Triticale in Mediterranean Cereal Farming: Opportunity or Reality?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this review, the author provides an overview of triticale in the Mediterranean region. The research provides relevant directions for the development of regional agriculture. Therefore, I suggest that it be revised and published in Agronomy. The following are the relevant comments
In the abstract, the author introduces the cultivation of triticale in Spain and Turkey. However, the abstract should be a condensation of the viewpoints of the entire text, rather than merely the relevant research background. Therefore, this part needs to describe the advantages of triticale and its development direction in the Mediterranean region.
Why are Spain and Turkey used as case studies? Is it based on the planting area? Output level? Or ecological adaptability? This is very important for readers because it can highlight the necessity of research.
In Section 2.1, the author provides Table 2 to demonstrate the yield comparison between triticale and other crops. The author believes that triticale is usually grown in the infertile soil in the south and can still maintain a certain yield. I am more concerned about whether the yield of triticale can still offer an advantage under the same cultivation measures. Here, a table can be provided, citing the results of multiple research papers, rather than just the two references cited in the articles.
In Section 2.1, the author explained the yield advantage of triticale, so the yield should not be mentioned again in 2.2. In Section 2.2, the author believes that triticale has better quality. Therefore, a comparison of the nutritional composition of triticale and other crops (such as starch content, protein content, fat content, etc.) should be further provided. The current discussion is too superficial, only touching upon part of the value as feed, and is not comprehensive enough.
In Section 2.3, the author believes that triticale has fewer weeds in its fields. Are there any pictures of relevant research that can prove it? Furthermore, this section only mentions three pieces of literature. Are there so few related studies?
What are the data sources in Table 5?
The conclusion section should be a summary and outlook part, which is crucial for review papers. A comprehensive summary of the research results is needed. For instance, what are the advantages of triticale? In the Mediterranean region, what factors have hindered the development of triticale? How can triticale be further developed in the future?
Author Response
Comment 1. In this review, the author provides an overview of triticale in the Mediterranean region. The research provides relevant directions for the development of regional agriculture. Therefore, I suggest that it be revised and published in Agronomy. The following are the relevant comments. In the abstract, the author introduces the cultivation of triticale in Spain and Turkey. However, the abstract should be a condensation of the viewpoints of the entire text, rather than merely the relevant research background. Therefore, this part needs to describe the advantages of triticale and its development direction in the Mediterranean region.
Response 1. I wrote a new abstract (final part) detailing the advantages and challenges of triticale production in the Med. basin.
Comment 2. Why are Spain and Turkey used as case studies? Is it based on the planting area? Output level? Or ecological adaptability? This is very important for readers because it can highlight the necessity of research.
Response 2. The acreage and the output level of these two countries are the highest in the Med. basin, especially in the last years. Also, several breeding institution such as CIMMYT, have worked hard in the adaptability of the spring material.
Comment 3. In Section 2.1, the author provides Table 2 to demonstrate the yield comparison between triticale and other crops. The author believes that triticale is usually grown in the infertile soil in the south and can still maintain a certain yield. I am more concerned about whether the yield of triticale can still offer an advantage under the same cultivation measures. Here, a table can be provided, citing the results of multiple research papers, rather than just the two references cited in the articles.
Response 3. I removed the previous Table 2 and made another new Table 2 with info of articles comparing and discussing the results of triticale and other cereals yields in the same field trials.
Comment 3. In Section 2.1, the author explained the yield advantage of triticale, so the yield should not be mentioned again in 2.2. In Section 2.2, the author believes that triticale has better quality. Therefore, a comparison of the nutritional composition of triticale and other crops (such as starch content, protein content, fat content, etc.) should be further provided. The current discussion is too superficial, only touching upon part of the value as feed, and is not comprehensive enough.
Response 3. I removed the comment about grain yield. Only forage yield should be mentioned here. More articles on this subject are provided in this section.
Comment 4. In Section 2.3, the author believes that triticale has fewer weeds in its fields. Are there any pictures of relevant research that can prove it? Furthermore, this section only mentions three pieces of literature. Are there so few related studies?
Response 4. I added a picture here. Three more article have been provided.
Comment 5. What are the data sources in Table 5?
Response 5. Tuik (Turkish Statistical Institute). www.tuik.gov.tr
Comment 6. The conclusion section should be a summary and outlook part, which is crucial for review papers. A comprehensive summary of the research results is needed. For instance, what are the advantages of triticale? In the Mediterranean region, what factors have hindered the development of triticale? How can triticale be further developed in the future?
According to those suggestions, I re-wrote the conclusion section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is about the history and current status of Triticale production, passing from agronomic and economic characteristics, with a particular focus on Spain and Türkiye as possibly paradigmatic examples for eventually predicting what the future dynamics in the entire Mediterranean basin could be. Overall the review article is well written and provides a good coverage of the topic and an interesting perspective for this cereal which is long time appreciated but not fully exploited for its characteristics. For these reasons I have only a few minor comments.
-For completeness, the first hybrid of the plant is credited to the Scottish botanist Steven Wilson, who in 1875 presented the results of his attempts to cross wheat and rye at the Edinburgh Botanical Society. The plants had intermediate characteristics between those of the two parents but were completely sterile.
- I would have also included the ploidy level of Triticale production in the introductory part -tetraploid, hexaploid, octoploid and decaploid- as well as the classification after crossing strategy (e.g.: primary triticales: derived from genome duplication following hybridization between wheat and rye; - secondary ones derived from crosses between hexaploid and octoploid forms; - recombinant ones derived from crosses between different triticale lines with different ploidy levels; - substitute ones derived from crosses between hexaploid wheats and primary triticale; - secondary substitute ones derived from crosses between hexaploid wheats and second-generation triticale.)
- The article, although very detailed regarding production/yields and the analysis of the Spanish and Turkish realities, could also provide some data regarding the consumption of Triticale worldwide per Country, with particular reference to alternative uses to livestock feed, such as for human nutrition (an issue already present in the text) and for the production of biomass for energy purposes.
Author Response
Comment 1. This review paper is robust and presents a comprehensive overview of the perspectives and constraints of growing triticale in the Mediterranean region. The authors gathered relevant literature on the topic of triticale. The paper is inspiring and well-written. My suggestions: to tabularize possibilities and constraints of triticale cultivation in Mediterranean basins (to chapter 5).
Response 1. Thanks your comments. I made a new table in the section 5, Table 6.
Comment 2. I cannot agree that triticale yields are higher than those of the other cereal species, based on Table 2. Titles of chapters 2.1 and 2.2 should be corrected accordingly to fit the actual data.
Response 2. Ok. I removed Table 2 and replaced it by a new one.
Comment 3. Line 189 – that also depends on the weather course during the vegetative season, not only the cultivar.
Response 3. Ok, I added that.
Comment 4. Chapter 2.5, I agree as to wheat and barley but not as to rye. It would be more accurate to write: than most other cereals.
Response 4. Ok, I replaced it in (new) line 2013.
Comment 5. Ln 215 – except for rye.
Response 5. Ok.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review paper is robust and presents a comprehensive overview of the perspectives and constraints of growing triticale in the Mediterranean region. The authors gathered relevant literature on the topic of triticale. The paper is inspiring and well-written.
My suggestions
- to tabularize possibilities and constraints of triticale cultivation in Mediterranean basins (to chapter 5).
- I cannot agree that triticale yields are higher than those of the other cereal species, based on Table 2. Titles of chapters 2.1 and 2.2 should be corrected accordingly to fit the actual data.
- Line 189 – that also depends on the weather course during the vegetative season, not only the cultivar.
- Chapter 2.5, I agree as to wheat and barley but not as to rye. It would be more accurate to write: than most other cereals.
- Ln 215 – except for rye.
Author Response
1. to tabularize possibilities and constraints of triticale cultivation in Mediterranean basins (to chapter 5).
I made a new table in the section 5, Table 6.
2. I cannot agree that triticale yields are higher than those of the other cereal species, based on Table 2. Titles of chapters 2.1 and 2.2 should be corrected accordingly to fit the actual data.
Ok. I removed Table 2 and replaced it by a new one.
3. Line 189 – that also depends on the weather course during the vegetative season, not only the cultivar.
Ok, I added that.
4. Chapter 2.5, I agree as to wheat and barley but not as to rye. It would be more accurate to write: than most other cereals.
Ok, I replaced in (new) line 2013.
5. Ln 215 – except for rye.
Ok.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author's answer is very good.
