Effect of Environmental, Soil and Management Factors on Weed Flora of Field Pea in South-East Hungary
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript. For the content and the research undertaken, I have significant comments and suggestion. The topic of the research undertaken is quite interesting but not very innovative. Thus, in my opinion, it is not characterised by a significant contribution to the development of agronomy. The research presents the species of weeds present in peas together with suggested factors influencing them. However, the species composition alone, in my opinion, is too little research material. Admittedly, a changing climate and the occurrence of dry spells can cause the expansion of new weeds into a given area, thus the importance of observing them. In detail, I also have comments and a suggestion for the content of the manuscript:
Line 39 I suggest avoiding the term "our country" instead please give the name of the country "Hungary" or the climate zone
Line 43 Cultivation of legumes including peas also has many other benefits, I suggest supplementing.
Line 47 I suggest completing why? Peas are subject to high weed pressure especially in the early growing season due to late canopy closure
Line 77 I suggest referring this to the issue of weed incidence
Line 79 I suggest avoiding the terms "our" in this case I suggest substituting "main/cash crops". I also suggest reviewing the entire manuscript and changing similar terms
Line 81 I suggest developing the idea of what stresses occur in crops and what do they cause?
Line 100 A very general sentence I suggest to make it more precise
Line 143 No stated aim of the work and research hypothesis. I would also suggest completing what prompted the authors to undertake this research?
Line 149 This sentence suggests that weeds were taken at the same BBCH stage of peas in all fields? If so I suggest you elaborate. Were a total of 31 fields analysed for the period 2017 - 2020 or each year? Which pea varieties were grown? What was the weed control in the crops? Were chemical plant protection products used? In the introduction the relevance of sowing density in relation to weeds was raised so what was the sowing density in each field? What were the approximate sowing dates for peas? In my opinion, a great deal of information should be supplemented here. Part of this data is given in Table 1 but in my opinion this is insufficient. If the data were collected from a large area, I would suggest supplementing it with a map showing the sampling points, and placing the table with the supplemented information on agrotechnics in the fields in the supplementary materials.
Line 197 Table 1. explanation of the indices should be under the table and not in a footnote
Line 199 I think that the results section should be supplemented with, at the very least, the pea yields obtained. In my opinion, a depiction of pea yields in relation to weed prevalence would be very interesting and encouraging to readers. In my opinion, an indication of the Shannon diversity index and the Simpson dominance index would also be a good addition to the manuscript. I think it would also have been important to indicate the number of weeds and the DM of weeds on the samples analysed.
Line 318 This suggests providing the sowing density of the crops
Line 335 It would have been necessary to explain why weather conditions affected the occurrence of weeds to such a significant degree. Possible reasons should be linked to the results of other researchers from a similar climate zone.
Line 340 If a detailed soil analysis was carried out on all fields, it should be given in the supplementary material.
Line 349 Despite the similarities, in my opinion it is not appropriate to compare leguminous crops with cereal crops in terms of weed incidence. Legumes show a much higher weed incidence due to the later closure of the canopy, especially in dry years. Cereal crops grown in mixtures with legumes are often used as a way of reducing weed infestation especially in green fodder crops. However, I would suggest comparing the results obtained with legumes in a similar geographical area.
In my opinion, this section is largely lacking in describing the mechanisms causing weed incidence and the dominant weeds.
In conclusion, in spite of a rather interesting statistical approach to demonstrate the influence patterns of the analysed treatments on weed incidence, I believe that the research material is too small and, as I mentioned earlier, there is no innovation in the research conducted. I suggest indicating to the authors at the end of the introduction section what innovation they think is found in the research carried out.
I suggest the authors withdraw the manuscript and complete it with the elements indicated earlier and possibly resubmit the manuscript to the publisher.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer No.1.,
We are thankful for your work to help improve our manuscript. In the updated version, we tried to explain the significance of the research and the background to its implementation in much more detail. We hope the changes we made according to your suggestions and comments will make the presentation more accurate for future readers. Below please find a table in which we address each of your comments.
We hope you are now satisfied with the improved version of our manuscript.
Yours faithfully
Mihály Zalai, PhD
Corresponding author
|
Your claim |
Our solution |
Note |
|
Line 39. I suggest avoiding the term "our country" |
The text has been completed by word ‘Hungary’ |
|
|
Line 43. Cultivation of legumes including peas also has many other benefits, I suggest supplementing. |
additional benefits have been indicated |
|
|
Line 47. I suggest completing why Peas are subject to high weed pressure especially in the early growing season due to late canopy closure? |
The root cause has been indicated |
|
|
Line 77. I suggest referring this to the issue of weed incidence |
Reference with additional connection to salinity has been added to this paragraph |
|
|
Line 79 I suggest avoiding the terms "our" in this case I suggest substituting "main/cash crops" |
Text has been double-checked to avoid similar grammatical formulations |
|
|
Line 81 I suggest developing the idea of what stresses occur in crops and what do they cause? |
Additional connections have been added to the text |
|
|
Line 100 A very general sentence I suggest to make it more precise |
Reference has been changed to a more precise including the impact on species |
|
|
Line 143 No stated aim of the work and research hypothesis. I would also suggest completing what prompted the authors to undertake this research? |
The aim of research and hypothesis has been presented in detail in this section |
|
|
Line 149 This sentence suggests that weeds were taken at the same BBCH stage of peas in all fields? If so I suggest you elaborate. Were a total of 31 fields analysed for the period 2017 - 2020 or each year? Which pea varieties were grown? What was the weed control in the crops? Were chemical plant protection products used? In the introduction the relevance of sowing density in relation to weeds was raised so what was the sowing density in each field? What were the approximate sowing dates for peas? In my opinion, a great deal of information should be supplemented here. Part of this data is given in Table 1 but in my opinion this is insufficient. If the data were collected from a large area, I would suggest supplementing it with a map showing the sampling points, and placing the table with the supplemented information on agrotechnics in the fields in the supplementary materials. |
We were able to include most of the requested information in the text
It is stated in the text that cultivar, sowing density and date was excluded from the analysis because of the uniformity of fields.
|
The presentation of data in a data table and/or on a map is a good way of presenting the background of areas under study. Nevertheless, we consider it excessive and undesirable section for the reader. |
|
Line 197 Table 1. explanation of the indices should be under the table and not in a footnote |
Has been modified |
|
|
Line 199 I think that the results section should be supplemented with, at the very least, the pea yields obtained. In my opinion, a depiction of pea yields in relation to weed prevalence would be very interesting and encouraging to readers. In my opinion, an indication of the Shannon diversity index and the Simpson dominance index would also be a good addition to the manuscript. I think it would also have been important to indicate the number of weeds and the DM of weeds on the samples analysed. |
in agreement with the reviewer we highlight the importance of the connection between yield and weeds, but the data of yield has not measured during the research, as the causal relationship between yield and weed flora may be opposite to that observed for the other variables. A paragraphs have been added to the m&m and results sections about diversity by Shannon. Originally this analysis was excluded because of the limited effect of variables on diversity.
|
The calculation of Simpson dominance was not possible because data collection based on weed cover instead of the number of individuals, although both are commonly used methods. Similarly, it is not possible to publish the number of individuals of DM. |
|
Line 318 This suggests providing the sowing density of the crops |
We agree that sowing density has a significant effect on weed incidence but the data collection did not provide the opportunity to analyse this |
|
|
Line 335 It would have been necessary to explain why weather conditions affected the occurrence of weeds to such a significant degree. Possible reasons should be linked to the results of other researchers from a similar climate zone. |
Additional references have been added |
|
|
Line 340 If a detailed soil analysis was carried out on all fields, it should be given in the supplementary material. |
We agree with the reviewer that presenting data at field level in a data table can illustrate additional detail, however we believe that it would greatly increase the length of the manuscript and is not a desirable feature for the reader. |
|
|
Line 349 Despite the similarities, in my opinion it is not appropriate to compare leguminous crops with cereal crops in terms of weed incidence. Legumes show a much higher weed incidence due to the later closure of the canopy, especially in dry years. Cereal crops grown in mixtures with legumes are often used as a way of reducing weed infestation especially in green fodder crops. However, I would suggest comparing the results obtained with legumes in a similar geographical area. In my opinion, this section is largely lacking in describing the mechanisms causing weed incidence and the dominant weeds. |
In agreement with the reviewer, we recognise that there is a discrepancy between weed flora of peas and cereals but pea weeds have not been extensively researched neither in Hungary nor in Central Europe. Reference with cereals, allowed an accurate comparison. Additional North European and South American references have been added to the text. |
|
|
In conclusion, in spite of a rather interesting statistical approach to demonstrate the influence patterns of the analysed treatments on weed incidence, I believe that the research material is too small and, as I mentioned earlier, there is no innovation in the research conducted. I suggest indicating to the authors at the end of the introduction section what innovation they think is found in the research carried out. |
Our research aimed to demonstrate the key factors effecting weed species composition in field pea. Survey include most of these potential factors and the analysis used can detect the impact. |
|
|
|
|
|
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
-The present article entitled “Effect of environmental, soil and management factors on weed flora of field pea in South-East Hungary” based on a good theme but authors have covered very superficially.
-Authors mentioned Altitude (m , AMSL) , Latitude ( ° ) and Longitude as environmental factors but actually these are geographical locations. Environmental factors are temperature, wind velocity; weather, etc. so please change the word environmental from the title or table.1.
-In materials and methods section: on what basis author have surveyed the weeds after isolations ? or through published literature, please mentioned in details
-Author should also discussed the mitigation strategies of these weeds.
-The quality of the English is very poor, need an extensive revision.
-The present article entitled “Effect of environmental, soil and management factors on weed flora of field pea in South-East Hungary” based on a good theme but authors have covered very superficially.
-Authors mentioned Altitude (m , AMSL) , Latitude ( ° ) and Longitude as environmental factors but actually these are geographical locations. Environmental factors are temperature, wind velocity; weather, etc. so please change the word environmental from the title or table.1.
-In materials and methods section: on what basis author have surveyed the weeds after isolations ? or through published literature, please mentioned in details
-Author should also discussed the mitigation strategies of these weeds.
-The quality of the English is very poor, need an extensive revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer No.2.,
We are grateful for your comments! Thank you for taking your time to read and analyse our work despite the language difficulties you may have encountered. Below please find below our answers in a table format.
We hope the new version will get your fullest approval.
Yours faithfully
Mihály Zalai, PhD
Corresponding author
|
Your claim |
Our solution |
Note |
|
-The present article entitled “Effect of environmental, soil and management factors on weed flora of field pea in South-East Hungary” based on a good theme but authors have covered very superficially. |
In the updated version, we have tried to explain the significance of the research and the background to its implementation in much more detail. |
|
|
-Authors mentioned Altitude (m , AMSL) , Latitude ( ° ) and Longitude as environmental factors but actually these are geographical locations. Environmental factors are temperature, wind velocity; weather, etc. so please change the word environmental from the title or table.1.
|
The reason for choosing the term "environmental variable" was that although altitude, latitude, longitude and year of survey are not typical environmental factors, in agreement with the reviewer, but they all influence environmental factors. On this basis, the concept of environmental variables was interpreted in a broader sense. A short description of this reason added to the text. |
If you consider it necessary, replacing the term “environmental variables” with “environment affecting variables” is appropriate |
|
-In materials and methods section: on what basis author have surveyed the weeds after isolations or through published literature, please mentioned in details |
the requested information has been added to the text |
|
|
-Author should also discussed the mitigation strategies of these weeds. |
In the results and discussion we tried to demonstrate the connections between research factors and weed composition. In all cases we aimed to show the influence of variables on weed vegetation, highlighting the top increasing and decreasing weed species. The basis of our concept is that the correct choice of these variables can also be interpreted as a weed control proposal |
|
|
-The quality of the English is very poor, need an extensive revision |
We would have preferred to have examples of our typical mistakes so that we had the chance to work on them one by one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article submitted for review is interesting.
The article fits the specifics of the journal, it is well written and the results are of quality.
Some suggestions for authors:
1. for a better visibility of the article, we suggest you identify keywords that are not found in the title of the work.
2. please present the limitations of your study.
3. please clearly present the research hypotheses and how they are validated or not in your research.
Congratulations!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer No.3.,
We are thankful for your work on our manuscript and your feedback! All your suggestions have been added to the manuscript.
We hope you will find the new version to your satisfaction.
Yours faithfully
Mihály Zalai, PhD
Corresponding author
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for making the changes and addressing my questions. Unfortunately, I stand by my opinion of the great limitation of the survey carried out due to the lack of pea yield and especially DM of weeds. I believe that these characteristics are important for the practical application of the study. Because the main factor of interest to farmers is how much weeds will reduce the yield and thus determine the thresholds for the economic validity of protective treatments. Research carried out both in Central Europe and worldwide indicates large yield reductions (up to 50%) in legumes, including peas specifically, as a result of high weed pressure. I understand that this was not specified in the studies presented. I suggest, however, to include in the manuscript a perspective of the continuation of the research with the determination of the above-mentioned parameters. On the other hand, however, the presented research may also be useful by showing the weed species and thus suggesting the preparation of farmers for possible crop problems and the selection of an appropriate method of weed destruction.
As regards the authors' reply to the suggestion to include a map with the sampling sites and the soil test results at the individual sampling sites, I maintain that they should be included. I agree with the Authors that this will make the manuscript longer so I suggest that this be added in the supplementary material to the manuscript. This will supplement the manuscript for those with a detailed interest and will not lengthen the main version of the manuscript.
kind regards
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you again for your suggestions and comments to improve the manuscript. We agree that it would have been useful to include additional parameters to assess the weed composition in more detail.
As indicated in our previous reply, the yields of the field have not been assessed but the effect of weeds on pea yields indicated by references #43-48 in the Introduction section. We accept that measuring this will give a particularly high impact among farmers and we will address this in our further research, and it is proposed in the Discussion of the latest version.
Details of the soil tests are given in a map and a table in the Appendix1.
We hope you will find the new version of the manuscript to your fullest satisfaction.
Yours faithfully
Mihály Zalai, PhD
Corresponding author
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have responded all the quarries. The article can be accepted in the present form
Authors have responded all the quarries. The article can be accepted in the present form
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are thankful for your work on our manuscript and your feedback.
Yours faithfully
Mihály Zalai, PhD
Corresponding author
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for introducing all the suggestions I have made. I have no further comments on the manuscript. Congratulations
sincerely
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you again for your suggestions and your work in improving the manuscript.
Best regards,
Mihály Zalai
