Evaluation of New Fall Rye Cultivar ‘Bono’ in Single and Double Cropping Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript "Evaluation of New Fall Rye Cultivar ‘Bono’ in Single and Double Cropping Systems" is very interesting.
Authors determined:
(i) forage dry matter yield and nutritive value of hybrid fall rye "Bono" and "Hazlet" compared to winter triticale "Pika" in a single cropping system and both fall rye cultivars in a double cropping system,
(ii) evaluated barley dry matter yield and nutritive value for double cropping system,
(iii) suitability of each forage for double cropping system,
(iv) costs and net returns for each single and double cropping system in the study.
Experiment if correct: four replications and randomized complete block design.
Presentation of obtained results is very poor.
1. Lack of table of ANOVA results.
2. Lack of standard devaitions for particular means in Tables.
3. Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 need: standard devaitions for particular means, LSD values, homogeneous groups.
4. Paper needs correlation analysis between observed traits.
5. My suggestion: multivaraite analysis.
Paper needs major revision.
Author Response
RESPONSES TO THE EDITOR, REVIEWERS QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Agronomy-1689496
Darambazar et al. “Evaluation of New Fall Rye Cultivar ‘Bono’ in Single and Double Cropping Systems”
REVIEWER 1: Review of Agron 1689496
Lack of table of ANOVA results.
We carefully considered the reviewer’s comment. In general, some authors tabulate ANOVA results separately, some authors include them in the related results’ tables. For this particular study, latter one may be more convenient, therefore ANOVA results were reported in Tables 3-8.
Lack of standard deviations for particular means in Tables.
Accepted comments. Added standard deviations for particular means in Tables.
Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 need: standard devaitions for particular means, LSD values, homogeneous groups.
Accepted comments. Added standard deviations for particular means in Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8. We used Tukey test, which designed to allow one to make all of the pair-wise comparisons. Added in manuscript to read” Treatment means were determined using Tukey’s multiple range test and were considered significant when p < 0.05”.
Paper needs correlation analysis between observed traits.
Accepted comments. The correlations between relevant traits (composition vs. nutrient yield/DMY or composition/DMY vs. nutrient uptake) were calculated using the CORR procedure of SAS, correlation coefficients were classified as strong (r > 0.6), moderate (0.6 > r > 0.4), or weak (r < 0.4), respectively, and in the text.
My suggestion: multivariate analysis.
We considered carefully to reviewer’s comment. We believe due to the design and objectives of this particular study, current way of analysis was more convenient.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
RESPONSES TO THE EDITOR, REVIEWERS QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Agronomy-1689496
Darambazar et al. “Evaluation of New Fall Rye Cultivar ‘Bono’ in Single and Double Cropping Systems”
REVIEWER 2: Review of Agron 1689496
The manuscript reports on a valuable study of the productivity of different forage systems by evaluating the fall rye cultivar in single versus a double cropping system. The study is in general well designed, with a straightforward methodology and the manuscript is well-written.
L 167 check formatting
The formatting was checked, and we decided to leave the formatting similar with previous revision of manuscript.
L 443 “be” is missing in the sentence
Added “be” in the sentence.
L 460 – reference is too old. The authors should try and find more recent references.
Accepted comments. The older references were replaced by recent references (Page, E.R.; Meloche, S.; Larsen, J.; Evaluating the potential for double cropping in Canada: effect of seeding date and relative maturity on the development and yield of maize, white bean, and soybean. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2019, 99, 751–761. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjps-2019-0076; AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis. 19th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 2012, Gaithersburg, MD, USA)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- 05.2022
Comments for suggestion for Authors the manuscript „Evaluation of new fall rye cultivar „Bono” in single and double cropping systems” (Agronomy-1689496)
The authors have addressed the interesting topic of cultivating a new winter rye variety in single and double cropping systems. Rye cv. Bono is known as extremely resistant to drought and cereal diseases. The advantage of this rye variety is that it can be grown for grain as well as for green fodder and for grazing cattle. It is characterised by high fodder value, better than other cereals.
The cultivation of cereals for green fodder or silage is of great importance on farms with small grassland areas. Furthermore, green fodder or silage from cereals can be used in animal feed in the spring when there is a lack of roughage in the spring.
The authors organised the field trials well and carried out many chemical analyses to evaluate the feed value of the forage obtained. The economic evaluation of single and double cropping systems is valuable in their study. The manuscript presents many different results, but the description of the obtained results is poorly prepared. First of all, the description of the results should be separated from the discussion of the results with the literature. Moreover, the results presented in tables should not be cited again in the text (it is about numbers). The discussion of the obtained results with the literature must be presented in a different way. The compatibility of the obtained results or their inconsistency with the literature should be emphasised, and not, as the authors did, to quote exactly all the figures from different literature items. This makes the manuscript difficult to read and understand. Correctly presented research results and discussion will make the content of the manuscript more understandable. It is also possible to dispense with some literature items, especially those from before 2000.
Unfortunately, the article submitted for review in this form should not be published. In my opinion, the article can be accepted after major revision. A re-description of the results will be beneficial for the readers.
I wish the authors good luck and happiness
Thank you for your attention
Reviewer
Author Response
RESPONSES TO THE EDITOR, REVIEWERS QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Agronomy-1689496
Academic Editor Comments
- It is recommended that the author add a planting flowchart, mark the process of planting crops in chronological order, and add a field layout diagram to help readers understand the results faster.
Accepted comments and added a field layout diagram and a flowchart to help readers understand the results faster. Since there was agronomic information tabulated already in Table 1, we did not add planting flowchart in the current revision of manuscript. If necessary, however, we can add that in final revision of manuscript.
- The abstract needs to be improved.
Accepted comments. The abstract revised carefully to improve readability and rewritten.
- There are so many abbreviations used, and some are useless.
Accepted comments. We reduced using abbreviations as much as possible to make the manuscript easy to read.
- In particular, the author found no difference in yield and nutrients between the Bono FR and Hazlet FR cultivars. Still, the study concluded that applying Bono FR in practice was more suitable, which needs to be checked carefully.
We carefully considered the comment. The manuscript conclusion was “even though it has not reached our expectations due to the drought conditions, Bono fall rye could still be an alternative nutritionally to Hazlet fall rye; however, the higher seed price currently may delay its adoption”. Corrected as… Bono fall rye could still be an equal quality alternative to Hazlet fall rye…We still consider this is a correct conclusion therefore made minor edition in the current version of manuscript.
REVIEWER 3: Review of Agron 1689496
First of all, the description of the results should be separated from the discussion of the results with the literature.
We considered carefully to reviewer’s comment but keeping Results and Discussion section together with more revised version to make easily readable.
Moreover, the results presented in tables should not be cited again in the text (it is about numbers). The discussion of the obtained results with the literature must be presented in a different way.
Accepted suggestion. All unnecessary repeated numbers that were already in the tables, were removed from the text; numbers averaged or for comparison were left.
The compatibility of the obtained results or their inconsistency with the literature should be emphasised, and not, as the authors did, to quote exactly all the figures from different literature items. This makes the manuscript difficult to read and understand.
Manuscript was revised to make it better to read and understand.
It is also possible to dispense with some literature items, especially those from before 2000.
Accepted suggestion. Dispensed replaced some old literature items but some older literature that provided information for the results discussion were left.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Lack of table of ANOVA results. Tables 3-8 do not contain results of ANOVA!
Paper needs minor revision.
Author Response
RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Agronomy-1689496 REVISION 2
Darambazar et al. "Evaluation of New Fall Rye Cultivar ‘Bono’ in Single and Double Cropping Systems"
REVIEWER 1
Comment: Lack of table of ANOVA results. Tables 3-8 do not contain results of ANOVA!
Accepted comments. ANOVA analysis was performed using ANOVA procedures of SAS and the output of the analysis summary is available as supplementary material (Supplemental Tables 1-3; due to large volume and number of parameters) in the manuscript. If reviewer recommend, we will include complete output (including Errors, Corrected Total etc.) in the final version of the manuscript.
Comment: Paper needs minor revision.
Accepted comments. All sectors of manuscript have been revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comment to the Authors
Review of the manuscript „Evaluation of new fall rye cultivar „Bono” in single and double cropping systems” Agronomy-1689496
Round 2
The issue of using cereals for green fodder, pasture and hay is of great importance in the absence of forage in spring. Particularly important is the cultivation of cereals for forage in farms with small areas of permanent grassland. On organic farms, where lower yields are obtained than on conventional farms, also a shortage of fodder for cattle in the spring season can occur. Therefore, the results of the research conducted by the authors are of great practical importance.
The authors conducted an interesting 3-year study and obtained many important results. Besides yield, they evaluated chemical composition, feed value, protein yield and total digestible nutrient yield and carried out economic evaluation of single and double cropping systems. The authors' contribution to the results was enormous. However, the Authors incompetently described the results obtained in this study. As in the previous review I think that description of the results should be improved. First of all it is necessary to separate description of results and discussion. When describing the results show in which table the reader will find the discussed results. This will make it easier to identify the described results. In the text, only results (numbers) from the conducted research or from the literature should appear. Results that the reader has to calculate by himself should not be discussed (e.g. on p.16 under table 9). In the "Results" section, the authors should direct the reader to specific tables where the results are currently found. The manuscript presents a large number of different results so it is advisable to describe them briefly and concisely.
In the "Discussion" section Authors should briefly comment on the results obtained by other authors on a specific topic. Long citations from the literature should be avoided and figures should be cited only where necessary, to shorten, condense the discussion. Fulfilling this request will help you understand the content of the paper.
The role of a reviewer is a difficult one, please understand this, and the comments addressed to the authors are intended to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Yours sincerely
Author Response
RESPONSES TO EDITOR, REVIEWERS QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Agronomy-1689496 REVISION 2
Darambazar et al. "Evaluation of New Fall Rye Cultivar ‘Bono’ in Single and Double Cropping Systems"
REVIEWER 3: Review of Agron 1689496
Comment: However, the Authors incompetently described the results obtained in this study. As in the previous review, I think that description of the results should be improved. First of all it is necessary to separate description of results and discussion. When describing the results show in which table the reader will find the discussed results. This will make it easier to identify the described results. In the text, only results (numbers) from the conducted research or from the literature should appear. Results that the reader has to calculate by himself should not be discussed (e.g. on p.16 under table 9). In the "Results" section, the authors should direct the reader to specific tables where the results are currently found. The manuscript presents a large number of different results so it is advisable to describe them briefly and concisely.
The reviewer brings up a good point for necessary to separate description of results and discussion. Results and Discussion sections were separated into corresponding two sections, revised thoroughly, therefore, we believe this version of the manuscript is now clearer for the readers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
