You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Jeroen Feys1,*,
  • Fien Wallays1 and
  • Danny Callens2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Sirwan Babaei Reviewer 3: Xiaomin Liu Reviewer 4: Sumit Sow

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very well written manuscript. Just some small modifications required. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

In attachment, you can find the cover letter (PDF).

Further, we will upload the new manuscript in both a Word and a PDF format.

The Word document should be considered as the new version of the manuscript (changes marked in yellow), while the PDF shows the changes more in detail (compared with the original version).

Kind regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting this valuable study on long-term strategies for managing Cyperus esculentus. The dataset is impressive and the topic is very relevant, but the manuscrpt in its current form needs considerable refinement before it can be suitable for publication. I encourage you to carefully revise and improve the paper by addressing the following points:

  1. Shorten and restructure the abstract into a clear Background–Methods–Results–Conclusions format.
  2. Streamline the introducion by removing repetitions and shifting detailed herbicide information to the Discussion.
  3. Clarify the research gap and state the objectives and hypothesis more explicitly.
  4. Simplify the Methods section, avoid excessive technical brand details, and remove repeated descriptions.
  5. Strengthen the statistical analysis (consider mixed models or better justifcation for ANOVA; clarify sample sizes).
  6. Condense the Results section, avoid narrative storytelling, and ensure figures/tables are concise and integrated.
  7. Focus the Discussion on interprtation, novelty, and limitations, while reducing repetition of results.
  8. Revise the Conclusions to be concise, realistic, and evidence-based rather than overly general.
  9. Improve overall English expression, grammar, and MDPI formatting (abbreviations, figure captions, references).

With careful revisions along these lines, the manuscript has the potential to become a much stronger and more impactful contribution.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Frequent grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, redundancies.

MDPI style inconsistencies (abbreviations not defined once, improper figure captions, etc.).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

In attachment, you can find the cover letter (PDF).

Further, we will upload the new manuscript in both a Word and a PDF format.

The Word document should be considered as the new version of the manuscript (changes marked in yellow), while the PDF shows the changes more in detail (compared with the original version).

Kind regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is to investigate and identify effective long-term strategies for controlling the notorious weed Cyperus esculentus (yellow nutsedge) by depleting its soil tuber bank. The study focuses on the impact of various control measures applied in different cropping systems over a three-year period, aiming to find sustainable solutions to reduce the weed's tuber bank and mitigate its negative effects on crop yields. I think the study will provide valuable control information about Cyperus esculentus.

However, I have a few concerns, I think the readers need to know what control strategies were applied to which fields to make valid interpretations from the figures, so I suggest the authors clearly link the characteristics of the fields (Table 1) with the control strategies applied (Table 2).  

Here are some suggestions listed below:

--Abstract

The abstract part give a full illustration about the results, but a concise conclusion about the implications of the results should be added to make the abstract more informative and complete.  

--Material and methods

There is a discrepancy between the text and the figure:

Text: "52 infested fields (51 in Belgium and 1 in the Netherlands) were monitored"

Figure 1: Indicates monitoring of "54 infested fields"

--Discussion

Line 507 ‘are possible ’ is a clear duplication and should be corrected.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

In attachment, you can find the cover letter (PDF).

Further, we will upload the new manuscript in both a Word and a PDF format.

The Word document should be considered as the new version of the manuscript (changes marked in yellow), while the PDF shows the changes more in detail (compared with the original version).

Kind regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses an important and timely topic in weed science. The large dataset (52 infested fields monitored over three years) has the potential to provide significant insights. However, several issues regarding methodology, data presentation, clarity of interpretation, and manuscript organization need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication.

  1. The abstract is too descriptive and reads like a mini results section. Please revise to highlight the objectives, key findings, and broader implications more clearly. For example, “large 3-year tuber bank reductions (>90%) are possible…” (L22–23) should specify under which exact conditions this was consistent, and emphasize the practical relevance.

  2. The introduction provides a good overview of C. esculentus biology and control, but it is too lengthy and partly repetitive. Please shorten descriptions of known yield losses (L43–49) and tuber biology (L50–61), and expand instead on the knowledge gap—i.e., the lack of multi-year, field-scale studies on tuber bank dynamics.

  3. The hypothesis (L115–117) is vague. Please reframe into specific testable objectives (e.g., which combinations of chemical, mechanical, and cultural methods are expected to perform best).

  4. The sampling design (L178–192) requires clarification: Were the 20 cores per 100 m² zone randomized or fixed? Were the same points sampled each year? Tuber extraction/storage (L225–229): Submerging in thiram could influence viability results. Please justify this step or cite supporting methodology.Statistical analysis (L248–269): The description is repetitive and not always clear. For instance, the calculation of sampled soil area (L258–259) should be shown only once, in a concise manner.Please clarify how farmer-reported strategies (L296–308) were validated. Was there risk of recall bias?

  5. The general results section is overly detailed and difficult to follow. For example, L337–366 describe individual field histories at length. Consider moving these details to Supplementary Material and retaining only summary trends in the main text. Figures 4–6 (L444–479) are informative, but the captions are too long. Ensure consistency of sample size reporting (N) across figures.

  6. Lines 484–609: The discussion often overstates findings. For example, L505–507 claims “complete tuber bank reductions are possible” without acknowledging that this occurred in only two fields out of 52. Please temper such statements. EU regulatory restrictions (L507–511, L599–609) are important but need a clearer connection to the study results. Otherwise, these sections read as policy commentary. Please integrate findings more strongly with existing literature (e.g., compare median reductions with earlier studies in other countries).

  7. The conclusions section repeats results instead of highlighting novel contributions and practical implications. Please shorten and rewrite to emphasize: Key strategies that were consistently effective.Limitations of the study (e.g., variability among fields, reliance on farmer data). Recommendations for future research.

  8. L54–55: “days grow are becoming shorter” → revise grammar. L187: Typo “achievd” → “achieved.” L300: “bthrough” → “through.”

  9. Ensure consistent herbicide nomenclature (e.g., mesotrione vs. meostrione in L617).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

In attachment, you can find the cover letter (PDF).

Further, we will upload the new manuscript in both a Word and a PDF format.

The Word document should be considered as the new version of the manuscript (changes marked in yellow), while the PDF shows the changes more in detail (compared with the original version).

Kind regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Thank you for your revisions and responses. It is clear that you considered the reviewers’ feedback and improved the manuscript. The abstract and introduction are now clearer, the methods more concise, the is results better now, and the discussion more balanced with links to the literature. I also appreciate the attention to formatting, language, and figure clarity. While the study still has some limitations, you have acknowledged these appropriately, and the overall contribution is now valuable. One small remaining point: please ensure that the plant name in the title is written in full (Cyperus esculentus) rather than abbreviated. I believe the manuscript is ready for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback.

In the title, 'Cyperus esculentus' is written in the full name now.

Kind regards,

The authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback.

Kind regards,

The authors.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revison is quite satisfactory and now it can be recomended for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback.

Kind regards,

The authors.