Review Reports - Abiotic and Biotic Factors Affecting Crop Growth and Productivity: Unique Buckwheat Production in Egypt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript, Abiotic and Biotic Factors Affecting Crop Growth and Productivity: A Unique Buckwheat Production in Egypt “ authors Mohamed M. Hassona, Hala A. Abd El-Aal, Nahla M. Morsy and Ahmed M. S. Hussein tried to provide understanding of the dynamic interactions between abiotic and biotic factors affecting buckwheat growth and productivity, with a specific focus on the unique agricultural conditions in Egypt.

Abstract

L 10-11 The First sentence is not clear, English is not good!

L 14-15 Fagopyrum tataricum, Fagopyrum esculentum.. write names in italic throughout the text!

Reduce the number of decimal places to a reasonable number throughout the text!

Introduction

References are missing in the first two paragraphs of the Introduction section.

In the introduction chapter, there is too much mention of who did the research and not what the results of the research were. This is missing.

Materials and methods

The characteristics of the soil are missing. This is very important data, considering the title and purpose of the article!

Results and Discussion

L 144-145 Rewrite the first sentence in the Results and Discussion section.

L 155-163 This paragraph talks about things other than those in Table 1 and does not fit into the discussion.

L 165 showcased correct please!

L 165-166 The statement is unclear: Moreover, 164 Facho et al. (2016) showcased significant genotype by environment interactions for varous buckwheat traits.

L 171 like IC-313136 and IC-79147… What does it mean?

Figure A is Figure 1?

The following paragraph does not fit under the Figure A This figure demonstrates significant differences in buckwheat growth across two cultivars and locations. Fagopyrum tataricum (FT) cultivated in Bilbeis City consistently showed higher growth parameters in both seasons. In contrast, Fagopyrum esculentum (FE) cultivated in Sadat City exhibited the lowest growth, highlighting the impact of cultivar and location choices on buckwheat productivity.

Discussion is missing under the 3.1.2. subtitle!

L 192 The Interaction Between Cultivar… Cultivar or species?

L 192 English is not OK in the following statement: Evaluation of The Interaction Between Cultivar and Planting Times on The Growth of Buck-192 wheat During 2018/2019 and 2019/2020.

L 198-205 The content of this paragraph does not refer to the results of the article. To discuss the above Calegari et al. (2020), it evident that the effectiveness of organic fertilizers varies depending on the location and type of buckwheat cultivar, resulting in different yields. This suggests that the local conditions in certain areas can potentially enhance the effect of these fertilizers, possibly due to the compatibility of soil characteristics and specific organic treatments. Song et al. (2021), it appears that certain amino acid treatments particularly benefit Tartary buckwheat in saline soil conditions, hinting at a location-specific factor (soil salinity) that interacts with treatments to affect buckwheat growth. Guo et al. (2011) and Larney et al. (2003) both emphasize the influence of altitude on buckwheat, where higher altitudes can influence the phenolic content and antioxidant properties. The differential response to UV radiation and altitude between Common and Tartary buckwheat, as detailed by Larney et al. (2003), underscores the significance of lo cation in determining plant growth patterns.

Do you have data about rainfall?

L 240-241 You did not study the selenium! Connecting our results to the literature, Jiang et al. (2015) underscored the importance of soil conditions, specifically selenium enrichment, on the yield and nutritional content of common buckwheat.

The captions below the figures are not appropriate!

L 386 What is growing degree days in BCS… ?

L 292-293 In our study, the soil at the BCS location likely had better conditions for soil penetration by buckwheat roots, contributing to the increased productivity rates observed in mid-March. Why do you think so?

Detailed data on soil properties at both locations are missing because that is one of the main topics of the article!

Conclusions

Conclusions should be more concise, with main findings! There are too many general sentences in the Conclusions!

Specific comments

Subtitles under the graphs go under the Results and Discussion section, not under the graphs.

Graphs should be better labeled, e.g. 1a, 1b, not A or B without numbers.

Citing references is not appropriate.

Tartary and common buckwheat are two species, not two cultivars!

Explanation and comparison with other references are not appropriate because they are not talking about the same things!

Grammar and punctuation need to be fixed!

The article has interesting results that also have practical significance! But the article needs to be improved, both content and writing style and English!

My suggestion: major revision

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is not OK in certain places.

Author Response

Dear Distinguished Reviewer,

We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to provide detailed feedback on our manuscript titled "Abiotic and Biotic Factors Affecting Crop Growth and Productivity: A Unique Buckwheat Production in Egypt." Your insights have been invaluable in guiding the revisions we have made to enhance the clarity, accuracy, and depth of our study. Below, we address each point raised in your review and detail how we have incorporated your suggestions into our revised manuscript.

Point #1: We have revised the abstract for clarity and improved the English composition, as suggested. We ensured that scientific names are italicised throughout the text and adjusted the numerical data presentation for better readability.

Point #2: We expanded the introduction with additional references to substantiate our statements and refocused the narrative on the results and implications of previous research rather than the researchers themselves. This has enriched our manuscript with a broader and more accurate context.

Point #3: As recommended, we added detailed information on soil and water characteristics at both experimental sites. This inclusion provides a more comprehensive understanding of the environmental conditions under which the buckwheat cultivars were evaluated.

Point #4: We revised the first sentence in the Results and Discussion section for better clarity and coherence with the data presented in Table 1.

Point #5: Upon your suggestion, we have removed redundant paragraphs under the figures, streamlining the presentation of our data and focusing the discussion on relevant findings related to the data presented in the Results and Discussion sections.

**Point #6: The text has been adjusted to correct the use of "showcased" and to clarify the significance of genotype by environment interactions as highlighted by Facho et al. (2016).

Point #7: We have clarified the reference to specific genotypes, explaining their significance within the context of our study and the broader research landscape.

Point #8: Following your advice, we have relabeled all figures numerically and ensured that each sub-figure is appropriately identified for easier reference and comprehension.

Point #9: We have addressed the missing discussion under the section "3.1.2. Interaction of Location x Sowing Time" by adding a comprehensive analysis of how location and sowing time influence buckwheat growth.

Point #10-18: For each of these points, we have made specific revisions to address your concerns, including correcting English language issues, ensuring accurate use of terms, enhancing the explanation of methodological choices, and providing additional data where needed.

In conclusion, your thorough review has significantly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript. We believe that the revisions made in response to your comments have addressed the concerns raised and have strengthened the overall quality of our study. We hope that our efforts to incorporate your valuable feedback reflect our commitment to contributing meaningful and high-quality research to the scientific community.

Thank you again for your constructive comments and for the opportunity to enhance our work.

Sincerely,

Mohamed M. Hassona and Co-Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- italics of Latin names and bold of the references throughout the text should -be checked

- Introduction: relevant references related to nutritional value and adaptability should be added on line 44

- Introduction: the classification of Fagopyrum sp. should be briefly stated, emphasizing the biological differences between F.esculentum and F. tataricum

- Material and Methods: weather data should be displayed graphically to get an overview of the conditions for each sowing time and location

- Results and Discussions: the figures for each trait should be combined into one, covering two seasons with bars stacked next to each other for location and variety

- Results and Discussion: 3.1.2. Interaction of location x Sowing time needs to be supplemented with a more concise discussion

- Results and Discussions: line 227 Season 1

- Results and Discussions: line 228 growth productivity

- Rekommendations: line 395 3

Author Response

Dear Distinguished Reviewer,

We are grateful for the opportunity to address your insightful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript titled "Abiotic and Biotic Factors Affecting Crop Growth and Productivity: A Unique Buckwheat Production in Egypt." Your feedback has significantly contributed to refining our manuscript, ensuring its scientific accuracy, clarity, and overall quality. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point you raised.

Point #1: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure all Latin names are correctly italicized and references are properly highlighted in bold, improving the manuscript's readability and adherence to scientific writing standards.

Point #2: Additional references highlighting the nutritional value and adaptability of buckwheat have been integrated into the introduction, providing a richer context and emphasizing the crop's significance.

Point #3: We have included a brief statement on the classification of Fagopyrum sp., clearly distinguishing between F. esculentum and F. tataricum and emphasizing their biological differences. This addition enriches the manuscript's introduction, offering readers a clearer understanding of the research scope.

Point #4: To provide a more comprehensive overview of the weather conditions for each sowing time and location, we have now displayed the weather data graphically. This visual representation allows for an immediate grasp of the environmental context of the study, enhancing the interpretability of our findings.

Point #5: Following your suggestion, we have combined the figures for each trait into a single figure, covering two seasons with bars stacked next to each other for location and variety. This format facilitates a more straightforward comparison across the different variables, significantly improving the presentation of our results.

Point #6: We have supplemented the discussion on the interaction of location and sowing time with a more concise and focused analysis, directly addressing the significant impact of these factors on buckwheat growth and productivity. This refinement clarifies the implications of our findings.

Point #7: The recommendations section (previously noted as line 395) has been reviewed and revised for clarity, ensuring it concisely outlines practical advice for buckwheat cultivation based on our research findings.

Point #8 & #9: Corrections noted for lines 227 and 228 regarding the season and growth productivity have been made, ensuring the manuscript's accuracy and consistency.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly enhance the manuscript. We are thankful for your constructive feedback, which has guided us in improving the quality and impact of our work. We hope our responses and the corresponding revisions meet your expectations and contribute to the manuscript's suitability for publication in Agriculture.

Sincerely,

Mohamed M. Hassona and Co-Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Introduction part Between L35-37 It would be good to add a references for text “However, Buckwheat, a versatile and nutritionally rich crop, has gained significant 35 attention due to its adaptability to various climatic and soil conditions, making it an ideal candidate for such studies. “

Please, see the next references bellow

Oksana, S., Marek, K., Marian, B. et al. Cultivar-dependent and drought-induced modulation of secondary metabolites, adaptative defense in Fagopyrum esculentum L. Physiol Mol Biol Plants 29, 1605–1618 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12298-023-01376-8

Kumari A, Chaudhary HK. Nutraceutical crop buckwheat: a concealed wealth in the lap of Himalayas. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2020 Jun;40(4):539-554. doi: 10.1080/07388551.2020.1747387.

Kreft, I.; Golob, A.; Germ, M. A Crop of High Nutritional Quality and Health Maintenance Value: The Importance of Tartary Buckwheat Breeding. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1783. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13091783

In the Table 1. Evaluation of the interaction between Location and Cultivar on the growth of buckwheat 152 under the two planting locations during 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 seasons would ne good to add the temperature, humidity parameters for better understanding universal picture and easy reading. It would be good also in the point to discover environmental conditions effects on the studied parameters.

Authors cited studies from 2007 about rutin but nowadays also more studies from 2014 and after about rutin and phenolics in the buckwheat under different stress conditions.

Figure (A): Interaction Between Location and Cultivar in Buckwheat Growth (2018/2019 and 2019/2020 Seasons) is hard to read. Must be better quality letters in the graphs.Same for the Figure (B) (C)

These Figures are not repeated information in the Tables?

Author Response

Dear Distinguished Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript, "Abiotic and Biotic Factors Affecting Crop Growth and Productivity: A Unique Buckwheat Production in Egypt." Your comments have been instrumental in helping us refine and enhance our paper. Below, we address each of your points with our responses and the actions we have taken to improve our manuscript.

Point #1:We appreciate your suggestion to enrich the introduction with references that underscore buckwheat's adaptability and nutritional richness. In response, we have added text highlighting the nutritional value of buckwheat, particularly Tartary buckwheat, and its bioactive components such as rutin and quercetin, which contribute to its health benefits and stress adaptation mechanisms. The added references from recent studies provide a contemporary perspective on buckwheat's potential and the need for further research into its cultivation and utilization.

Point #2: Thank you for emphasizing the importance of including environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity in our analysis. We have updated the Materials and Methods section to incorporate detailed weather parameters, including temperature, humidity, precipitation, sun duration, and other relevant factors for both locations across the two seasons studied. This addition offers readers a comprehensive understanding of the environmental context of our research and its impact on buckwheat growth.

Point #3: We acknowledge your feedback regarding the readability of the figures in our manuscript. To address this, we have revised all figures to ensure they are of high quality and easily interpretable. We have also updated the titles of the figures to more accurately reflect the data presented, ensuring consistency and clarity throughout the manuscript.

Point #4: Your observation about the potential repetition of information between the figures and tables is well taken. Upon review, we identified discrepancies in the arrangement of data in the figures, which we have now corrected to accurately match the information presented in the tables. Additionally, we are committed to replacing all figures with high-resolution versions to improve visibility and comprehension.

We are grateful for the opportunity to address your concerns, and we believe that these revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We hope that our responses and modifications meet your expectations and further the manuscript's contribution to the field of agricultural science.

Thank you again for your valuable input.

Sincerely,

Mohamed M. Hassona and Co-Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

Fagopyrum tataricum and Fagopyrum esculentum ARE NOT buckwheat cultivars! They are species!

Fagopyrum tataricum in Belbies showed the highest growth (98cm plant height) and productivity (859 kg/ha), while the lowest was seen with (Fagopyrum esculentum) cultivar, in Sadat City. Skip parenthesis in: (Fagopyrum esculentum) cultivar, and change cultivar to species through the text!

Introduction

References cannot start with the number 3! They must line up in order!

This study aims to provide a deep understanding of the two-way interaction of these diverse factors, offering a comprehensive overview of the conditions conducive to optimizing buckwheat cultivation in Egypt to enhance the understanding of buckwheat's potential as a resilient and nutritious crop within sustainable agricultural systems. Write this sentence more concisely!

Write Fagopyrum esculentum and Fagopyrum tataricum in italic! I have already written that!

…conditions, while Facho et al. (2016) and Sowmya et al. (2021) emphasized [6][25], and the role of genotype-environment interactions. Calegari et al. (2020) and Song et al. (2021) explored while [9] [29]. What while?

It stands as a testament to the power of integrating scientific research…Write this more simply, or skip it!

Materials and methods

»The seeds were sealed in their original bags and then opened in the field for planting, the first batch were planted in Belbies City Site as afeer planting [17] (dry seeds in dry land, a commonly planting method widespread in the grains cultivation e.g. wheat), the seeds was mixed by sand as (1:2 v/v), to control the spread on the seeds on the designated plot, and ensure that all seeds well sowed with uniformity. The experi-ment used the rate of 160 seeds per 1-meter2 in all the 3 sowing dates in both locations and first planting occurred in Belbies City Site on mid-November 2018, where total 6 plots are planted in this patch randomly distributed (Figure 2) 3 plots allocated for F. esculentum, and 3 allocated for F. tataricum, where each plot was area of 4.5 M2 planted by ±720 seeds weighting approximately 21.800 grams«.

Skip the parenthesis in red and move (Figure 2) to the end of the statement! Uniform the way of writing meters, m or meter!!!

»The physical and chemical properties of the experimental soil during both seasons of the study are presented in Table (1), also the water properties including physical, chemi-cal, and biological parameters were analyzed in both sites as per Table (2). However, the weather data for both study sites are collected including temperature, precipitation total, relative humidity, wind gust, sunshine duration, soil temperature [0-7 cm down] by weather models are based on the NMM (Nonhydrostatic Meso-Scale Modelling technol-ogy) by Meteoblue based in Basil, Switzerland (Table 3)«. English is not OK in the last sentence! Write Table 1 and Table 2 without parenthesis. Do not write Table 3 in bold!

Page alignment is not uniform!

What does fed mean in chapter 2.2.3.?

Tabl 2 Why is there such a big difference in P and K between both cities in Table 1?

Write what EC (dS/m) and OM mean in Table 1. Edit the way formulas are written in Table 1!

Then all plant samples were lefted and allowed to air dry for at least 7-10 days for treatments of planting in mid-November and January, and 3 - 5 days for the treatment of planting in mid-March. This is not clear!

Average Total Grain Yield per Hectare (kg/ha)= (Average Grain Yield per Square Meter.. This is strangely inserted into the text!

What is this (g/m2)×122,000)÷1000 in chapter 2.4.?

Results

However, plant height was recorded at 97.70 cm in the 1st season and 90.74 cm in the 2nd season, the number of branches per plant was 12.00 in the 1st season and 10.70 in the 2nd season, the number of internodes per plant was 14.11 in the 1st season and 12.26 in the 2nd season, the number of leaves per plant was 46.85 in the 1st season and 31.778 in the 2nd season, and the fresh weight per plant was 36.19 gm in the 1st season and 39.36 gm in the 2nd season. Numbers are not necessary since they are in the table 3!

What do the numbers in the table 2 and 3 mean? Average? What is SD or SE?

The pictures have no subtitles, it is not clear where they belong.

Make sure that the same data is not displayed in tables and figures!

The numbers before the tables do not follow each other in order!

The Results chapter is way too long! The data is shown in graphic tables. Captions under tables and graphs are not clear.

Discussion

The Discussion chapter is too long! Sentences are repeated!

Conclusions

Conclusions should be more concise, with main findings! There are too many general sentences in the Conclusions!

Specific comments

Tartary and common buckwheat are two species, not two cultivars!

Grammar and punctuation need to be fixed!

The article has interesting results that also have practical significance! But the article needs to be rewritten!

My suggestion: major revision

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences are unclear

Author Response

Subject: Response to Reviewer Comments for Manuscript Revision, Round 2

Dear Academic Editor,

Agriculture Journal, MDPI

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing in response to the comments received from the reviewer for the second round of revision of our manuscript entitled "Abiotic and Biotic Factors Affecting Crop Growth and Productivity: A Unique Buckwheat Production in Egypt," authored by Mohamed M. Hassona, Hala A. Abd El-Aal, Nahla M. Morsy, and Ahmed M. S. Hussein.

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their constructive feedback and insightful suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each comment and made the necessary revisions to the manuscript accordingly. Below, I provide a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments:

Abstract and Introduction:

Species clarification: As correctly pointed out by the reviewer, we have revised the manuscript to correctly identify Fagopyrum tataricum and Fagopyrum esculentum as species rather than cultivars. This correction has been made throughout the text.
References ordering: We have ensured that references are listed in sequential order from the beginning of the manuscript, correcting the previously noted oversight.
Simplification of sentences: We have revised and simplified sentences throughout the manuscript, including the sentence in the introduction highlighting the study's aims, to enhance clarity and conciseness.

Materials and Methods:

Clarification and uniformity: We have addressed all concerns regarding the clarity of our methods, including the clarification of the term "fed" to refer to the feddan unit and ensuring uniformity in the presentation of measurements (hectare).
Table corrections: We have made the requested corrections to Tables 1 and 2, including the clarification of EC (dS/m) and OM% and ensuring that formulas are presented correctly. We have also responded to the query regarding the significant difference in P and K between both cities by providing a detailed explanation based on soil and climatic conditions.

Results and Discussion:

Streamlining content: We have streamlined the Results and Discussion sections to focus on key findings, eliminating redundant sentences and ensuring that tables and figures are clearly captioned and relevant to the text.

Conclusions:

Conciseness: The Conclusions section has been revised to be more concise, directly summarizing the main findings and their practical significance, as recommended by the reviewer.

General Revisions:

Grammar and punctuation: The manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed and revised for grammar and punctuation to ensure accuracy and readability.

In conclusion, we believe that the revisions made in response to the reviewer's comments have significantly improved our manuscript. We are confident that the changes address the concerns raised and hope that our manuscript is now suitable for publication.

Thank you for considering our manuscript for publication, and we look forward to the possibility of our work contributing to the journal.

Sincerely,

Mohamed Hassona on behalf of the authors

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf