. It has been shown in cereals, citrus, vegetable crops and forage grasses that improved silicon nutrition increased the number of secondary and tertiary roots (by 20–100%), the total and adsorbing surface area and root mass, and silicon also changed the architecture – strengthening the cell wall (Adatia, Besford, 1986; Hossain et al., 2007).
2) Lines 493–498 «The Si content depended on the year of study and was higher in 2024 with lower rainfall (Table 4). A higher Si content was also found in subsequent regrowths. In turn, silicon fertilization resulted in a lower, but insignificant, Si concentration in plants. This could be due to the large share of Dactylis glomerata in the sward during the study period (22-32% depending on the intensity of use), as this species is considered to be quite rich in silicon (Falkowski et al. 2000).» Analysis of silicon content and its increase gives a contradictory picture. On the one hand, an increase in yield for individual cultivated crops is noted, on the other hand, a deterioration in forage quality - the rate of digestion, with a high content of organic silicon (Abaturov, 2024). Thus, with an increase in the proportion of silicon in the consumed vegetation per unit, digestibility decreases linearly by one third or a quarter. The fermentation limit is set at a silicon content in the feed at a level of 3-4% of dry weight. Among the main groups of forage plants (cereals and forbs), the amount of silicon is significantly higher in cereals (1.70% and 0.91%, respectively). In this regard, it is necessary to control the composition of forage lands in order to reduce the proportion of plants with a high silicon content.

References:

Abaturov, B. D. Variability of Grassland Forage Resources and Their Division by a Complex of Herbivorous Mammals in the Case of Joint Grazing. Arid Ecosystems. 2024. Vol. 14, No. 2. pp. 202-208. DOI 10.1134/S2079096124700094.

Zhang, P., Ouyang, N., Wei, X., Zhang, Ya., Hu, B., Lu, Zh., Peng, H., Zhang, J., Li X., Xie, M. Factors affecting the vertical distribution of silicon in paddy soils in Mid-Subtropical China. Silicon. 2023. V. 15. No17. pp. 7477-7487.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We sincerely thank you for your thorough review and helpful comments on our manuscript submitted to “Sustainability”. Your comprehensive evaluation and constructive comments have significantly improved the quality of our article, helping it to meet the high standards of the journal. In response to your suggestions, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript and made all the recommended changes. We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments, which have significantly contributed to the improvement of our work. Your support and commitment to the development of our research are extremely important to us, and we sincerely appreciate your help.

Reviewer 2
Thank you for your comments and recommendations. We have carefully reviewed our manuscript and made the appropriate changes. 

The article is relevant. The use of silicon, compounds in inorganic and organic forms, as fertilizers has been studied since the mid-18th century. However, to date, the technology has not been sufficiently developed and requires taking into account many factors, primarily soil acidity and organic matter content. The lowest content is noted for peat soils. The technology of introducing silicon is successfully used in rice growing. At the same time, rice straw has a high level of silicon, which complicates the use of this raw material for processing and as feed after processing.
Lines 55-61;   Lines 493–498
We have incorporated some of the suggested information into the manuscript and referred to the publication by Zhang et al., 2023.
Zhang, P.; Ouyang, N.; Wei, X.; Zhang, Ya.; Hu, B.; Lu, Zh.; Peng, H.; Zhang, J.; Li, X.; Xie, M. Factors affecting the ver-tical distribution of silicon in paddy soils in Mid-Subtropical China. Silicon 2023,15(17), 7477-7487.
According to literature [27] there is a wide variation of Si accumulation in the shoots among plant species, and grass species show particularly high Si accumulation compared to legumes.
27. Mitani-Ueno, N.; Ma, J.F. Linking transport system of silicon with its accumulation in different plant species. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2006, 67(1), 10-17. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article title:

"Productivity, Biodiversity, and Forage Value of Meadow Sward Depending on Management Intensity and Silicon Application".

The impact of silicon application and management intensity on meadow sward botanical composition, yield, and nutritional value is thoroughly examined in this manuscript. The approach is sound and the research is well-structured, offering insightful information about sustainable grassland management techniques. The results have implications for sustainable agriculture and agronomy, especially in light of drought stress and climate change.

 

General comments:

• Mention to the mechanisms of silicon that influences plant physiology and nutrient uptake.
• Give additional details on the silicon fertilizer's composition and possible modes of action.
• Provide more insights into the implications of the findings for sustainable agriculture and climate change adaptation.
• Minor grammatical errors that could be improved for good readability.
• Add more recent studies on silicon application and grassland management (silicon application and its role in plant stress tolerance).
• Rewrite the references again in the manuscript as the template of the journal.

Abstract:

• Include precise numerical figures (such as the yield increase percentage as a result of silicon application).

Introduction:

• It is preferable to highlight the study's uniqueness. Emphasize the research gaps that this study fills.
• What about the biodiversity by silicon application and their reduction of harmful response on the environment.
• How can the impact of silicone on product quality?

Materials and Methods:

• Nutritive value analyses section (Add references)

Results:

-  Fig 1: clarification-  Check the Duncan's letters on the bar (Fig. 3, Reverse between  the treatments)-  Check the Duncan's letters in tables 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Discussion:

• Separate the discussion into subsections based on key findings (e.g., botanical composition, yield, nutritional value).

Conclusion:

• Highlight how the results can inform grassland management practices.
• Suggest future research directions (mechanisms of silicon application and its effects under varying environmental conditions).

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3 

The impact of silicon application and management intensity on meadow sward botanical composition, yield, and nutritional value is thoroughly examined in this manuscript. The approach is sound and the research is well-structured, offering insightful information about sustainable grassland management techniques. The results have implications for sustainable agriculture and agronomy, especially in light of drought stress and climate change.

Thank you for your comments and recommendations. Here is a list of all the changes that have been made in response to your comments:

General comments:
•    Mention to the mechanisms of silicon that influences plant physiology and nutrient uptake.
In the Introduction we introduced some information about the absorption of silicon by plants and what it results from.
•    Give additional details on the silicon fertilizer's composition and possible modes of action.
The fertilizer Optysil (Intermag Sp., Olkusz, Poland) contained mainly silicon (16.5%, 200 g SiO2) and chelated iron (2%, 24 g Fe L-1) is considered to be a mineral growth stimulator.
•    Provide more insights into the implications of the findings for sustainable agriculture and climate change adaptation.
Thank you for your suggestionAs suggested, we have supplemented the relevant information in the abstract and conclusions.
•    Minor grammatical errors that could be improved for good readability.
Thank you for your attention, in the revised manuscript we have tried to improve the grammar and readability of sentences.
•    Add more recent studies on silicon application and grassland management (silicon application and its role in plant stress tolerance).
In the revised manuscript, we introduced new literature on silicon and its role in improving plant tolerance to stress conditions.
•    Rewrite the references again in the manuscript as the template of the journal.
References have been corrected in the text - their citation and list
Abstract:
•    Include precise numerical figures (such as the yield increase percentage as a result of silicon application).
Some numerical information has been added to the abstract. However, we did not provide the value by which the yield increased due to the nature of the statement taken into account: „Silicon supplementation increased plant diversity and yield resilience during drought with more intensive management, supporting sustainable forage production”.
Introduction:
•    It is preferable to highlight the study's uniqueness. Emphasize the research gaps that this study fills.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have made appropriate additions before stating the purpose of the research.
•    What about the biodiversity by silicon application and their reduction of harmful response on the environment.
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have made appropriate additions.
•    How can the impact of silicone on product quality?
In the manuscript, in appropriate places, we have highlighted the impact of silicon use on crop yields, their quality and sustainable meadow management.
Materials and Methods:
•    Nutritive value analyses section (Add references)
The position of literature is being referred to.
Results:
-  Fig 1: clarification-  Check the Duncan's letters on the bar (Fig. 3, Reverse between  the treatments)-  Check the Duncan's letters in tables 2, 3, 4 and 5.
As suggested, the data in the Fig. 3 and the Tables were checked using Tukey's test. Some letters in Table 4 were corrected (the change was made in the manuscript). We apologize for entering incorrect data, which was due to our inattention.
Discussion:
•    Separate the discussion into subsections based on key findings (e.g., botanical composition, yield, nutritional value).
Thank you for your suggestion, we have divided the discussion into subtitles, making content related to specific topics more visible.
Conclusion:
•    Highlight how the results can inform grassland management practices.
We added the sentence: The present experiment indicates that the yield and quality of forage obtained from meadow sward can be influenced by the use of silicon and the intensity of management. Silicon application can improve the tolerance of meadow plants to increasingly frequent summer droughts in temperate climates.
•    Suggest future research directions (mechanisms of silicon application and its effects under varying environmental conditions).
We suggested: However, the influence of silicon fertilization on botanical composition, yield and the nutritional value of multi-species meadow swards should be further investigated under different habitat conditions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3737980

Manuscript Title: Productivity, biodiversity and forage value of meadow sward depending on management intensity and silicon application

Journal Name: Sustainability

Reviewer Comments

Subject and title

The topic of the manuscript is relevant and interesting for the journal audience. The title is concise and accurately reflects the study’s focus on management intensity (cutting frequency/fertilization) and silicon application in meadow ecosystems. The topic addresses a relevant gap in sustainable grassland management, linking agronomic practices (e.g., 2-cut vs. 3-cut systems, silicon) to biodiversity, productivity, and forage quality. However, the following points, suggestions, and amendments must be taken into consideration:

Abstract

Line 10 or 14: The abstract should explicitly state the research aim: e.g., ‘to evaluate how management intensity and silicon application affect botanical composition, yield, and nutrient content in perennial meadow swards under variable precipitation.’

Line 16: Replace ‘during 2 years’ with ‘over two years’.

Line 17: Specify the magnitude of species increase (e.g., ‘species richness rose from 15 to 21 under 3-cut management’).

Line 21: Add a sentence on silicon’s applied value (e.g., ‘Silicon supplementation enhanced yield resilience during drought, supporting sustainable forage production’).

Line 23: A concluding sentence should be added such as: ‘These findings indicate that intensive meadow management and silicon application enhance productivity, forage value, and biodiversity, providing valuable insights for sustainable pasture management strategies.’

Introduction

Line 38: Legumes ‘bind atmospheric nitrogen’ implies direct assimilation. Correct to ‘Legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen via rhizobial symbiosis.’

Line 63: Elaborate on how Si reduces transpiration. Fore example: ‘Silicon enhances cuticular silicification, reducing stomatal conductance and transpiration.’

Line 65-66: Please notice that: ‘Legumes may exhibit lower Si uptake due to lacking Si transporters (e.g., Lsi1).’. For more details, see this review ‘Mitani-Ueno and Ma, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2020.1845972’

Line 78: EU definition of permanent grasslands is outdated. Please check ‘EU Regulation 1307/2013’

Line 105: Define ‘Management Intensity’ early in the Introduction: Specify that it encompasses cutting frequency (2–3 times/year) and fertilizer rates.

Line 109: Contrast this study with past silicon research (e.g., ‘While Si’s effect on cereals is documented, its impact on perennial grass-legume swards remains underexplored’).

Line 109: The authors can add Hypothesis Statement, such as: ‘We hypothesized that Si application would mitigate drought-induced yield loss and enhance nutrient retention.’

Line 110-112: Connect the introduction’s final paragraph to Methods (e.g., ‘To test this, we manipulated cutting frequency, fertilization, and Si application...’).

Materials and Methods

Line 120-122: Specify the year and month in which the soil analysis was performed.

Line 125-127: Abbreviating scientific names in this way (Dactylis glom. cv. Berta, Festulolium brau. cv. Sulino) after their first mention is incorrect. The correct way is as follows: D. glomerata cv. Berta, F. braunii cv. Sulino.

Line 131, 132: Define ‘spring’ precisely (e.g., early April)

Line 158, 159: Clarify if ‘regrowth’ refers to days after cutting or phenological stage or …...

Line 162: In Table (1), Correct to ‘Temperature °C’

Line 168: State drying temperature/duration or conditions for DM yield

Line 169: Correct to ‘was assessed [% of dry mass (DM)]. Yields of DM (Mg ha^-1)’

Line 183: Correct to ‘hydrofluoric acid (HF)’

Line 186: Explicitly define fixed/random effects in the ANOVA model (e.g., block as random).

Line 189: Delete ‘The experimental data were analyzed using multifactorial analysis of variance (ANOVA).’, already mentioned.

Line 191-193: The sentence is unclear, rewrite it.

Results

Line 218: Correct: ‘It was found that’

Line 222: Specify which species increased under Si application in Figure 2.

Line 238: Figure 2 y-axis label ‘Number of species (psc.)’.  ‘psc.’ is non-standard English, please delete.

Line 249: Add error bars

Line 261, 268, 272: Do the authors intend to classify sodium (Na) here as a macronutrient for plants? Does its measurement indicate something, or does it indicate high or low nutritional value (line 391)? It is, of course, more useful to estimate nitrogen (N) instead.

Discussion

Line 325-326: Rephrase and delete comma.

Line 327, 334, 351, 395, 262, 256, 244: This phrase ‘At the same time’ was used extensively in the results and discussion section. Close synonyms should be used more appropriately.

Line 331: Expand on why Trifolium pratense disappeared in drought (e.g., shallow roots vs. Medicago’s deep roots) using root architecture studies

Line 339: Add comma: ‘In the year 2024, it was also’

Line 362-367: Discuss why Si’s yield effect was not significant.

Line 443: Add comma: ‘Moreover, in the study’

Line 451: Delete comma

Line 493-498: Note that Si foliar absorption may vary by species (grasses > legumes).

Conclusion

This section should preferably be a single paragraph. Please combine the two paragraphs in a consistent manner.

Line 510: Correct: ‘by weather conditions in the study period’

Link to sustainability: e.g. ‘Higher legume persistence under 3-cuts reduces synthetic N needs, aligning with EU Green Deal targets.’

References

There was a noticeable lack of citation of recent studies and reports, especially from 2023 to 2025.

The reference list and citations within texts must be formatted according to the journal's standard style.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We sincerely thank you for your thorough review and helpful comments on our manuscript submitted to “Sustainability”. Your comprehensive evaluation and constructive comments have significantly improved the quality of our article, helping it to meet the high standards of the journal. In response to your suggestions, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript and made all the recommended changes. We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments, which have significantly contributed to the improvement of our work. Your support and commitment to the development of our research are extremely important to us, and we sincerely appreciate your help.

Reviewer 4

Thank you for your comments and recommendations. We have carefully reviewed our manuscript and made the appropriate changes.

 

The topic of the manuscript is relevant and interesting for the journal audience. The title is concise and accurately reflects the study’s focus on management intensity (cutting frequency/fertilization) and silicon application in meadow ecosystems. The topic addresses a relevant gap in sustainable grassland management, linking agronomic practices (e.g., 2-cut vs. 3-cut systems, silicon) to biodiversity, productivity, and forage quality. However, the following points, suggestions, and amendments must be taken into consideration:

Abstract

Line 10 or 14: The abstract should explicitly state the research aim: e.g., ‘to evaluate how management intensity and silicon application affect botanical composition, yield, and nutrient content in perennial meadow swards under variable precipitation.’

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added the appropriate content: On the sward formed at that time, in 2023, an experiment was established to evaluate how management intensity (2- or 3- cuts and rate of fertilizer) and silicon application (Si or 0 Si) affect botanical composition, yield and nutrient content in perennial meadow swards under variable precipitation over two years

Line 16: Replace ‘during 2 years’ with ‘over two years’.

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 17: Specify the magnitude of species increase (e.g., ‘species richness rose from 15 to 21 under 3-cut management’).

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 21: Add a sentence on silicon’s applied value (e.g., ‘Silicon supplementation enhanced yield resilience during drought, supporting sustainable forage production’).

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 23: A concluding sentence should be added such as: ‘These findings indicate that intensive meadow management and silicon application enhance productivity, forage value, and biodiversity, providing valuable insights for sustainable pasture management strategies.’

Thank you very much for your suggestion. It has been changed as suggested.

 Introduction

Line 38: Legumes ‘bind atmospheric nitrogen’ implies direct assimilation. Correct to ‘Legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen via rhizobial symbiosis.’

The correction has been made.

Line 63: Elaborate on how Si reduces transpiration. More example: ‘Silicon enhances cuticular silicification, reducing stomatal conductance and transpiration.’

Appropriate content has been introduced.

Line 65-66: Please notice that: ‘Legumes may exhibit lower Si uptake due to lacking Si transporters (e.g., Lsi1).’. For more details, see this review ‘Mitani-Ueno and Ma, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2020.1845972’

Thank you for the suggested literature, it was very important for improving the quality of the manuscript.

Line 78: EU definition of permanent grasslands is outdated. Please check ‘EU Regulation 1307/2013’

The current literature position has been introduced.

Line 105: Define ‘Management Intensity’ early in the Introduction: Specify that it encompasses cutting frequency (2–3 times/year) and fertilizer rates.

Thank you for this valuable comment. It clarifies the concept of intensive management.

Line 109: Contrast this study with past silicon research (e.g., ‘While Si’s effect on cereals is documented, its impact on perennial grass-legume swards remains underexplored’).

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 109: The authors can add Hypothesis Statement, such as: ‘We hypothesized that Si application would mitigate drought-induced yield loss and enhance nutrient retention.’

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 110-112: Connect the introduction’s final paragraph to Methods (e.g., ‘To test this, we manipulated cutting frequency, fertilization, and Si application...’).

It has been changed as suggested.

Materials and Methods

Line 120-122: Specify the year and month in which the soil analysis was performed.

Soil samples were taken before the experiment was established in Spring 2014.

Line 125-127: Abbreviating scientific names in this way (Dactylis glom. cv. Berta, Festulolium brau. cv. Sulino) after their first mention is incorrect. The correct way is as follows: D. glomerata cv. Berta, F. braunii cv. Sulino.

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 131, 132: Define ‘spring’ precisely (e.g., early April)

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 158, 159: Clarify if ‘regrowth’ refers to days after cutting or phenological stage or …...

Regrowth means „ the cut”. The sentence has been reformatted in the text.

Line 162: In Table (1), Correct to ‘Temperature °C’

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 168: State drying temperature/duration or conditions for DM yield      

More detailed information has been added to the text.

Line 169: Correct to ‘was assessed [% of dry mass (DM)]. Yields of DM (Mg ha-1)’

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 183: Correct to ‘hydrofluoric acid (HF)’

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 186: Explicitly define fixed/random effects in the ANOVA model (e.g., block as random).

Information was entered.

Line 189: Delete ‘The experimental data were analyzed using multifactorial analysis of variance (ANOVA).’, already mentioned.

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 191-193: The sentence is unclear, rewrite it.

It has been changed as suggested.

Results

Line 218: Correct: ‘It was found that’

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 222: Specify which species increased under Si application in Figure 2.

It is difficult to determine which species increased their share under the influence of silicon use, because various other factors influenced it; only changes in the number of species can be reported.

Line 238: Figure 2 y-axis label ‘Number of species (psc.)’.  ‘psc.’ is non-standard English, please delete.MLine 249: Add error bars

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 261, 268, 272: Do the authors intend to classify sodium (Na) here as a macronutrient for plants? Does its measurement indicate something, or does it indicate high or low nutritional value (line 391)? It is, of course, more useful to estimate nitrogen (N) instead.

Sodium is a very important nutrient for animals. It is generally considered a macronutrient. In the manuscript, we noted that grassland sward often contains too little sodium, which does not meet their nutritional needs.

Discussion

Line 325-326: Rephrase and delete comma.

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 327, 334, 351, 395, 262, 256, 244: This phrase ‘At the same time’ was used extensively in the results and discussion section. Close synonyms should be used more appropriately.

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 331: Expand on why Trifolium pratense disappeared in drought (e.g., shallow roots vs. Medicago’s deep roots) using root architecture studies

An appropriate explanation has been added to the text.

Line 339: Add comma: ‘In the year 2024, it was also’

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 362-367: Discuss why Si’s yield effect was not significant.

Changes have been made.

Line 443: Add comma: ‘Moreover, in the study’

Changes have been made.

Line 451: Delete comma

It has been changed as suggested.

Line 493-498: Note that Si foliar absorption may vary by species (grasses > legumes).

An appropriate explanation has been added to the text.

Conclusion

This section should preferably be a single paragraph. Please combine the two paragraphs in a consistent manner.

Changes have been made.

Line 510: Correct: ‘by weather conditions in the study period’

Changes have been made.

Link to sustainability: e.g. ‘Higher legume persistence under 3-cuts reduces synthetic N needs, aligning with EU Green Deal targets.’

The abstract contains information, that obtained findings indicate that intensive meadow management and silicon application enhance productivity, forage value, and biodiversity, providing valuable insights for sustainable meadow management strategies.

References

There was a noticeable lack of citation of recent studies and reports, especially from 2023 to 2025.

The reference list and citations within texts must be formatted according to the journal's standard style.

References include newer publications and the list has been adapted to journal requirements.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been considerably improved; minor revisions are necessary. Please improve the layout of your article; don't have a short table divided into two separate pages, don't have isolated headings at the bottom of the page, check that all figures and tables are correctly mounted in the text...
Yours sincerely

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your thorough review and helpful comments on our manuscript submitted to “Sustainability”.
We also thank you for your additional comments on the manuscript. We have corrected some of the mistakes. The current version includes Table divided on two separate pages, particularly in Table 6. Due to the editing changes that will be made by the Sustainability Editors, we would not like to make changes that could be inconsistent with the manuscript's editing.
We greatly appreciate all your comments, which helped improve the quality of the manuscript.
Yours sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made changes. I recommend the article for publication.

Prospects of the study:

Analysis of silicon content and its increase gives a contradictory picture. On the one hand, an increase in yield for individual cultivated crops is noted, on the other hand, a deterioration in forage quality - the rate of digestion, with a high content of organic silicon (Abaturov, 2024). So, with an increase in the proportion of silicon in the consumed vegetation per unit, digestibility decreases linearly by one third or a quarter. The fermentation limit is set at a silicon content in the feed at the level of 3-4% of dry weight. Among the main groups of forage plants (cereals and forbs), the amount of silicon is significantly higher in cereals (1.70% and 0.91%, respectively). The use of silicon additives in forms of silicon available for plant absorption in fertilizers, including organic ones, and the exclusion of the factor of reducing the digestion rate for forage plants require further comprehensive study.
Reference:
Abaturov, B. D. Variability of Grassland Forage Resources and Their Division by a Complex of Herbivorous Mammals in the Case of Joint Grazing. Arid Ecosystems. 2024. Vol. 14, No. 2. pp. 202-208. DOI 10.1134/S2079096124700094.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your thorough review and helpful comments on our manuscript submitted to “Sustainability”.
We also thank you for your additional comments on the manuscript. Information regarding silicon availability for animals is crucial and We appreciate all your comments, which helped improve the quality of the manuscript and believe that including this data in the article is both valuable and appropriate.
Yours sincerely,