Weed Seedbank Changes Associated with Temporary Tillage After Long Periods of No-Till

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the results section on line 161, the text mentions a three-way ANOVA test, but there is no relevant evidence to prove it. It is recommended that the author add relevant test results and charts to confirm this result.
   2. In line 211, it is mentioned: The PCA of 2022 species abundance data ..., does it refer to 2022 species or the results of 2022? This will cause confusion and needs to be explained again.
   3. In the results section 3.3, the area point used is m-2, for example 0.25 m-2. Please check whether this unit is used correctly.
   4. In the Author Contributions section, the “M.T.-F.” in writing-review and editing on line 377 is written incorrectly and needs to be corrected.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 1 for taking the time to evaluate our revised manuscript and for providing constructive comments. Below, we address each point in detail.

In the results section on line 161, the text mentions a three-way ANOVA test, but there is no relevant evidence to prove it. It is recommended that the author add relevant test results and charts to confirm this result.

Thank you for your observation. In response to a similar request from a previous reviewer, we included a complete ANOVA summary as Table 2 in the revised manuscript. This table reports the main effects and interactions of the three-way ANOVA, including all relevant statistics (degrees of freedom, sums of squares, mean squares, F-values, p-values, and significance levels) for both species richness and abundance. We believe this table provides the evidence supporting the statement on line 161 (now in L189).

In line 211, it is mentioned: The PCA of 2022 species abundance data ..., does it refer to 2022 species or the results of 2022? This will cause confusion and needs to be explained again.

Thank you for your observation. We agree that the original wording may cause confusion. We have now revised the sentence, in L266-267, to clarify that the PCA was based on species abundance data collected in 2022, not referring to 2022 species.

In the results section 3.3, the area point used is m-2, for example 0.25 m-2. Please check whether this unit is used correctly.

Thank you for pointing this out. The unit “m⁻²” (per square meter) is correctly used to express plant density in this context, as is standard in weed science. We have double-checked the usage throughout the manuscript to ensure it is consistent and accurate.

In the Author Contributions section, the “M.T.-F.” in writing-review and editing on line 377 is written incorrectly and needs to be corrected.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the formatting of the author’s initials in the Author Contributions section to ensure accuracy and consistency.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Notes on: Weed seedbank changes associated with an occasional tillage after long periods of no-till

Very little observations and suggestions

Lines 21-22: disc harrow passes

Lines 28-30: Since occasional tillage does not affect total richness and abundance, there for it only alters Flora expression.

Line 126: disc harrow

Line 164: consider using understand instead of interpret

In figure 4, on the Y axis seys “Aundance”. Sould be Abundance.

Lines 317-319. Perhaps knowing that little seed grasses are present, it would be good to till the soil once grasses start to increase populations.

 

 

In general, I find this paper well written, easy to read. It is not very innovative, but puts the point on the fact that sometimes no-tillage is no forever.

Perhaps, a little discussion based on the fact that agriculture is not a natural ecosystem: agriculture means an environment under continuous disturbance to conduct materials and energy toward our objectives (crops, trees, animals, soils, etc.). Some soil disturbance, as it is shown in the results, may benefit the expression of some weed species while negatively affecting others. Here the agronomists or farmers should be aware of the changes in weed flora expression and come up with a management strategy after disturbance or a period of no-till.

Changing occasionally the soil management along with changes in rain and temperature patterns affects expression of weed vegetation.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Very little observations and suggestions

Lines 21-22: disc harrow passes

Thank you, “harrow” was included and “disk” was changed by “disc” in the sentence in L21-22.

Lines 28-30: Since occasional tillage does not affect total richness and abundance, there for it only alters Flora expression.

Thank you for your comment. While occasional tillage did not significantly affect total species richness or abundance, it altered species composition and vertical distribution. Several species emerged exclusively under specific treatments or depths, indicating changes in floristic composition. We change the sentence to emphasize these shifts in community structure rather than overall species count in L28-31.

Line 126: disc harrow

Thanks, we changed “disk plow” to “disc harrow” in L150.

Line 164: consider using understand instead of interpret

“interpret” was changed by “understand” in the sentence in L192.

In figure 4, on the Y axis seys “Aundance”. Sould be Abundance.

Thank you for noticing this. “Aundance” was changed to “Abundance” in figure 4.

Lines 317-319. Perhaps knowing that little seed grasses are present, it would be good to till the soil once grasses start to increase populations.

 We have added a sentence to highlight the potential implication of our findings for timing occasional tillage to prevent seedbank buildup of small-seeded grasses in L383-384.

 

In general, I find this paper well written, easy to read. It is not very innovative, but puts the point on the fact that sometimes no-tillage is no forever.

Perhaps, a little discussion based on the fact that agriculture is not a natural ecosystem: agriculture means an environment under continuous disturbance to conduct materials and energy toward our objectives (crops, trees, animals, soils, etc.). Some soil disturbance, as it is shown in the results, may benefit the expression of some weed species while negatively affecting others. Here the agronomists or farmers should be aware of the changes in weed flora expression and come up with a management strategy after disturbance or a period of no-till.

Changing occasionally the soil management along with changes in rain and temperature patterns affects expression of weed vegetation.

We agree that agricultural systems require an adaptive management approach, particularly because disturbances like tillage can alter weed flora expression in complex ways. We have expanded the discussion to emphasize the need for farmers and agronomists to anticipate and manage these shifts as part of an integrated weed management strategy in L404-410.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the manuscript entitled „ Weed seedbank changes associated with an occasional tillage after long periods of no-till”

The submitted manuscript concerns the impact of occasional tillage on weed seedbank composition and vertical distribution of viable weed seeds and propagules within the soil profile, after long-term no-till.

Due to the large global scope of the no-tillage system, the results of the present study are of great cognitive and practical importance. In the Introduction section, the authors characterize the state of weed infestation and threats in no-tillage system, and provide the advantages of occasional tillage that limit the fails of conservation soil management (no-tillage with cover crops). At the end of the first section, the objectives of the study were formulated. The experimental design and methods were correct and provided the possibility of a reliable assessment of the weed seed bank in terms of species composition and the number of weed seeds and propagules in three successive layers of the soil profile to a depth of 15 cm, both in conditions of no tillage and after occasional tillage. The statistical method of results elaboration was adequate to the research needs and the subject of the study. The results were presented in an orderly and clear manner. Conclusions were not allowed from the Discussion as a separate section of the manuscript. This is not a mistake, of course. The fragment of the text starting from line 346 (In summary…) can be considered as Conclusions. I found it advisable to create a separate Conclusions section from the last paragraph of the Discussion chapter, starting from line 364. This text contains only the authors' main findings without citations, which should be a feature of the Conclusions section. In accordance to the main findings of the present study, I would suggest a minor change in the last sentence of the Abstract section (l. 30-31). The text can be edited as follows: "offering an additional, but not always effective, tool in integrated weed management in no-till system".

In my opinion, after the authors have responded to the comments presented, the manuscript may be the subject of further editorial work.

Date of manuscript received: 21 May 2025

Date of this review: 22 May 2025

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Review of the manuscript entitled „ Weed seedbank changes associated with an occasional tillage after long periods of no-till”

The submitted manuscript concerns the impact of occasional tillage on weed seedbank composition and vertical distribution of viable weed seeds and propagules within the soil profile, after long-term no-till.

Due to the large global scope of the no-tillage system, the results of the present study are of great cognitive and practical importance. In the Introduction section, the authors characterize the state of weed infestation and threats in no-tillage system, and provide the advantages of occasional tillage that limit the fails of conservation soil management (no-tillage with cover crops). At the end of the first section, the objectives of the study were formulated. The experimental design and methods were correct and provided the possibility of a reliable assessment of the weed seed bank in terms of species composition and the number of weed seeds and propagules in three successive layers of the soil profile to a depth of 15 cm, both in conditions of no tillage and after occasional tillage. The statistical method of results elaboration was adequate to the research needs and the subject of the study. The results were presented in an orderly and clear manner. Conclusions were not allowed from the Discussion as a separate section of the manuscript. This is not a mistake, of course. The fragment of the text starting from line 346 (In summary…) can be considered as Conclusions. I found it advisable to create a separate Conclusions section from the last paragraph of the Discussion chapter, starting from line 364. This text contains only the authors' main findings without citations, which should be a feature of the Conclusions section.

We agree that the final paragraph of the Discussion serves as a clear summary of our findings and have moved it to a new Conclusions section to improve clarity and structure in L413-422.

In accordance to the main findings of the present study, I would suggest a minor change in the last sentence of the Abstract section (l. 30-31). The text can be edited as follows: "offering an additional, but not always effective, tool in integrated weed management in no-till system".

We agree that this revision more accurately reflects the nuanced effectiveness of occasional tillage observed in our study. We have updated the last sentence of the Abstract accordingly and adapt it to the other reviewer’s comment about this last sentence in L33-34.

In my opinion, after the authors have responded to the comments presented, the manuscript may be the subject of further editorial work.

Thank you very much for your time and suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper requires several clarifications and additions. Detailed comments are provided directly in the attached manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful comments. To facilitate the review process, we have provided our point-by-point responses directly within the annotated PDF file you submitted. You will find our replies inserted below each of your comments in the same document. We hope this format makes it easier to follow the changes and clarifications we have made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for their thorough revision of the manuscript and their detailed responses to the comments.

Two issues - in my opinion - remain to be completed:

- it is necessary to provide information on the herbicide treatments and fertilization used (add to supplementary material); these are factors that strongly shape weed communities and their potential to enrich the seed bank; in addition, the article mentions herbicide-resistant species;

- if the ANOVA was subject to transformed variables, the transformed data should be presented in the figures; it is for them that homogeneous groups were established.

Author Response

Two issues - in my opinion - remain to be completed:

- it is necessary to provide information on the herbicide treatments and fertilization used (add to supplementary material); these are factors that strongly shape weed communities and their potential to enrich the seed bank; in addition, the article mentions herbicide-resistant species;

Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that herbicide and fertilization history can influence weed community composition and seedbank dynamics. In response, we have now included a detailed table (Table 1) in the main text presenting crop sequence, approximate timing, and the herbicide and fertilizer inputs applied in each season from 2018 to 2024.

- if the ANOVA was subject to transformed variables, the transformed data should be presented in the figures; it is for them that homogeneous groups were established.

Thank you for your observation. The ANOVA was conducted on square root-transformed data to meet model assumptions regarding normality and homoscedasticity. However, we chose to present the means in the figures on the original (untransformed) scale to facilitate interpretation by readers. The significance groupings (letters) are based on the statistical analysis of the transformed data. We have added a clarification in the figure captions to reflect this choice.