Determination of Feed Yield and Quality Parameters of Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L. (Pers.)) Populations Collected from Natural Flora
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
please consider the suggested changes and comments reported in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Dear Authors,
the English language is clear and fine. Only a little spelling check is required.
Author Response
The referee corrections have been made and are indicated in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I find the manuscript presented to me for review quite interesting, capable of outlining directions for future research helping to identify the genotypes most favourable to given climatic and soil conditions.
I have a few comments in terms of the content of the manuscript:
Lines 24 - 25 I suggest relating this sentence to the literature data
Line 36 Suggest explaining what C4 and C3 plants are and indicating the difference between them as a complement to the paragraph from line 46 onwards
Line 37 Suggest stating the Country instead of the term "our"
Line 38 Suggest to supplement with the economic importance of Bermudagrass and the possibility of its use in agriculture
Line 67 I suggest supplementing with the purpose of the survey conducted
Line 86 Was the availability of N determined? If yes, please add
Line 91 I suggest supplementing by specifying whether these were favourable years or not for the cultivation of Bermudagrass
Line 126 How was RFV determined? From the description I understand that FHW and DHW were determined on a per plant basis, were the chemical analyses of CP, NDF, ADF also carried out on individual plants or was a uniform sample obtained after mixing and milling 10 plants? If this was the case then it follows that only one repetition was realised per genotype per year as far as the determination of CP, NDF, ADF is concerned? If this was the case it was realised then I believe that one repetition per year is too few for experimental content assessment.
Line 143 In Table 1 I noticed some ambiguities. In the heading I suspect the letters were misspelled. HP appears, I think it should be CP. Additionally, in a footnote it appears "CG: Control genotypes, TG: Test genotypes" which are not in the Table
Line 214 (Table 2) I suggest adding a unit next to each of the parameters analysed and if possible add the standard deviation
Line 215 The abbreviation was explained earlier, there is no need to repeat this please apply throughout the manuscript
Line 223 Changing the font size
Line 272 In my opinion, there is a lack of a summary sentence specifying which genotype or genotypes showed the best traits for agricultural use and which should be focused on in future studies
Author Response
The referee corrections have been made and are indicated in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
