Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Contemporary and original topic, well-conceived and written manuscript with the possibility of applying the results. The authors followed the journal instructions  for writing.

Few remarks are more technical:

Line 28 – smoke water should be added as a keyword also

Line 278,280 and 301 – Latine name of weed species should be written italic

Material and methods are well described and the selected monitoring parameters make the work interesting to read.

Praise to the authors, with observation and not remark, that the work would be richer if the trials  provides in open field conditions.

 Sincerely, I suggest that editor accept manuscript under the title: ,, Herbicidal Activity of Smoke Water'' and approve its publication in the journal Agronomy.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to remarks:

Line 28 – Change made, smoke water was added as a keyword as well.

Line 278, 280 and 301 – Change made, Latin name of weed species written in italics.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear Authors and Editor,

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to review the paper entitled: Herbicidal activity of smoke water.

 

This is a good paper, however, some issues in the paper need to be solved before publication. Here are the suggestions for authors on how to improve their work.

1. The abstract of the paper needs to be improved and corrected, because it must contain, in addition to the introduction and results, the research material and method, the statistical analysis method.

2. Line 22: remove decimals, 77% and 70% instead of 77.3 and 70.3%.

3. L. 98: ... 30 d... Each abbreviation should be explained when used the first time.

4. L. 105-114: How water was added, at what soil moisture, and at what level it was maintained. What moisture and temperature were kept during the experiment?

5. L. 126-138: What was the temperature and humidity during the day and night?

6. L. 216-217: Table 6 shows the SVI and the description mentions SVI reduction at 99%, 89%, etc. Such data is not shown in the table. I suggest either putting an additional column or correcting the description to refer to the actual values in the table.

7. After first mentioning the full name of the weed species, abbreviations can be used, e.g. Amaranthus viridis, next A. viridis. Remember to Italic throughout the article, e.g. l. 266-267, 278, etc.

8. L. 247: 394% ?

 

 

 

Author Response

Reply to suggestions:

1. The abstract has been improved, the research material and method, and the statistical analysis method have been added.
2. Line 22: Change made, removed decimals from 77.3 and 70.3%.
3. L. 98: Change made, abbreviation explained.
4. L. 105-114: The soil was kept moist throughout the experiment by spraying 10 mL of water daily. The average temperature in the greenhouse was 25°C, without automatic temperature control. Added information in the text.
5. L. 126-138: The temperature varied between 14 and 32°C and the humidity varied between 53 and 78%. Added information in the text.
6. L. 216-217: The description has been corrected to refer to the actual values in the table.
7. Changes made, abbreviations and italics were used in the names of the species.
8. L. 247: 394% increase. The wording has been improved to make it easier to understand.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper covers contemporary issues of alternative method useful in weed management. Given the small number of papers written on this topic, the manuscript is noteworthy. Topics include a new approach, possibilities of smoke water herbicidical activity use, effectiveness in lab and greenhouse conditions, in aim to apply in organic production with herbicides avoidance in weed control. Contemporary and original topic, well-conceived and written manuscript with the possibility of applying the results. The authors followed the journal instructions  for writing.

Few remarks are more technical:

Line 28 – smoke water should be added as a keyword also

Line 278,280 and 301 – Latine name of weed species should be written italic

Material and methods are well described and the selected monitoring parameters make the work interesting to read.

Praise to the authors, with observation and not remark, that the work would be richer if the trials  provides in open field conditions.

 

Sincerely, I suggest that editor accept manuscript under the title: ,, Herbicidal Activity of Smoke Water'' and approve its publication in the journal Agronomy.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to remarks

Line 28 – Change made, smoke water was added as a keyword as well.

Line 278, 280 and 301 – Change made, Latin name of weed species written in italics.

Reviewer 4 Report

 The manuscript is clear, relevant for the field of weed control and presented in a well-structured and very simple manner. The cited references are relevant, without self- citation. About 30% of references are published within the last 5 years. Experimental design appropriate and results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section. Statistical analysis was performed using the relevant statistical packages and tests. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

   

Line 34: After “other agricultural” add some adequate word, e.g. pests

Line 78: Please check  is „All.“ adequate for Amaranthus viridis All. According to my knowledge, “All” should be replaced with “L.”

Line 82-83: Why only A. viridis;  D. insularis and R. raphanistrum were included in germination experiment? Also, for emergence experiment only results for that three species are presented. Therefore in sentence “In the germination experiment, the tested species were A. viridis; D. insularis and R. raphanistrum.” After “germination” you should add “and emergence experiments”.

Line 86: Why were different concentrations used in different experiments (germination protocol- 2.5, 5 and 10%; emergence protocol- 5, 10 and 20%, etc.). Give an explanation at the end of this paragraph.

Line 139: Subtitle is not completely clear. Recommend changing: Effect of Smoke Solutions on Seedling Vigor Index in the Laboratory, or just: Seedling Vigor Index in the Laboratory

Line 162: Insert space between the value and its unit (25 °C)

Line 165: Not clear “**Data obtained from two replicates”. There are no data marked with ** in the table. Germination protocol includes 4 replications; explain what reason for one or two replications is.

Line 174: Not clear “*Data obtained from a single replica”. There are no data marked with * in the table. Germination protocol includes 4 replications; explain what reason for one replication is.

Line 229: Insert author „Light et al.“ befote „[20]”.

Author Response

Line 34: Change made, word pests added.

Line 78: Change made, “All” replaced by “L”.

Line 82-83: Only A. viridis, D. insularis and R. raphanistrum were included in the germination and emergence experiment as these species were more responsive in previous studies. Change made, added “and emergency experiments”.

Line 86: Higher concentrations were used under greenhouse conditions, as efficacy is generally lower than under laboratory conditions. Explanation added at the end of this paragraph.

Line 139: Changed to: Seedling Vigor Index in Laboratory.

Line 162: Change made, insert a space between the value and its unit (25 °C)

Line 165: Removed **Data obtained from two replicates”. The germination protocol includes 4 replications, but for Amaranthus viridis in 10% smoke water there was seed germination in only one replica; so the replications with no germination were excluded from the calculation of the MGT parameter. We added this information to the table: *Datum obtained from a single replica, once in only one replica there was seed germination.

Line 174: Removed “*Data obtained from a single replica”. In this case all had four replicates.

Line 229: Inserted author „Light et al.“ before „[20]”.