Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The methodology and discussion of the results obtained should be improved in greater detail, which will improve the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The responses are attached in a PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment

This study evaluated the effect of maize-bean association and cutting time on morphological variables, yield, and nutritional composition of forage. It is a very interesting study, and is well written. Thus, it can be accepted after a minor revision.

 

Specific comments

-In Abstract, the experimental design and results are confused. How about silo type, density and fermentation time? Improve the Abstract!

-The Introduction is too long!

-In M&M section, show more details in 2.1-2.4 parts. I can not see the ensiling process.

-L57 Authors mentioned “From an economic and nutritional perspective”, so could you show some economic data about the effect of maize-bean association and cutting time? Like benefits and cost?

-Refer to the below reference and improve the discussion part about silage:

“Effect of ensiling corn stover with legume herbages in different proportions on fermentation characteristics, nutritive quality and in vitro digestibility on the Tibetan Plateau.”

-L515 The Conclusion section is too long! How about the future study? Give some suggestions.

 

Author Response

The responses are attached in a PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscrip examine the effect of maize native bean intercropping and harvest timing on forage growth, yield, and nutritional composition in the Peruvian Amazon. The research addresses a relevant agronomic question, particularly in tropical regions where optimizing forage systems is crucial for enhancing livestock productivity and resource use efficiency. Overall, the manuscript is well prepared and suitable for publication after minor revisions to improve clarity, structure and presentation.

General Comments

While the introduction is informative, the research gap and objectives could be stated more clearly and succinctly. A short paragraph at the end of the introduction explicitly stating the novelty of this maize bean association in the Amazonian context would strengthen the framing.

The statistical analyses are appropriate, but results could be communicated more effectively by including effect sizes or confidence intervals, especially for key variables (yield, protein content). This would improve the interpretability of Figures 5–8, which currently rely mainly on letter groupings.

 

Some discussion statements (claims regarding sustainability or climate vulnerability mitigation) should be slightly tempered or better supported with references. Rephrasing these claims to match the evidence would make the conclusions more balanced and credible.

 

 Minor Comments

Abstract: Consider reducing numerical details to emphasize the key take home message more clearly.

Figures:

Ensure consistent labeling (use “M+F1” or “M+F2” consistently).

Increase font sizes for readability.

The authors sould simplify legends where possible.

 

Introduction: A few sentences are overly long; consider splitting them for better readability.

 

Discussion: it’s better to divide the text into smaller, clearly labeled parts (using short subheadings) each dealing with one theme or idea.

Remove speculative elements (gene expression explanations) unless directly supported by data: parts of the discussion where the authors propose biological or genetic explanations without providing actual evidence.

Author Response

The responses are attached in a PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf