Forage and Seed Production of Field Bean Respond Differently to Nitrogen Fertilization and Sowing Rate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A three-year field experiment examined forage and seed production, as well as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) accumulation in an indeterminate field 14 bean (Vicia faba L. var. minor Beck) variety, as affected by two fertilization rates (0 and 120 15 kg N ha^-1, i.e., N0 and N120) and two sowing rates (60 and 100 seeds m^-2, i.e., S60 and S100), along with their interaction with climatic variability. This is of great practical importance in guiding agricultural production. The article is tightly thought out and accurately expressed, and it is recommended to receive it after minor revision, especially in the discussion section it is recommended to add the title of the discussion. Also, it is recommended that the conclusion section be integrated into one paragraph.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

May 19, 2025

 

I have read and reviewed the manuscript titled “Forage and Seed Production of Field Bean Differently Respond to Nitrogen Fertilization and Sowing Rate”, the study integrates two main factors: the N and P doses of fertilization (and accumulation) and the sow plant density along three consecutive years (different measured variables from 2017-2020), although N and P accumulation and interactions among fertilization and density, and the effects of the climate changes would be interesting, I find some major comments in the analysis of database and the structure of the manuscript:

• Abstract: Should be rewritten referencing more important numeric results and their P-values.
• Introduction: Rewrite the main Objective according to the further statistical analysis.
• Material and Methods:
• Would be reorganized and subdivided in subtitles to make it clearer for readers (region and years, biological sources of the materials, sowing (including the total surface of the plots), crops management, factors, variables, environmental variables, statistical analysis (including the experimental design, models, correlation analysis), etc.
• Line 175: “at the maturity”, what variables or factors were included to consider the maturity time?
• Lines 195 to 204: include the model, although it is cited that it was considered a three fixed effects model (Years, Fertilization, and Sow rate). The main problem is that different models should be considered to analyze this database: 1) A one factor model to analyze climatic variables across the years; 2) a second model (as you have reported) where year is one of the three fixed effect and analyzed with Proc GLM; and 3) Y as a random effect where runs should be nested into the Years, and F and S would be fixed effects, in this last case, the model should be analyzed with Proc GLM (to obtain R², CV, SE), but P-values and Means should be obtained from Proc Mixed to know the exact effect of the F and S regardless the time. Additionally, climatic, and N-P accumulation variables should be related with the productive variables through Pearson’s correlations (Proc Corr) and regression models (Stepwise, Proc Reg).
• Results and Tables:
• Too many figures can be converted in Tables (as climate evaluated variables).
• A complete Table that integrate the three factors medias.
• The Table with the real effects of F and S (derived from mixed analysis).
• Tables with correlations and regression models.
• Include in the Tables R², CV, P-values (from ANOVAs).
• Discussion:
• More and novel cites (from 2021 to 2025) should be included in Discussion.

 

• English and Format:
• Check the redaction and delete too redundant phrases and paragraphs.

I really hope present suggestions could be useful to improve your manuscript quality. I hope to hear from you soon.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations for the accuracy of the scientific approach to the research methodology, respectively for the volume of work done. However, to improve its quality and interest for specialists, it would be advisable to develop in the introduction the possibilities and the way of using the studied species in animal feeding (fresh matter, hay, grains, examples of animal species). 

Also, other information regarding the chemical composition of the plants and other results obtained with the variants indicated in the conclusions are welcome, they may bring increased interest for other interdisciplinary studies and for farmers.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf