First Report of Resistance to Glyphosate in Several Species of the Genus Echinochloa in Argentina

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors have carefully addressed all the  issues raised in my previous review. I feel the manuscript is improved by their editing and have no other questions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
We appreciate the corrections and suggestions made previously, which have made it possible to improve the manuscript.
Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I should congratulate the authors for this work. The scientific information about resistance to Glyphosate in several species of the genus Echinochloa in Argentina is provided in the manuscript.

Authors kindly see lines 143-146 (To compare the susceptibility of the different populations, three dose-response trials will be conducted, for which increasing doses of glyphosate 0X, ¼ X, ½ X, X, 2X, 4X, and 8 X will be applied, with X (1080 g a.i./ha). All applications will be carried out with a laboratory spray chamber previously described). These sentences should be in the past tense. 

In Table 1, GPS locations may be provided for better understanding.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
We appreciate the corrections and suggestions made previously, which have made it possible to improve the manuscript. In the latest attached version, lines 143-146 were conjugated in the past tense and the GPS coordinates were added as requested.
Best regards

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the sensitivity of different Echinochloa populations to glyphosate in Argentina was studied by dose-response and shikimic acid quantification tests. It is noteworthy that four species of Echinochloa genus were distinguished and evaluated for their resistance, respectively. The scope of the conducted research is appropriate and impressive. In order to improve the quality of work, the following some elements should be noted (improved):

 

1.     Line 95: The determination of the species was made using “the keys of Flora Argentina”. Could you introduce the method of the determination of different Echinochloa species (the keys of Flora Argentina) in detail or which literatures have been referred to? A photograph containing the plants and seeds of four species may make the description clearer.

 

2.     The conclusion should not only emphasize the main results, but also include the afterthought. In this paper, the resistance ratio of each species of Echinochloa genus was clearly illustrated in the conclusion. However, if the results can be analyzed in combination with the actual local situation to point out the significance of the study or its impact on future agricultural production may make the study more valuable.

 

3.     The figures in the paper are not standard, for example, the legend of each figure is not clear, the herbicide concentration unit on the abscissa is wrong, and the ordinate of Figure 5 has no title. Please redraw and make them more professional.

 

4.     Some sentences contain grammatical mistakes or are not complete sentences, such as, in page 1, Abstract, “The objective of this work is to determine whether populations of E. colona, E. crus-galli, E. oryzoides and E. chacoensis currently infest different annual crops in Argentina that are resistant or less susceptible to glyphosate” would be “The objective of this work is to determine whether populations of E. colona, E. crus-galli, E. oryzoides and E. chacoensis currently infest different annual crops in Argentina and whether this populations are resistant or less sensitive to glyphosate”.

 

I recommend that you should have your article reviewed by a professional, native English speaker or sent to a specialized organization to polish it and make the paper more readable.

 

Some other questions:

1.     Line 15 and line 88: The seed collection time is not consistent with that displayed in Table 1.

2.     Line 433: According to the previous results, the glyphosate-resistant biotype of E. crus-galli should be Ecg15?

3.     Lines 117, 168, 215, 243, 266, 283, etc.: The unit of herbicide concentration was incorrectly used as [g i.a./ha]. It is generally written as g a.i./ha.

4.     Lines 386, 400, 403, 404, etc.: The abbreviation of the “resistance factor” was incorrectly written as "FR".

5.     Table 3: The values in the "RF" column were incorrectly written.

 

To sum up, the above are some of my suggestions and comments, and more detailed errors in the paper have been marked in the attached PDF file.

 

Also, please let other relevant specialists revise the manuscript thoroughly. There are many common errors, which have made the manuscript lose its scientificity.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

The authors thank the time dedicated to the manuscript revision that will surely improve the quality of the work

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the sensitivity of different Echinochloa populations to glyphosate in Argentina was studied by dose-response and shikimic acid quantification tests. It is noteworthy that four species of Echinochloa genus were distinguished and evaluated for their resistance, respectively. The scope of the conducted research is appropriate and impressive. In order to improve the quality of work, the following some elements should be noted (improved):

 

1. Line 95: The determination of the species was made using “the keys of Flora Argentina”. Could you introduce the method of the determination of different Echinochloaspecies (the keys of Flora Argentina) in detail or which literatures have been referred to? A photograph containing the plants and seeds of four species may make the description clearer.

The specific citation that contains the key for the determination of the 4 species is included in the methodology, it is considered the last valid key as it appears on the page "Flora Argentina" dependent on the institute that determines the accepted name of the species in Argentina

2. The conclusion should not only emphasize the main results, but also include the afterthought. In this paper, the resistance ratio of each species of Echinochloagenus was clearly illustrated in the conclusion. However, if the results can be analyzed in combination with the actual local situation to point out the significance of the study or its impact on future agricultural production may make the study more valuable.

 A paragraph is included where the situation in Argentina is discussed

3. The figures in the paper are not standard, for example, the legend of each figure is not clear, the herbicide concentration unit on the abscissa is wrong, and the ordinate of Figure 5 has no title. Please redraw and make them more professional.

R legends in all figures are revised, concentration are corrected and added yaxis title in figure 5

 

4. Some sentences contain grammatical mistakes or are not complete sentences, such as, in page 1, Abstract, “The objective of this work is to determine whether populations of E. colona, E. crus-galli, E. oryzoidesand E. chacoensis currently infest different annual crops in Argentina that are resistant or less susceptible to glyphosate” would be “The objective of this work is to determine whether populations of E. colona, E. crus-galli, E. oryzoides and E. chacoensis currently infest different annual crops in Argentina and whether this populations are resistant or less sensitive to glyphosate”.

 I recommend that you should have your article reviewed by a professional, native English speaker or sent to a specialized organization to polish it and make the paper more readable.

 The paragraph in particular was revised and the revision was extended to the rest of the manuscript

Some other questions:

1. Line 15 and line 88: The seed collection time is not consistent with that displayed in Table 1.

Fixed bug looking at original species list.

2. Line 433: According to the previous results, the glyphosate-resistant biotypeof crus-galli should be Ecg15?

The observation is correct, the Ecg15 population is resistant

3. Lines 117, 168, 215, 243, 266, 283, etc.: The unit of herbicide concentration was incorrectly used as [g i.a./ha]. It is generally written as g a.i./ha.

Corrected

3. Lines 386, 400, 403, 404, etc.: The abbreviation of the “resistance factor” was incorrectly written as "FR".

Corrected

5. Table 3: The values in the "RF" column were incorrectly written.

Corrected

 

 

To sum up, the above are some of my suggestions and comments, and more detailed errors in the paper have been marked in the attached PDF file.

 The attached comments and corrections were taken into account and added to the revised manuscript.

Also, please let other relevant specialists revise the manuscript thoroughly. There are many common errors, which have made the manuscript lose its scientificity.

Thank you very much for your time, the manuscript has been revised again to improve the wording and correct common errors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There are some typos and sentences that need to be re-written (lines 36-38, 43, 117, 354-358, 386, 400, 403, 404) in the manuscript. In the introduction, lines 52-54 should be joined with the above paragraph (lines 43-51) for more clarity of ideas.

In Table 1, rather than providing town names, GPS locations may be given.

In lines 145-146, (with X being the recommended dose for each
herbicide), clearly mention the dose. Is it 600 g a.i./ha (as mentioned in lines 116-117) or 1080 g a.i./ha (as mentioned in lines 214-215)? Also, there is only one herbicide, glyphosate. Why authors have written 'each herbicide'?

In the manuscript, authors have written 'biotype' and 'populations' inter-exchangeably. Authors should restrict the use of only one. The 'Population' term should be preferred as these are collected from farmers' fields. The 'Biotype' term is preferred when the seed of the next generation (after self- or cross-pollination in screen house) is used for studies.

In the results, the authors have mentioned 'resistance in development'. It should be replaced with 'resistance in evolution'.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

The authors thank the time dedicated to the manuscript revision that will surely improve the quality of the work

 

There are some typos and sentences that need to be re-written (lines 36-38, 43, 117, 354-358, 386, 400, 403, 404)

Particular paragraphs were reviewed and the review was extended to the rest of the manuscript.

in the manuscript. In the introduction, lines 52-54 should be joined with the above paragraph (lines 43-51) for more clarity of ideas.

The paragraphs were combined to reinforce the idea

In Table 1, rather than providing town names, GPS locations may be given.

The location was included in an attached map to combine the response also requested by reviewer 3

In lines 145-146, (with X being the recommended dose for each
herbicide), clearly mention the dose. Is it 600 g a.i./ha (as mentioned in lines 116-117) or 1080 g a.i./ha (as mentioned in lines 214-215)? Also, there is only one herbicide, glyphosate. Why authors have written 'each herbicide'?

The dose was corrected

In the manuscript, authors have written 'biotype' and 'populations' inter-exchangeably. Authors should restrict the use of only one. The 'Population' term should be preferred as these are collected from farmers' fields. The 'Biotype' term is preferred when the seed of the next generation (after self- or cross-pollination in screen house) is used for studies.

The word biotype in the field of study of my laboratory we use it for collections of a particular species from different places, when these populations show some differential behavior we can call them biotypes, even so I consider the appreciation correct, using only one term will make it clearer understanding of the manuscript and does not detract from what is expressed

In the results, the authors have mentioned 'resistance in development'. It should be replaced with 'resistance in evolution'.

Corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

 

Your work is important and interesting. The scientific approach is correct and well described, also the results are nicely presented. However, there are things that must be improved. Here is a point-by-point list of things I believe could be bettered in order to improve the quality of your work.

Lines 27-32: This whole part is a bit confusing, try to rewrite it to make it clearer.

Line 35: It should be ‘these’ not ‘this’.

Lines 43-51: Although the information presented here are true, they seem amassed and this whole part needs a language check in order to be clear for the reader.

Lines 70-73: This part is also confusing, please try to reformulate it to make it clearer.

Lines 142-143: Why will be used and not were used?

Lines 180-181: Confusing, please rewrite this part to make it clearer.

Lines 188-192: This part needs a language check and should be reformulated in order to make it clearer for the reader.

Line 340: You missed to put the genus name in italic.

Lines 351-358: This part also needs a language check.

Lines 380-385:  Confusing, try to rewrite this part to make it more clear for the reader.

Lines 386, 400, 403 and 404: Do you mean RF?

Line 428: than instead of at

Lastly, if possible, I would suggest adding the map with the positions of the experimental sites. I believe that it could add to the value of this article.

 

Kind regards

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

The authors thank the time dedicated to the manuscript revision that will surely improve the quality of the work

Dear authors,

 Your work is important and interesting. The scientific approach is correct and well described, also the results are nicely presented. However, there are things that must be improved. Here is a point-by-point list of things I believe could be bettered in order to improve the quality of your work.

Lines 27-32: This whole part is a bit confusing, try to rewrite it to make it clearer.

 The paragraph in particular was revised and the revision was extended to the rest of the manuscript

Line 35: It should be ‘these’ not ‘this’.

Reviewed

Lines 43-51: Although the information presented here are true, they seem amassed and this whole part needs a language check in order to be clear for the reader.

Reviewed

Lines 70-73: This part is also confusing, please try to reformulate it to make it clearer.

Reviewed

Lines 142-143: Why will be used and not were used?

Corrected

Lines 180-181: Confusing, please rewrite this part to make it clearer.

Reviewed

Lines 188-192: This part needs a language check and should be reformulated in order to make it clearer for the reader.

Reviewed

Line 340: You missed to put the genus name in italic.

Corrected

Lines 351-358: This part also needs a language check.

Reviewed

Lines 380-385:  Confusing, try to rewrite this part to make it more clear for the reader.

Reviewed

Lines 386, 400, 403 and 404: Do you mean RF?

Reviewed, is short for "resistance factor" line 159

Line 428: than instead of at

Corrected

Lastly, if possible, I would suggest adding the map with the positions of the experimental sites. I believe that it could add to the value of this article.

 A map with the locations of the collected populations is included as an attached material

Kind regards

Thank you very much for your time, the manuscript has been revised again to improve the wording and correct common errors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have carefully addressed all the issues. I have no other questions.