Maize and Wheat Responses to the Legacies of Different Cover Crops under Warm Conditions
, Chiquinquirá Hontoria 1, Nelly Centurión 1, Mariela Navas 1,2, Ana Moliner 1, Fernando Peregrina 1 and Kelly Ulcuango 1,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript presented to me for review, in my opinion, raises a very interesting issue which is the effect of CC on CaC. Despite the former prevalence of CC crops and research on them, these days with climate change and the need to protect biodiversity, CC crops are undergoing a kind of renaissance. The experimental results presented here are therefore relevant and needed in agriculture. In the experiment itself, a semi-controlled experiment was conducted, an extensive analysis of the results obtained was carried out, and a large number of statistical calculations were made to evaluate the relationships between the results obtained. The research material obtained, in my opinion, is fully sufficient for the manuscript.
With regard to the content of the manuscript, I have a few minor comments:
Introduction section: I suggest supplementing in a few sentences the economic importance of corn and wheat. In my opinion, a reference to the objectives of the European Green Deal and the Biodiversity Strategy 2030 would also be a good addition to the introduction
Line 74: Citation error, Garba et al. ?
Line 77 and 79: Which CaC plants?
Line 81: If previous citations do not refer to maize and wheat I suggest supplementing with manuscripts related to CC impacts on these CaCs.
Line 110 Citation error, missing from References section. I suggest moving this sentence to the Introduction section as suggested earlier.
Line 229: Abbreviations were explained earlier so no need to repeat, please use throughout the manuscript. (type of CC vs. type of CaC, data not shown)
In the References section, please check the numbers: 3, 17, 26
Author Response
Dear referee,
Thank very much for your valuable comments, suggestions and corrections. They really improve the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed all the issues you raised. Please, see the attached files, which include a) this letter with the answers to each concern and b) manuscript with “track changes”.
First referee
Thank you very much for taking the time to assess our manuscript. Please, see below the table with all your comments and our answer to each one.
|
Comments |
Answers (line numbers refer to the newest revised document with visible changes) |
|
Introduction section: I suggest supplementing in a few sentences the economic importance of corn and wheat. In my opinion, a reference to the objectives of the European Green Deal and the Biodiversity Strategy 2030 would also be a good addition to the introduction
|
The importance of wheat and maize has been introducing in lines 109-112. We have also included a reference to the European Green Deal in lines 38-39. And mentioned the Biodiversity Strategy 2030 in lines 81-85. |
|
Line 74: Citation error, Garba et al. ? |
The citation of “Garba, et al” was corrected. |
|
Line 77 and 79: Which CaC plants? |
The cited meta-analysis (Garba et al. 2022) studied different Cash Crops as wheat, barley, rice, soybean or sunflower. Most of the results of this cite are the average of these CaC as we indicated in line 94 “…decrease in CaC yield by 12% on average”. |
|
Line 81: If previous citations do not refer to maize and wheat I suggest supplementing with manuscripts related to CC impacts on these CaCs. |
After including the global importance of wheat and maize we have also referred to the effects of CC on maize and wheat in lines “97-100” |
|
Line 110 Citation error, missing from References section. I suggest moving this sentence to the Introduction section as suggested earlier.
|
Done |
|
Line 229: Abbreviations were explained earlier so no need to repeat, please use throughout the manuscript. (type of CC vs. type of CaC, data not shown) |
Done |
|
In the References section, please check the numbers: 3, 17, 26 |
Done We have checked all the numbers. |
Thanks again for all your comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
It is not clear which factor can drive the interaction between CC and CaC in each soil-climate towards yield improvement and thus making this important conservation tool more economically sustainable. The aim of this study to was to investigated the legacy effects of five common CC (three monocultures: vetch, melilotus and barley and two mixtures: barley-vetch and barley-melilotus) on two most important CaC, maize and wheat. A microcosm semi-controlled experiment was established simulating warm, low-income Mediterranean conditions. After two cycles of soil physicochemical and microbial properties as well as plant growth and nutrition variables measurement at CC termination and CaC early growth stage.
Introduction
l The part is too verbose, and research goal is not much clear. The first three paragraphs needs more attention.
l Please clarify the difference between aboveground biomass and yield.
Materials and Methods
l Lack of explanation of sampling and research methods for some measurements.
l L104-114. Please indicate the maize and wheat cropping system. I am not clear here whether it is rotation, intercropping or else.
l L116-117. Please pay attention to the drawing specification to ensure the integrity of the drawing frame.
l L156. It is recommended to query related concepts of rhizosphere soil and express them clearly.
l L274. Please note the diagram specification.
l L292-294. Do not see relevant information about “wheat production” in the figure, and “In the case of aerial biomass, wheat production had negative correlations with mycelium length and glomeromycetes abundance (r=-0.38* and -0.45* respectively).”
Results
l L228-230. Based on the following sentence, I guess the result is based on the citation. If it is, please add the reference.“ Most variables studied showed significant interactions between the two study factors 228 (type of cover crop vs. type of cash crop, data not shown) indicating a different response 229 of wheat (C3 plant) and maize (C4 plant) to the CC legacies”.
l L248-252; L271-273. The result presentation is not clear.
l L274. there are many overlaps between marks and arrows in Figure 1b, which make it difficult to grasp.
l L315-318.“Thus, in the rotation with maize and 5 weeks after seeding, CC biomass production was positively correlated with soil moisture (r=0.37*).”,“On the other hand, penetration resistance was negatively correlated with CC biomass and maize biomass (r=-0.48**, r=-0.58*** respectively).” I can't find it in the text?
l L343-346. It is not clear. Zn is associated with root biomass, not Aerial biomass.
Discussion
l L416-417. Repeat the previous paragraph, recommend to remove.
References
l The format is inconsistent.
no comments
Author Response
Dear referee,
Thank very much for your valuable comments, suggestions and corrections. They really improve the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed all the issues you raised. Please, see the attached files, which include a) this letter with the answers to each concern and b) manuscript with “track changes”.
Second referee
Thank you very much for taking the time to assess our manuscript. Please, see below the table with all your comments and our answer to each one.
|
Comments |
Answers |
|
|
Introduction l The part is too verbose, and research goal is not much clear. The first three paragraphs needs more attention. |
We have summarized and improve the introduction especially the first three paragraphs. We have also corrected our objectives in order to clarified them. |
|
|
l Please clarify the difference between aboveground biomass and yield. |
We specified “shoot biomass”. It is one of the main parameters measured in this work. Biomass production is different than “yield” which normally is referred only to the grain production. Nevertheless, both, biomass production and yield usually show high correlation. |
|
|
Materials and Methods l Lack of explanation of sampling and research methods for some measurements. l L104-114. Please indicate the maize and wheat cropping system. I am not clear here whether it is rotation, intercropping or else. |
We completed the methods including the one for substrate induced respiration. At the beginning of M&M we include the cropping system (rotation) |
|
|
l L116-117. Please pay attention to the drawing specification to ensure the integrity of the drawing frame. |
We have changed and conserved the integrity of the table |
|
|
l L156. It is recommended to query related concepts of rhizosphere soil and express them clearly. |
Depending on plant species, the width of the rhizosphere zone has been shown to extend from 2 to 80 mm away from the root surface. (Koo et al., 2005). Our soil sampling was between 0 to 17.5 mm away from the root surface, and it was specified following your suggestion. |
|
|
l L274. Please note the diagram specification. |
We have increased the side of Fig. 1. |
|
|
l L292-294. Do not see relevant information about “wheat production” in the figure, and “In the case of aerial biomass, wheat production had negative correlations with mycelium length and glomeromycetes abundance (r=-0.38* and -0.45* respectively).” |
We have removed this sentence |
|
|
RESULTS l L228-230. Based on the following sentence, I guess the result is based on the citation. If it is, please add the reference.“ Most variables studied showed significant interactions between the two study factors 228 (type of cover crop vs. type of cash crop, data not shown) indicating a different response 229 of wheat (C3 plant) and maize (C4 plant) to the CC legacies”. |
The results of this research showed that most of the variables had significant interactions between the two studied factor. We might include a supplementary table with all the interactions, but we considered there is not essential, and the manuscript has more than enough data.
|
|
|
l L248-252; L271-273. The result presentation is not clear. |
We have rewrote and improved this lines |
|
|
l L274. there are many overlaps between marks and arrows in Figure 1b, which make it difficult to grasp. |
We have increased the side of Fig. 1. |
|
|
l L315-318.“Thus, in the rotation with maize and 5 weeks after seeding, CC biomass production was positively correlated with soil moisture (r=0.37*).”,“On the other hand, penetration resistance was negatively correlated with CC biomass and maize biomass (r=-0.48**, r=-0.58*** respectively).” I can't find it in the text? |
We have specified the tables for soil moisture and penetration resistance. However, in the text we have only included the main correlations, as we decided not to include the six tables of calculated correlations we obtained, in order to avoid an excessive length of the manuscript. |
|
|
ll L343-346. It is not clear. Zn is associated with root biomass, not Aerial biomass. |
After reading your comment we studied the correlation between the Zn concentration in the soil and the root biomass of maize. In our case, this correlation was positive but not significant. Also, my colleague (PhD. Patricia Almendros) who is an expert in Zn, point out, that there are many works that describe correlations between aerial biomass and concentrations of Zn in soil when these concentrations are low. |
|
|
Discussion l L416-417. Repeat the previous paragraph, recommend to remove. |
Done. These lines were removed |
|
|
References l The format is inconsistent. |
We have reviewed and corrected the format of the references. |
|
Thanks again for all your comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
I congratulate the authors on the designed experiment and methodology. All chapters are good, except for the conclusion which is too long and the hypothesis and conclusion for which crop is preferred by certain cover crops is not processed. Very complex investigations that need to be repeated because the high level of the journal for which you intend to publish the paper requires repeating the experiment for at least one more season.
Author Response
Dear referee,
Thank very much for your valuable comments, suggestions and corrections. They really improve the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed all the issues you raised. Please, see the attached files, which include a) this letter with the answers to each concern and b) manuscript with “track changes”.
Third referee
Thank you very much for taking the time to assess our manuscript. Please, see below the table with all your comments and our answer to each one.
|
Comments |
Answers |
|
I congratulate the authors on the designed experiment and methodology. All chapters are good, except for the conclusion which is too long and the hypothesis and conclusion for which crop is preferred by certain cover crops is not processed. |
We tried to summarize and improve the conclusions according your suggestions |
|
Very complex investigations that need to be repeated because the high level of the journal for which you intend to publish the paper requires repeating the experiment for at least one more season. |
We repeated the experiment. In this manuscript we show the results of the second season, which was carried out under warm conditions. The results obtained were radically different from those of the previous season under cooler conditions, which were published in Ulcuango, et al. (2021). |
Thanks again for all your comments.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Agronomy.
Regards
