Weed Management in Ridge Tillage Systems—A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have revised the whole manuscript thoroughly a lot of efforts are made for this report however, it needs some of the minor corrections which are suggested as follows

Abstract

Briefly describe the experiment details and site and compare the effects on weed management in RT system and traditional sowing system

Briefly describe the experiment scenario with ultimate results  

Introduction

Line 56 and 57 please elaborate the goals of farm-to-fork strategies

Briefly describe  that how RT system helps in improvement in yield of crops even in weeds attack

Give a logic if herbicides are used for weed control then they could be harmful for the main crop so how can you mitigate this issue in weed management without disturbing the main crop

Please elaborate how RT system is much more better than other sowing systems for crop production other than weed control

Figures paste in form of pictures for mechanical weed management are not giving an official impression must replace them with graphical representation or schematic diagram

How RT system is helpful in maintaining soil fertility and how weeds are managed mechanically without disturbing the main crop

Keep focus on revealing the conditions of that place on which the study was conducted other than explaining other countries

Describe how organic farming system would better on RT sowing and how it will help in suppressing weeds growth under organic environment without using artificially synthesized  amendments

Maintain grammar sequence throughout the manuscript

References

Citation need revision please make corrections according to journal policy

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your fair review and all the hlpful comments on our manuscript. Please find our point-by-point-response attached and the revisions marked in red in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I couldn't comprehend if this manuscript is a review- or research-based. The manuscript needs substantial revision.

Introduction of the manuscript is written just like conclusion.

Authors are claiming that the manuscript introduces a new RT system using RTK-GPS-controlled ridging and seeding (lines 16-17). What is the full form of RTK-GPS (line 16) or RTK-GNSS (line 65)? Also, the introduced new RT system must be supported with substantial data which is lacking. How this system helps in precision weed management? Authors have given only weed biomass (Figure 4) which is not sufficient to support the facts.

In the abstract, authors have opined that "The ridges can replace automatic vision control systems...(lines 13-15). The implications of RT systems for precision weed management should be supported with data. We all know that weeds can be controlled with band application of herbicides or mechanical weeding in RT systems. But, the manuscript, if its review (section 1-4) or research (section 5), should be supported with data or findings.

In the conclusions, authors have mentioned the names of several automatic guidance systems in lines 277-280 and 290-295. There is no reference of these systems in the whole manuscript except in conclusions. I think that conclusion section should be based on the results and discussion sections. Authors need to add one section on these automated guidance systems in the section 4 of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thanks for your fair and helpful comments on our manuscript. Please find enclosed our revised manuscript and a point-by-point response.

With kind regards

Roland Gerhards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

the manuscript, as written, intends to "summarize the state-of-the-art in RT cultures in relation to yield benefits and weed community dynamics and to further propose innovative weed management technology for RT systems.

Indeed, in the first part (Introduction, Benefits of Ridge Tillage Systems) there is a sufficient bibliography on the advantages of RT.

In paragraph no. 3 (Ridge Tillage and Weed infestations) rather scarce data are reported, with respect to the topic or, in any case, the bibliography cited, should be better explained.

Paragraph 4 is quite complete; however, a more complete discussion of the Living mulch and its management is lacking, even with reference to a very extensive bibliography on the topic. It would be interesting to understand how this technique can be implemented with the RT.

Regarding paragraph 5, it is not clear to me what it is. An abstract on preliminary tests carried out by you? If so, I don't understand why you haven't submitted a manuscript in the conventional form: Introduction, M&M, Discussion and Conclusion. From what we read, the results are interesting.

The conclusions appear too general and, above all, quite unrelated to the content of the manuscript.

In summary, my opinion is that the manuscript should be rewritten by deciding whether it is a review or, for example, a short note on the topic.

Below, I also suggest some observations which, however, should only be considered as hints on how to improve a new form of the manuscript.

Introduction

Line 37:

“Unfortunately”. I think it's an inappropriate adverb. I suggest we delete it and leave the simple statement.

Line 55:

This sentence appears unclear. Please rewrite it.

Line 65:

Please explicit

Line 124: “Soil seed density” Do you mean I think that this definition is more relevant.

Line 165-169: Please, Check this definition and make it more explicit by writing the formula.

Line 173-177: These concepts should be better argued. In this form they appear too general.

Line 189: Trifolium repens and Lolium perenne, unlike fescue, are perennials. How can you manage and use them in an annual crop? This part should be better argued with a few more bibliographical references.

Line 219: Do you mean ? Please, make the statement clearer.

Line 226-229: Also these statements are also not clearly written. Please, argue better.

Conclusions

The conclusions contain concepts that have not been preceded by adequate argumentation in the rest of the manuscript. They are therefore very general statements that do not add scientific new scientific evidence.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thanks for your fair and helpful comments on our manuscript. Please find enclosed our revised manuscript and a point-by-point response.

With kind regards

Roland Gerhards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Agreed to your revision. All the best for your future endeavour.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we thank you for your time and helpful comments for our manuscript.

Best regards

Roland Gerhards

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

the manuscript has been changed and now it has the characteristics of a review. However, I believe it still needs substantial changes. In particular, the contents are inserted in the various paragraphs in an often somewhat confused way. My suggestion is to reorganize them, for example in the following way: 1) Introduction: what RT is and to what agronomic and productive needs it can be useful, also in light of the new objectives of the European Community. 2) Benefits of Ridge Tillage Systems to the crop. 3) RT Tillage and weed infestation; ie how RT influences weed growth. 4) Weed Management in Ridge Tillage systems; what are the advantages of RT for Integrated Weed Management? 5) Conclusions

Below, I also add some considerations that I hope will be useful to improve your work.

• Title:

The manuscript is basically a review of the benefits of RT for weed management. The term in the title "precision" suggests your intention to deepen the topic "precision weed management"; instead, I don't think you report many information about this topic. I suggest a more generic title, for example "Weed Management in Ridge Tillage Systems".

• Line 51-55

This information is more relevant in paragraph 3. I suggest moving it there.

• Line 62:

“an increase of biodiversity in agriculture fields, including plant diversity….”

• Line 63

Change:

• Line 84

These properties favour…..

• Line 106-108

This sentence should be moved to the next paragraph.

• Line 163

What do you mean? RT offers the possibility of adopting a greater variety of weed management practices and therefore allows for the adoption of IWM (?).

• Table 1 -

The meaning of this caption is unclear. Furthermore, it is not clear whether they are observations made in the course of an experiment conducted by you, or if you are citing a bibliographic source.

• Line 192

You introduced the term "new RT system" without having explained it before.

• Reference [47] Alagbo, O.; Gerhards, R. Development and testing ………..19th Symposium of the European Weed Research Society (EWRS), 2022, Athens, Greece.

The symposium has yet to be held and the proceedings have not yet been published. Please specify.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate very much your time and all your helpful suggestions and corrections to improve the manuscript. Please find enclosed our revised manuscript.

Best regards

Roland Gerhards

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.