Successional Allelopathic Interactions of Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. and Cereals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting and the paper is very well structured, presenting valuable information in this field work.  The article is adequately related to the relevant literature. The research study and methods are sound and appropriate, but the control treatment should also be mentioned (see comments in the text). The results need to be improved in terms of graphs and some detailed data (see comments in the text). Also, some graphs are erroneously made (see comments in the text). You should compared some results with control treatment (see comments in the text).

The conclusions are consistent and supported by the content. The cited references are relevant and support any claims made in the article.

Some references need revision (see comments in the text).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I have listed my response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled as "Allelopathic interaction of successive plants: Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. with cereals" (Filiz ERBAS as author) and submitted to the journal Sustainability MDPI deals with the allelopathic interactions theme.

Research in this area is potentially interesting and relevant.
Definitely, this sphere can still present many discoveries.
Formally speaking, the current manuscript corresponds to the scope of the journal Sustainability MDPI and can potentially be considered for publication in it.

Comments and suggestions for this manuscript through the first round ot the peer review:

1. The abstract should be substantially and conceptually revised in a fundamental and applied context and thoroughly re-edited.

2. It appears that the novelty, originality, relevance, significance and role of this research in the conceptual context of the contribution to the studied field of knowledge are not sufficiently substantiated there.
3. It is also seen that the hypothesis, aim and tasks of this manuscript are insufficiently developed in a certain sense.
4. Tables 4 - 7, figures and discussion of the data there should be carefully re-checked in the context of the significance of the differences.
5. It seems that the manuscript could have been more thoroughly and deeply developed in the context of a higher level of conceptualization, analysis and generalization.
6. Perhaps it is worth revising the results and reworking the conclusion section in a more logical and accurate context.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Could be better.

Author Response

I have listed my response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “Allelopathic interaction of successive plants: Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. with cereal” studied the allelopathic interactions between A. palmeri and four cereal species on the basis of both Petri dish and pot culture methods. The results of this study may provide a scientific basis for agricultural production practices, but the following issues should be addressed before they can be considered for publication.

1. Introduction: There are too many descriptions about the allelopathic potential of cereal species or their allelochemicals listed; however, the logic of this part seems too simple, and the scientific hypothesis and the importance of the topic in agricultural practices are not well described.
2. Materials and methods: The author should explain why the descripted concentrations of extracts used for petri dish test were chosen? Actually, the highest concentration can hardly be found in agricultural practices in my opinion. In addition, why different amounts of seeds from palmeri and cereal species were used in the same Petri dish test, if this caused misjudges in the germination rate determination? In pot experiment, untreated plant materials were mixed with the soil used for cultivation, then how the author tell the results observed are only caused by the allelochemicals, as their must be amounts of nutrient elements and beneficial organic matters were brought into soil as well.
3. Results: Figures should be reprepared. The differences in the allelopathic effects caused by the organs, growth stages of the source plants of allelochemicals or the concentration of extracts, etc., should be reflected in figures, as well as in statistical analysis and text descriptions. Unnecessary statistical information should be listed in supplementary materials. ‘AMAPA’ should be defined when it first appears in the text or figures.
4. Discussions: More discussions about the abovementioned results should be added. Again, how the author tell if the differences in petri dish or pot cultural text were not caused by the beneficial effects caused by the nonallelopathic substances in the plant residues?

Author Response

I have listed my response in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The control treatment must be filled in some graphs (see comments in the text). You have to mention that Table 1-5 are available at supplementary files (see comments in the text). There are some inconsistencies in the data presented in the discussion (see comments in the text).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would recommend revisiting the manuscript in the context of the comments from the first round of review. 
The issue here is not specificity, but the need to look at this research from a clearer conceptual perspective that would provide greater depth of analysis, interpretation, logic, and systems approach.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Could be better.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my concerns had been well addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx