Seed Treatment Potential for the Improvement of Lucerne Seed Performance and Early Field Growth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract – well written;;
Introduction –
Line 28 - is the correct term "stand emergence" or is “emergence” enough?
Line 45 – “original moisture content” better than “onto original dry matter”
Line 54 – delete Benazzouk et al.
Line 82- rephrase sentence Their antimicrobial properties are highlighted as was re- 81
viewed by Scalbert [37].
Line 85- delete Kowalska et al.
Line 86-93 – experiments in field conditions are mentioned, but a laboratory test was performed (germination experiment line 103, Seed emergence experiments 124)
Material and methods
Which variety did they choose and why?
Line 101 – “germination percentage” better than “germination rate”, if it refers to germination;
Table 1 – in which ratio (v/W) they did the priming;
Line 118 – according to ISTA rules, germination is determined on the 10th day. It would be good if they provided the references by which they determined the germination on the
Line 124 - Seed emergence experiments – in this experiment, an attempt was made to simulate field conditions, however, the temperature is constant, which can lead to wrong results. It is very important to reformulate in the paper that it was not only done in field conditions, but that there were also laboratory experiments where field conditions were simulated.
Line 133 - 2.3. Field experiment – what were the temperatures and precipitation in that year
Line 136 – “The seeds were treated a day before the establishment” - how is it possible when during priming the seeds have to be dried to initial moisture?
Line 141 – delete (Hakl et al. 2017)
Line 142 - weight of aboveground and belowground dry biomass was assessed per plot. Firstly, it is correct to say shoot and root dry biomass (here again we refer to English), and secondly, how did they get the dry mass, at what temperature did they dry it and for how long?
Line 144 – statistics are one-factor in laboratory conditions, but field trials should be at least two years...
Results
Some numerical data should also be included in the results (whether to express the increase as a percentage or to indicate its amount), this is somewhat reminiscent of a discussion;
Line 162- The values are arithmetic means of 5 repetitions in two separate cycles. This sentence should not be in the title of the table but in a footnote;
Tabela 2 i 3 – missing ranks; they should be listed even if there is no significance;
Line 183 – “The no-significant” better to say “No significant”
Line 188 – “Among priming treatments, no significant differences in comparison to control were discovered with exception for the length of stems on Chitosan priming variant.” The sentence is unclear and should be reworded.
Line 194 – “combining priming and seed coating together” – - in the Material and Methods, should be explain how this combination was performed
Line 196 – a full stop is missing at the end of the sentence;
Line 207 – What does basic germination mean? Explain.
Discussion
Line 215, 217 - “in vitro” italic; uniform throughout the manuscript
Line 232 – delete Amooaghaie;
Line 238 – instead of “or” should be “and”;
Line 247 – a comma should be placed before “respectively”;
Conclusion
Given that research was done on one variety and during one growing season, it is very important to emphasize that these are treatments that could be recommended and that other research is also necessary, on more varieties, more locations, where the interaction would be examined.
Minor editing of Englisg language required.
Author Response
Response letter is uploaded.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review
The article is devoted to an important issue for alfalfa production - development of methods to increase seed germination. However, the approach chosen by the authors to solve this problem requires clarification and substantial revision of the article.
Inconsistencies in the objectives of the work given in the abstract and in the text of the article should be removed.
In the abstract, the authors stated that "The goal of this study was to investigate the potential of seed 10 treatments such as priming or coating on germination, emergence as well as on early seedling 11 growth in the field" (lines 10, 11).
In the text of the paper (lines 88-93)the authors stated "The aim of this 88 study was to compare the effects of different types of lucerne seed priming or coating on 89 lucerne germination, emergence and testing of selected combinations in the field condi-90 tions in association with root morphology development. These results could be beneficial 91 for improvement of lucerne stand establishment with potential to optimise the lucerne 92 sowing rate"
Setting a goal related to recommendations to production raises questions about the design, conduct of experiments, and description of results.
1. There is no convincing justification as to whether it is cost-effective for practitioners to use unusual and expensive preparations such as cocoa powder or cinnamon and others.
2. Tables 2 (lines 162) and 3 (lines 177) do not indicate in what units seed sprouting dynamics was evaluated. Probably in per cent?
3. In section 2.3. The authors stated: "Each plot with size 35×40 cm was broadcast seeded with 100 seeds . The 138 experiment was harvested after 60 days..." (lines 138, 139). It should be clarified: in what repetition for each treatment was the field experiment conducted? Why was the plot area chosen (0.14 m2)? Why did the authors limit the experiment to 60 days? The sowing was carried out on 21st June 2022. Is this the optimal time to sow alfalfa in the region?
Since we are talking about seed treatment with different substances that have (according to literature data) a certain biological activity, it is necessary to specify the chemical composition of the soil, as well as to give information about weather conditions (precipitation, temperature). Perhaps the chemical composition of the soil as well as the weather conditions during the 60 days played a more important role for seed germination and root and aboveground growth than the seed treatment?
Perhaps section 2.3. is appropriate to call it a laboratory-field experiment because of the small plot area, the shortness in time (60 days), and the 1 season of testing?
4. Alfalfa is a forage crop and the issue of above- and belowground mass formation at the initial stages of ontogenesis is important. In section 3.3. Field experiment (line 181), more caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of a particular treatment based on root and seedling length. The authors should supplement section 3.3. Field experiment with a table with the results of evaluation of the indicators: "dry root weight, dry shoot weight, and dry 184 weight of whole plants" - lines 184,185.
5. Section 4.1 Discussion requires revision. In lines 213, 215, 217 ... 270, the authors constantly and unreasonably use the term "in vitro" when talking about laboratory experiments to evaluate the effect of selected alfalfa seed treatments on their germination in Petri dishes and in vessels with soil. The term has a strictly defined meaning: in vitro refers to a process which has taken place or is taking place in a test tube, culture dish, or elsewhere outside of a living organism (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20vitro).
6. Section 4.2 Lucerne seed coating discusses the enhancement of soil sulphur incorporation (lines 255,256) in relation to seed treatment with gypsum. However, it is not clear what this conclusion follows from.
7. Section 5. Conclusions should be revised and emphasis the originality and tentativeness of the data obtained. The results obtained in the experiment do not provide grounds for practical recommendations to production. The data obtained during one season do not always allow making reasonable conclusions about the effectiveness of certain agronomic practices in field conditions. Also, the term "in vitro" should be removed from the section. This is misleading for readers. Emphasis should be placed on achieving the objective set out in the abstract.
Author Response
Response letter is uploaded.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper focuses on the pre-sowing treatment of alfalfa seeds and explores the effects of priming and coating treatments on alfalfa seed germination, emergence, and early seedling growth in the field. A systematic comparative study was conducted on various seed priming and coating methods. This study is of great significance for improving the high-quality growth of alfalfa seeds. To further improve the quality of the paper, I suggest that the author revise and improve the manuscript from the following points:
1. Pre-sowing seed treatment is a hot research topic in crop cultivation. The references in the introduction are outdated. To ensure the timeliness and effectiveness of the paper, I suggest that the author appropriately increase the citation of relevant literature from the past three years.
2. The authors introduced various methods of seed priming and coating in the introduction, and conducted systematic comparative studies around these methods. To facilitate readers' understanding of these methods. The author can use tables in the material methods to provide a more detailed description of the characteristics of these methods.
3. After line 102, photos of alfalfa seeds used in the experiment can be added to fully express the experimental materials.
4. I suggest the author to add some pictures related to alfalfa seed germination, emergence, and seedling growth in appropriate positions in the results chapter. This can express the experimental results more clearly.
Author Response
Response letter is uploaded.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
