Weed Community in Soybean Responses to Agricultural Management Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I think that your research is interesting, but also that it can be improved. One of my concerns is about maintaining the soybean plant density despite narrowing the rows, so the distance between plants within each planted line (row) should be increased in order to maintain that certain density.

How does this affect to your results, and could it be considered as representative and viable in field conditions?

For further comments, see the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for valuable comments and suggestions which will improve our manuscript.

We followed your instructions and made corrections in the text.

• However, we decided to leave Table 1 at Materials and Methods (in 2.1 Site description and experimental set up), below the text where we explained the range of rainfall during the study.
• Relative weed density and frequency was calculated according to Derksen, D.; Lafond, G.; Thomas, A.; Loepky, H.; Swanton, D. Impact of Agronomic Practices on Weed Communities: Tillage Systems. Weed Sci 1993, 41, 409-417.
• The highest total dry weed biomass was 3329.2. For example Chenopodium album plants were more than 2m high 
• In Table 7 we compare soybean yield, number of pods per plant and 1000 kernel weight within each soybean row, therefore, within each column, the same letter indicates that the yield or yield components are not significantly different
• In this study we do not manipulate with planting density, because the objective was not to evaluate intraspecific competition between soybeans, but only interspecific competition between crop and weeds

with kind regards, authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dears

The work "Weed community in soybean responses to agricultural management systems" presents a very important topic about weed management in a context of restrictions on the use of certain herbicides (glyphosate for example). In addition, it presents results from 3 years of field experiments, which should be highly valued.

I believe that it is well designed, presented and discussed according to what is planted.As a suggestion, I believe that an extensive review of the quality of English in the writing of the text is required.

 

Regards.

Author Response

Thank you very much for valuable comments and suggestions which will improve our manuscript.

We followed your instructions and made corrections in the text.

Kind regards, authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear respected Editor

Thank you very much for your invitation to review the manuscript entitled [Weed community in soybean responses to agricultural management systems] (ID agronomy-1965852).

I suggest some improvements in my review below and in the attached Pdf version, I recommend the publication after major revision.

The author must follow the following comments:

Ø  Line 19, study1 should be changed to first study

Ø  Line 21, study2 should be changed to second study

Ø  Line 45, [1,2,3] should be changed to [1-3]

Ø  Lines 14,15   kg ha^-1 N should be changed to kg N ha^-1 also P and K

Ø  Line 124  and should be changed to as well as

Ø  Lines 124,127,135

Ø  Line 158

Ø  Lines 322,329 where is the data of 2015?

Ø  Line 383 Figure 3 should be replaced by another one with high resolution

Ø  Line 400 What does this sentence means?

Ø  Line 403 [36-39], you must follow the Journal rules

Ø  In the discussion section, please explain your results (There was no reduction in weed biomass accumulation with reduction in row spacing from 70 to 50 and 25 cm).

Ø  In the references section, there are a lot of mistakes with unfollow the journal rules

Ø  Please see the Pdf version

Best regards

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for valuable comments and suggestions which will improve our manuscript.

We followed your instructions and made corrections in the text.

Line 322 – 329: Where is the data of  2015? It is explained in sentence above (lines 317-319). However, in the second year (very dry growing season) all examined weed management strategies failed and variable costs (dotted line in Figure 3) were higher than Gross Margin.

Kind regards, authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors evaluate the effects of weed growth on soybean crops. They characterize the growing species and the effect on soybean yield and biomass. In addition, they simulate the effect of weed growth on soybean crops. The manuscript is simple and clear. The authors have sufficiently discussed the results obtained. The aspects reported are of fundamental importance for sustainable agriculture, given that the purpose is to use fewer herbicides.

However, the manuscript needs a general reorganization. Authors should better specify (dividing into different sections) in the materials and methods section all the experimental steps they have followed. Also how was the metribuzin dosage chosen? Who identified the weeds?

 

 

I suggest discussing the manuscripts below and supplementing the references:

Karimmojeni, H.; et al. Effects of Metribuzin Herbicide on Some Morpho-Physiological Characteristics of Two Echinacea Species. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 169. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae8020169

Karimmojeni, H.; et al., Competitive Ability Effects of Datura stramonium L. and Xanthium strumarium L. on the Development of Maize (Zea mays) Seeds. Plants 2021, 10, 1922. doi: 10.3390/plants10091922

Rad, S.V.; et al.. Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Sorghum bicolor L. under Intercropping with Legumes and Different Weed Control Methods. Horticulturae 2020, 6, 78. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae6040078

Author Response

Thank you very much for valuable comments and suggestions which will improve our manuscript.

We followed your instructions and made corrections in the text.

• How was the metribuzin dosage chosen? We applied herbicide Plateen WG 41 (metribuzin 17,5% + flufenacet 24%) at recommended dose 2 kg ha ^-1
• Who identified the weeds? - Weeds were identified by weed scientists: E.S., S.R., P.L., D.Z., S.A.
• Materials and Method section is divided into two parts: 1 Site description and experimental set up where we explained arrangement of first study in 127 – 133, and arrangement of second study in lines 134 – 142. Then in the next part, 2.2 Data assessment and statistical analysis we presented all steps what we done for first study in lines  145 – 179, and for the second study from lines 180 – 190.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

see the attached document for suggestions. There are two important points that should be improved. The first one is to clarify the plant density, I still do not understant this point. You will see the comment in the manuscript. The second one is to change the climatic conditions of the experiment to the results section.

Sincerely

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions which improved our manuscript. We corrected our text according to your recommendations. However, some of your comments we cannot accept. Please, pay attention to our explanations:

1. In the Introduction, text you deleted (lines 49-59) we would like to have this text remain in the manuscript. We consider it a valuable part of this paragraph.
2. You suggest we put KÖppen climatic classification (which is Cf (subtype Cfa)). We describe the climate of the investigated area in a few words, but the important weather data during the experiment is given in Table 2. Therefore we would not add KÖppen climatic classification.
3. Line 109.  -.... achieve population 500 000 plants.... – the word „of“ should not be deleted as you suggested. It is correct ....population of...
4. Line 109 – in this study, we have a constant soybean population of 500 000 plants ha-1. The experiment examined three-row spacing: 25, 50, and 70 cm. To achieve the same population of soybean, of course, then within row spacing is different!
5. Line 118 – Table 1 – you insist to put it in the result section. However, we insist for it to remain in the Material and method section for several reasons: i) this is not our results; ii) it is placed after we first mentioned the amount of rainfall in the text, as proposed in the Instruction for authors; iii) placing this Table somewhere in the results section will break the flow of our results. The reader will easily find the details of weather data during the experiment in the above text.
6. Line149 – „synthetic but important value – is incorrect. Please note that  „importance value“ is the official term used in vegetation studies. You can find this, for example, in the book of:   Kershav, K.A. (1973): Quantitative and dynamic plant ecology. William Clowes &Sons, Ltd.,
7. Line 204 – you ask to add an additional row with the sum of all values for each row spacing – Why? We never found it in published literature where authors in tables with given relative abundance species data sum all values – there is no reason to do it!
8. Line 326 – “positive economic income” - is not the correct term. It should remain „positive financial results“

Our manuscript has checked our colleague form the US University.

Sincerely, 

authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend the publication in the present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions which improved our manuscript. We corrected our text according to your recommendations. 

Our manuscript has checked by a native English-speaking colleague form the US University.

Sincerely,

authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx