Influence of Climate Variability and Soil Fertility on the Forage Quality and Productivity in Azorean Pastures
, Maria T. Ferreira 1,4 and Rui B. Elias 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript attempts to study the influence of altitude gradient and soil nutrient on forage quality from different altitude gradient and soil nutrient conditions, which has special significance. However, the altitude variation selected by the author is small, with only a drop of 200m, and there is no significant difference in corresponding climatic conditions. There is no water shortage in this area (the monthly average precipitation is up to 113-180mm). So the difference in terrain is not the key variable. Despite the significant soil differences, the nutrient quality of forage cannot simply be correlated with soil nutrients. The article does not specify whether the three pastures have one type of forage or multiple types of forage. What is the ratio of different forages? Because the differences between species can be more important than the environment. Another very important issue is the harvest time of forages. There are significant differences in nutrient content in different growth periods. If the comparison is not made in the same growth period, the nutrients compared are meaningless. The above problems are not clearly explained in the manuscript, and the comparison between the values of various indicators has no scientific significance, and the scientific value of its conclusions cannot be guaranteed.
In addition, the multiple comparison results made by the author in the figure are quite chaotic, and the "a, b, c" annotations lack logic.
Author Response
Reviewer #1
We want to thank reviewer 1 for his comments, which we address next:
Comment: However, the altitude variation selected by the author is small, with only a drop of 200m, and there is no significant difference in corresponding climatic conditions. There is no water shortage in this area (the monthly average precipitation is up to 113-180mm). So the difference in terrain is not the key variable
Response: The Azores University has only one experimental field (Field C) so we had to set up the other two fields in private pastures. The choices were limited and this was the best solution we found. Nevertheless, there are clear differences in all the climatic parameters, especially in total rainfall. In fact, total annual rainfall raises from 1366 mm, in field A, to 2036, in field B, to 2162 in field C (see the new Table 1).
Furthermore, in field A and B (especially in the former) there is water shortage during the summer months. Average annual rainfall is 114, 170 and 180 mm, for fields A, B and C, respectively, but the average summer rainfall is 63, 86 and 103 mm. At the same time, average summer temperatures are 19.9, 19.2 and 18.5 °C, in field A, B and C. We added a sentence, highlighting the differences in rainfall and temperatures (see first paragraph of the results).
(In this regard we must point out that when copy-pasting the climatic data to Table 1 - in the original version - we mistakenly gave the same values to Field A and B. Nevertheless, all statistical analysis was done with the correct data. The new Table 1 has now the right values and we added total rainfall values for better understanding of the differences.)
Summer water shortage in fields A and B is reflected in the fact that, unlike field C, most plants, including forages, became dry and die. This happens in the end of spring in field A, and in mid-summer in field B. That is why we do not have productivity values for summer, and autumn, for field A, and autumn, for field B (see Figure 3).
In fact, normal managing practices in these lower altitudes include replacing forage by corn during the summer months. Once the corn is cut, in late summer/early autumn, forage is sowed again (we stated this in page 4 of the original version). Shortage of forage in the drier season, in the lowlands, is well known in the Azores (e.g. see Borba AES (2007). Produção Animal Tradicional da Ilha de S. Jorge. Agroforum 19(15):29-34).
The first and second RDA axes (see Figure 7 and page 14 of the original version), together explained 75.4% of the total variance which indicates that environmental factors, including climatic factors, had significant effects on nutritive parameters values. Differences in the terrain are also significant, in dry matter, crude protein and ether extract of the forage (see figure 5).
Even so, we are not saying that altitude is the key variable. We have differences explained by altitude but also differences explained by seasonal effects.
Comment: Despite the significant soil differences, the nutrient quality of forage cannot simply be correlated with soil nutrients. The article does not specify whether the three pastures have one type of forage or multiple types of forage. What is the ratio of different forages? Because the differences between species can be more important than the environment.
Response: As we stated in «2.1. Experimental design» Pastures A and B are dominated (more than 90%) by Lolium multiflorum and Holcus lanatus dominates (also more than 90%) in pasture C. Furthermore, for the nutritive parameters we only used L. multiflorum (pastures A and B) and H. lanatus (pasture C), excluding all other species. We added a sentence explaining this (see first paragraph of page 4).
Nevertheless, our results show that species differences do not seem to be more important than the environment. In fact, we can see in the RDA (Figure 7) that CP, EE, Ash, DMD and OMD, are positively correlated with monthly rainfall in all three fields, i.e. independently of the dominant species.
Comment: Another very important issue is the harvest time of forages. There are significant differences in nutrient content in different growth periods. If the comparison is not made in the same growth period, the nutrients compared are meaningless.»
Response: Harvesting took place in the same growth period because the harvesting of all plots in the three fields, in each sampling period, took place within a two weeks period: in February 2020 (winter), March 2020 (early spring), June 2020 (late spring) and August 2020 (summer). We now state this in page 4.
Comment: The above problems are not clearly explained in the manuscript, and the comparison between the values of various indicators has no scientific significance, and the scientific value of its conclusions cannot be guaranteed.»
Response: As stated above, we now added additional information that we think will improve the text regarding the main issues raised.
We think that our experimental design was appropriate; our results have scientific significance and support the conclusions.
Comment: In addition, the multiple comparison results made by the author in the figure are quite chaotic, and the "a, b, c" annotations lack logic.»
Response: The «a, b, c» logic is something that is done many times in similar cases, in many papers. We think it is the best way to differentiate what is different from what is not: different letters mean significant different values; same letters mean that the values are not statistically different.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is discussing the Influence of environmental factors on the forage quality and production of Azorean pastures in Portugal. In general, the paper is well written and understandable, however, it needs some edit and here are my comments:
Line 1-2: Please use the uppercase for each word in the title
Line 20 and 25: analyzed
Line 27: , and ash.
Line 31: You may use “to” instead of “in order to”
Line 38: , or
Line 39: , and
Line 39-40: This needs to be edited
Line 44: deviations
Line 46: the loss of
Line 47: land-use
Line 51: the Azores
Line 52: an increase
Line 65: of forages and affecting the
Line 79: , and
Line 84: You may edit as follow (suggestion):
However, no studies are looking into climate change effects on grasslands on volcanic islands.
Line 86: different from
Line 88: The quantities of protein, fat, carbohydrate, fiber, and
Line 103: Material and Methods
Line 104: Experimental Design
Line 105: Please consider “Despite” (In spite of maybe wordy)
Line 126: ), and
Line 130: it should be “later”
Line 132: laboratory-type
Line 134: each soil plot
Line 152: placing the sample
Line 157: The in vitro DMD and OMD were measured
Line 164: and the net
Line 170: intending to fulfill
line 171: was not
Line 181: the CIELO model
Line 326: (ADF, NDF, and ADL)
Line 352: Soil nutrient
Line 378: by a higher
Line 380: were recorded
Line 393: which increases the digestibility of the forage.
Line 405: upper zone in the summer
Line 407: such as relative air humidity
Author Response
Reviewer #2
We want to thank reviewer 2 for his comments, which we address next:
Reviewer #2: The manuscript is discussing the Influence of environmental factors on the forage quality and production of Azorean pastures in Portugal. In general, the paper is well written and understandable, however, it needs some edit and here are my comments:
Comment/suggestion 1: Line 1-2: Please use the uppercase for each word in the title.
Response: Changed as recommended.
Comment/suggestion 2: Line 20 and 25: analyzed
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 3: Line 27: , and ash.
Response: Comma added.
Comment/suggestion 4: Line 31: You may use “to” instead of “in order to”
Response: We have changed this as suggested.
Comment/suggestion 5: Line 38: , or
Response: Comma added.
Comment/suggestion 6: Line 39: , and
Response: Comma added.
Comment/suggestion 7: Line 39-40: This needs to be edited
Response: The sentence was rewritten.
Comment/suggestion 8: Line 44: deviations
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 9: Line 46: the loss of
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 10: Line 47: land-use
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 11: Line 51: the Azores
Response: Changed.
Comment/suggestion 12: Line 52: an increase
Response: Changed.
Comment/suggestion 13: Line 65: of forages and affecting the
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 14: Line 79: , and
Response: Comma added.
Comment/suggestion 15: Line 84: You may edit as follow (suggestion):
However, no studies are looking into climate change effects on grasslands on volcanic islands.
Response: The sentence was rewritten as suggested.
Comment/suggestion 16: Line 86: different from
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 17: Line 88: The quantities of protein, fat, carbohydrate, fiber, and
Response: Comma added.
Comment/suggestion 18: Line 103: Material and Methods
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 19: Line 104: Experimental Design
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 20: Line 105: Please consider “Despite” (In spite of maybe wordy)
Response: Changed as suggested.
Comment/suggestion 21: Line 126: ), and
Response: Comma added.
Comment/suggestion 22: Line 130: it should be “later”
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 23: Line 132: laboratory-type
Response: Changed
Comment/suggestion 24: Line 134: each soil plot
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 25: Line 152: placing the sample
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 26: Line 157: The in vitro DMD and OMD were measured
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 27: Line 164: and the net
Response: Changed.
Comment/suggestion 28: Line 170: intending to fulfill
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 29: line 171: was not
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 30: Line 181: the CIELO model
Response: Changed.
Comment/suggestion 31: Line 326: (ADF, NDF, and ADL)
Response: Comma added.
Comment/suggestion 32: Line 352: Soil nutrient
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 33: Line 378: by a higher
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 34: Line 380: were recorded
Response: Changed.
Comment/suggestion 35: Line 393: which increases the digestibility of the forage.
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 36: Line 405: upper zone in the summer
Response: Corrected.
Comment/suggestion 37: Line 407: such as relative air humidity
Response: Changed.
Reviewer 3 Report
- The abstract should be revised considering the results. Major parameters findings/value need to be added
- Need 2-3 citation about importance of forage in introduction part.
- Describe the research purpose more clearly in the Introduction.
- The problem statement is not properly written. There should be a sequence according to 5 points-
Previous study,
Gaps in literature,
Challenges and overcome,
Significant (contribution for friendly environment/food security) and
Novelty.
- Line 147, 152: need space 65 ºC, 105 °C, 500 °C
- Line 230: Figure 3 a, delete summer, autumn
- Line 233: result writing is not clear, eg what is the mean of 16% DM, 11% ash……..all data
- Line: 280: result writing is not clear. Please rewrite in details
- Line 347: discussion is not clear.
Need rewrite according to 3 points
Key findings/best treatment result
Biological Mechanism (why increase/decrease)
Similar result with findings
- The conclusion part should rewrite according to these 3 points-
Findings,
limitations, and
recommendation
- Some sentences are too long to read or understand. Please make it simple by splitting.
- All the references mentioned in the text must be included in the references and vice-versa. Unused references must be deleted. All references should be in the same style.
Line: 459, Glob. Chang. Line Biol, 508, Arch. Anim. Breed (italic)
- Some English grammatical errors occurred. Please check the English expression and style carefully.
Author Response
Reviewer #3
We want to thank reviewer 3 for his comments, which we address next:
Comment/suggestion 1: The abstract should be revised considering the results. Major parameters findings/value need to be added
Response: The abstract was rewritten according to the reviewer suggestions within the limit of the word number.
Comment/suggestion 2: Need 2-3 citation about importance of forage in introduction part.
Response: In the introduction, a paragraph about the importance of forage was added including 4 citations [7-10].
Comment/suggestion 3: Describe the research purpose more clearly in the Introduction.
Response: Further information was added to the introduction to better explain the research purpose.
Comment/suggestion 4: The problem statement is not properly written. There should be a sequence according to 5 points-
Previous study,
Gaps in literature,
Challenges and overcome,
Significant (contribution for friendly environment/food security) and
Novelty.
Response: We rewrote the issue in question according to the reviewer's suggestions.
Comment/suggestion 5: Line 147, 152: need space 65 ºC, 105 °C, 500 °C
Response: Corrected as suggested.
Comment/suggestion 6: Line 230: Figure 3 a, delete summer, autumn
Response: We disagree and did not change Figure 3 according to the reviewer’s suggestion. This is because, we need to highlight that the absence of data during the summer and autumn in pasture A, as well as the absence in pasture B in the summer, is not a lack of sampling but a break of forage production during these seasons.
Comment/suggestion 7: Line 233: result writing is not clear, eg what is the mean of 16% DM, 11% ash……..all data
Response: The results had been rewritten as suggested.
Comment/suggestion 8: Line: 280: result writing is not clear. Please rewrite in details
Response: The results had been rewritten as suggested.
Comment/suggestion 9: Line 347: discussion is not clear.
Need rewrite according to 3 points
Key findings/best treatment result
Biological Mechanism (why increase/decrease)
Similar result with findings
Response: The discussion was rewritten following reviewer’s suggestions and, further information was added to better explain the findings.
Comment/suggestion 10: The conclusion part should rewrite according to these 3 points-
Findings,
limitations, and
recommendation
Response: The Conclusion was rewritten following reviewer’s suggestions and, further information was added to better explain the findings.
Comment/suggestion 11: Some sentences are too long to read or understand. Please make it simple by splitting.
Response: We followed the reviewer’s suggestion.
Comment/suggestion 12: All the references mentioned in the text must be included in the references and vice-versa. Unused references must be deleted. All references should be in the same style.
Line: 459, Glob. Chang. Line Biol, 508, Arch. Anim. Breed (italic)
Response: The references were checked and corrected.
Comment/suggestion 13: 13. Some English grammatical errors occurred. Please check the English expression and style carefully.
Response: The English grammatical was corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has made a lot of modifications to the article, the overall quality of the article has been improved, but there are still some minor mistakes, such as the format of reference number 11.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer # 1
Comment/suggestion: The author has made a lot of modifications to the article, the overall quality of the article has been improved, but there are still some minor mistakes, such as the format of reference number 11.
Response: Reference 11 was formatted according to the Journal rules.
Reviewer 3 Report
please check grammar
Author Response
Response to Reviewer # 3
Comment/suggestion: please check grammar
Response: The grammar was corrected.
