Zero-Tillage Induces Reduced Bio-Efficacy Against Weed Species Amaranthus retroflexus L. Dependent on Atrazine Formulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

Title of the Article: “Zero-tillage induces reduced bio-efficacy of atrazine dependent on formulation”

This study explored the variation of bioefficacy of atrazine formulation across different tillage systems (ZT and ploughed treatments) in Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire, UK.  Although this study presents interesting results, several aspects need to be improved to enhance the quality and relevance of the manuscript:

 

Points for Improvement:

1. Title:

The title is incomplete and confusing; it should be completed by explaining what means by formulation (herbicide formulation!), bioefficacy against what (Amaranthus retroflexus !! which was used in this study), and it is essential to mention the study location (Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire, United Kingdom!!).  

 

2. Abstract

The abstract must be completely rewritten and structured according to scientific standards for abstract writing (the current form has a very long introduction with 7 lines to present the problem). The problem must be mentioned in a single, contained sentence to avoid redundancy. The results in the abstract must be also in numerical form, representing the main obtained values. Please add research perspectives.  Keywords should be already mentioned in the abstract (which is not the case of “X-ray Computed Tomography”), and they should be listed in alphabetical order.

 

3. Introduction

- The introduction should be expanded to cover all aspects of the presented problem in the manuscript.

 

 4. Materials and Methods

- In the “Materials and Methods” section, please indicate clearly which crops were sown before sampling, the exact method used for this sampling, and their justification, explaining the design used for the different treatments studied in a diagram.

- Please indicate the weather conditions under which the soil samples were taken and their condition.

- Please indicate when and how the soil was ploughed.

- Please mention the exact doses applied in the studied soil surface of columns (32.17 cm2)

- Please add the references used in the bioefficacy assessment section.

- Please add an explanation of how the non-target plant species were identified immediately after germination. Doesn't the germination of these species influence the germination of weed species studied by allelopathy, for example?

- Please place “Gravimetric water content” in a separate title and add the calculation formula used.

 

5. Results

- In such a study, it is important to demonstrate the physico-chemical properties of the soils studied before experimentation.

- There is a contraction in Figure 2 and their title concerning the 3D position of the pore network imaged in a ploughed sample (top or middle?), ZT (middle or top?). Please correct the error!

- In the results, there is an imbalance between the number of tables (1) and the number of figures (10).

- In addition to modeling results, adding a table showing the average results of the parameters studied (survival time, dry plant mass, and total plant height) in different treatments (concentration, formulation, and tillage systems…) would be interesting.   

 

6. Discussion 

It would be interesting to mention in the discussion section the novelty of your work in comparison with recent studies, explaining the findings linking the results to research objectives or real-world implications, and how it can contribute to sustainability in the UK.

 

7. Conclusions

This conclusion focuses on measures of success for the weed species Amaranthus retroflexus. There were no indications of the other parameters studied (how concentration and formulation affected dry plant mass and total plant height). Please reformulate the conclusion to include our responses to the objectives and hypotheses proposed in the introduction. The Conclusions section should be revised by briefly highlighting the main results obtained from this study, not just the recommendations. This section can be rewritten as “Conclusion and perspectives.” 

9. References

Please write correctly the references using a unique format based on MDPI style. 

 

I hope that the authors find these reviews beneficial.

Best regards.

Author Response

Points for Improvement:

1. Title:

The title is incomplete and confusing; it should be completed by explaining what means by formulation (herbicide formulation!), bioefficacy against what (Amaranthus retroflexus !! which was used in this study), and it is essential to mention the study location (Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire, United Kingdom!!).

Using this feedback, we revisited the title to instead provide a clearer and more specific summary of the research, including the model weed species. Authors disagree with the study area being essential in the paper title.

2. Abstract

The abstract must be completely rewritten and structured according to scientific standards for abstract writing (the current form has a very long introduction with 7 lines to present the problem). The problem must be mentioned in a single, contained sentence to avoid redundancy. The results in the abstract must be also in numerical form, representing the main obtained values. Please add research perspectives.  Keywords should be already mentioned in the abstract (which is not the case of “X-ray Computed Tomography”), and they should be listed in alphabetical order.

The authors thank reviewer #1 for this comment, the abstract was restructured to keep introductory information concise and provide numerical summary of the highlighted results alongside research perspectives on L21-29. Indeed, the keywords are in alphabetical order (H, X, Z), which we ensure are mentioned in the abstract.

3. Introduction

- The introduction should be expanded to cover all aspects of the presented problem in the manuscript.

                All authors are satisfied that the introduction is sufficient for the work undertaken.

4. Materials and Methods

- In the “Materials and Methods” section, please indicate clearly which crops were sown before sampling, the exact method used for this sampling, and their justification, explaining the design used for the different treatments studied in a diagram.

A diagram of the experimental site is available in supplementary material of Alskaf et al., 2021 (doi: 10.1016/j.still.2020.104803) and thus has not been added to this manuscript. Text has been added to reflect the availability of information elsewhere on L136

Historic crop rotation has been added on L132-135.

We believe that the text on L141-147 adequately describes the method for soil sampling and sample extraction. However, as requested, we have added brief justifications with appropriate citations on L144-147.

- Please indicate the weather conditions under which the soil samples were taken and their condition.

                Historic weather pattern and soil condition is now summarised on L139-141

- Please indicate when and how the soil was ploughed.

This information is now included on L128-132

- Please mention the exact doses applied in the studied soil surface of columns (32.17 cm2)

Actual doses applied to each soil column were 0.335103 uL and 3.216991 uL for the SC and EC 500g/ha treatments respectively as a solution prepared in 2mL water. The other application rates were prepared by serial dilution. This information has been integrated into the main text as requested on L220-222

- Please add the references used in the bioefficacy assessment section.

References have now been provided for the cold stratification, determination of dry plant matter, total shoot length, and gravimetric water content. On L200, 202, 236, 238, 255

- Please add an explanation of how the non-target plant species were identified immediately after germination. Doesn't the germination of these species influence the germination of weed species studied by allelopathy, for example?

Non-target plant species were identified using physical characteristics (added L204), the main germinating non-target species was nettle and a couple of grass species. These germinating plants were easily identifiable via morphology as not A. retroflexus and thus removed.

Allelopathic effects were not considered due to the length of experimentation and non-target plants being minimal in number, and removed quickly upon identification. Text has been added to reflect the decisions taken as above on L205-207

- Please place “Gravimetric water content” in a separate title and add the calculation formula used.

                This has now been given its own section with the formula used on L251-257

5. Results

- In such a study, it is important to demonstrate the physico-chemical properties of the soils studied before experimentation.

We have added the closest available measurements (late-June 2023), whereas sampling took place mid-October 2023 in results (L326-329) and as a table (L318-322), including a section in methods (L238-250)

- There is a contraction in Figure 2 and their title concerning the 3D position of the pore network imaged in a ploughed sample (top or middle?), ZT (middle or top?). Please correct the error!

Authors thank the reviewer very much for pointing out this oversight, this has been corrected! L328

- In the results, there is an imbalance between the number of tables (1) and the number of figures (10).

To ensure the manuscript is streamlined to the core findings, and to reduce the overall number of figures in the text, we added a table, and moved some of the figures (5, 8, 10) to supplementary material.

- In addition to modeling results, adding a table showing the average results of the parameters studied (survival time, dry plant mass, and total plant height) in different treatments (concentration, formulation, and tillage systems…) would be interesting.  

                As requested, this table is now provided in the supplementary material.

6. Discussion

It would be interesting to mention in the discussion section the novelty of your work in comparison with recent studies, explaining the findings linking the results to research objectives or real-world implications, and how it can contribute to sustainability in the UK.

We now discuss the novelty of the approach specifically highlighting the potential of the formulation toolkit to potentially provide improved performance of selected AI’s to specific managements or soil properties (L628-640).

7. Conclusions

This conclusion focuses on measures of success for the weed species Amaranthus retroflexus. There were no indications of the other parameters studied (how concentration and formulation affected dry plant mass and total plant height). Please reformulate the conclusion to include our responses to the objectives and hypotheses proposed in the introduction. The Conclusions section should be revised by briefly highlighting the main results obtained from this study, not just the recommendations. This section can be rewritten as “Conclusion and perspectives.”

The section has been re-titled and now properly highlights the main results, as requested. We have briefly defined ‘measures of success’ as this may have confused readers when we mean survival time, dry mass, and plant length. We now include briefly formulation and concentration as part of this conclusions section.

9. References

Please write correctly the references using a unique format based on MDPI style.

We made changes to ensure that all references followed the style as detailed in the ‘full Reference List and Citations Style Guide for MDPI Journals’ available from mdpi.com/authors/references.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents the results of a comprehensive study combining two important topics: soil management and herbicide weed control. I appreciate the well-structured and scientifically sound introduction, the clear formulation of logical hypotheses, the precisely described and reproducible experimental methodology, and the overall high quality of the manuscript.

The topic is well described, new methods are applied, and novel results are presented. We can discuss the practical implications of the results; they may not be significant for Europe, but they are relevant for other parts of the world. This is clearly explained by the authors in the introduction.

 

Regarding the methodology, I personally would have chosen a different approach, but I respect the authors' methods, which meet all scientific standards.

I have only a few minor comments:

Minor Comments:

 Line 100: Please include the species name of the weed „Amaranthus retroflexus L.“

Overall, I consider the article to be a well done and valuable contribution to the field.

Author Response

Minor Comments:

Line 100: Please include the species name of the weed “Amaranthus retroflexus L.”

The authors appreciate the correct nomenclature being pointed out; we have corrected this naming convention at every instance where the name appears in full or in short.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have undertaken an interesting research topic. The work is well written. I propose supplementing the abstract with numerical data without repeating the introduction to the research. The manuscript has a certain shortcoming: The authors omitted basic soil properties in the research (sorption capacity, organic matter content). In the conducted research, the microbiological activity of the soil also seems to be important, which was not mentioned at all. It should be remembered that cultivation treatments are of key importance in the matter of changes in the content of organic matter and biological activity, which can affect the changes, availability and degradation of atrazine.

Author Response

The authors have undertaken an interesting research topic. The work is well written. I propose supplementing the abstract with numerical data without repeating the introduction to the research. The manuscript has a certain shortcoming: The authors omitted basic soil properties in the research (sorption capacity, organic matter content). In the conducted research, the microbiological activity of the soil also seems to be important, which was not mentioned at all. It should be remembered that cultivation treatments are of key importance in the matter of changes in the content of organic matter and biological activity, which can affect the changes, availability and degradation of atrazine.

The authors agree with reviewer #3 regarding a shortcoming of this experiment lacking supporting yet important edaphic properties, we have now included some basic edaphic properties from a co-occurring study (BD/SOM).

We have briefly included in the discussion the reviewers highlighted point regarding the importance of microbiological activity. (L632-640)

We have also added a brief highlight of the results with numerical data in abstract.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been substantially improved in response to the reviewers' comments and is now suitable for consideration for publication in Agronomy.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the clarifications and the current form of the manuscript.