The Influence of the Spraying Pressure of an Injector Asymmetric Double Nozzle with Variable Flow on Head Fungicide Coverage, Yield, Grain Quality, and Deoxynivalenol Content in Winter Wheat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “The Influence of Spraying Pressure of an Injector Asymetric Double Nozzle with Variable Flow on Head Fungicide Coverage, Yield, Grain Quality, and Deoxynivalenol Content” describes the effect of different spraying pressures and volume on different traits of winter wheat. The main objective of the study is to understand if a low spraying pressure and volume can be adopted for an efficient control of FHB infection.

The results provide useful information about a new technical solution capable to improve the efficacy and sustainability of wheat protection strategies.

However, there are several comments that need to be addressed and aspects that need to be clarified.

Finally, even though I’m not a native speaker, I suggest to revise English throughout the manuscript.

Overall, major revisions are required before acceptance.

You can find the revisions directly in the uploaded file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the article evaluated the effect of the spraying pressure (2 bar, 4 bar, 6 bar) of Asymetric Double Nozzle with Variable Flow on head fungicide coverage, yield parameters, grain quality, and deoxynivalenol content. Although the lower spraying pressure determined a significant lower coverage of wheat heads, it retained the DON content in grain below the maximum permissible level. The 2 bar spraying pressure did not determine significantly lower grain yield as compared to higher spray pressures. Finally, in quality parameters there was no significant influence of the different spraying pressures.

The style is quite clear although there are some inaccuracies in the syntax and punctuation along the manuscript. A slight revision of English would be needed.

Although research design is appropriate and the results are well presented, some concerns need to be addressed in the manuscript

TITLE

Line 2: “the of” should be changed to “of the”

ABSTRACT

Line 19: In 2019 and 2020, field trials were conducted?

Lines 25-26: In that year, the DON value exponentially fell with the increasing spraying pressures?

INTRODUCTION

It should be mentioned in the introduction that an artificial inoculum was made with F. graminearum

Line 58: “the latter being more susceptible to FHB”, a reference should be included.

Line 61: remove “on the mycotoxin”

Line 65-67:  check the English

Lines 60-67: pay attention to the conjugation of verbs

RESULTS

Line 90: replace "6 bar with" 2 bar "

Lines 96-97: check punctuation

Table 4: The statistical analysis was conducted only on the yield data between the different pressures in the same year but in the text is written that the yields in 2020 were higher than in 2019. Was the statistical analysis carried out between the yields of different years? You have considered doing a multivariate analysis

Line 121: remove “the mycotoxin”

Line 121: replace “in grain at the control” with “in control”. Check along the manuscript for similar phrases

Table 5: it is a pity that in 2020 the levels of DON were too low to to detect differences between the treatments also because it is an aspect very important for the Special issue in which the article should be placed

Table 6: same considerations made for table 4

Lines 177-196: perhaps it is better to group variables with the same degree of correlation to shorten the paragraph

DISCUSSION

Lines 205-207: this sentence could be moved to MM

Line 226: “Our research achieved lower head fungicide coverage at the pressure of 6 bar”, include reference

Lines 253-254: It can be written in more detail

Lines 258-259: In results is reported that “In that year there were no differences in the grain yield between the control and the spraying pressure of 2 bar”. There is a discrepancy between what is written in the discussion and what is written in the results

Lines 260-263: can you discuss this statement?

Lines 260-263: replace “at the” with “in the”

Lines 267-269: check punctuation

Lines 269-270: in 2019 and 2020?

Lines 275-276: syntax and punctuation

Line 282: replace “was in 2019” with “ranged”

Lines 286-287: take out “ It is important that”

Line 288: replace “otherwise” with “however”

Lines 291-294: to be rewritten, there is no connection with what is written before

Lines 294-296: remove or add introductory phrase

Line 321: “good proteins” is too vague

Line 331: in the plots?

CONCLUSIONS

Line 360: replace “Because” with “despite”

Line 362-364: differences in what?

Lines 364-365: specify the year

Line 367: replace “quality of the grain” with “yield”

Lines 367-368: discrepancy with what is written in the results

Conclusions are full of inaccuracies. The paragraph should be rewritten

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Line 402: Specify company and country of prothioconazole and metconazole

Line 417: Why did you choose this timing? In the same line replace “fungicide” with “fungicides”

Line 435: WSP analysis?

Lines 447-471: Write numbers in letters where appropriate

Lines 478-480: how these measurements were made?

Line 482: How the sampling was done?

In general the manuscript is full of inaccuracies. A review of the entire manuscript is needed