Comparison of Organic and Inorganic Mulching for Weed Suppression in Wheat under Rain-Fed Conditions of Haripur, Pakistan
, Tariq Mehmood 1, Sohail Latıf 3, Saftain Ullah Khan 4, Sajid Fiaz 5 and Abdul Qayyum 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Your study addresses an interesting topic from the point of view of effective weed control - in line with the principles of sustainable agriculture. I consider the work to be weak. The whole conception of describing and solving the problem is good, but the article has many shortcomings. Besides, the comparison of only two years of research carried out in one place is insufficient from the point of view of agronomic sciences. Please give detailed consideration to the following suggestions:
Abstract and all of Article
I suggest describing the pesticide dose as l/ha and not ml/ha.
Introduction
State the species of weeds most troublesome to wheat cultivation in Pakistan.
Materials and methods
What methods were used to determine the nutrient content of the soil.
Please give the content of the tested nutrients in the unit mg/100g soil.
Please specify the soil type on which the experiment was conducted.
Figure 2. The signature refers to the wrong years.
Have growth regulators been used?
In how many repetitions was the number of weeds in each plot calculated according to the day of vegetation?
25, 50 and 75 days after sowing.... for wheat in Pakistan, these days correspond to which development stage according to the BBCH scale?
Please provide the source of the data on the considered market price of wheat in Pakistan.
Results
In Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 please consider what the lower case letters next to the numerical values mean.
The description of each table in the paper should include a description of the unit in which the results are expressed. Please take this into account.
In Table 5 you provide values for the "leaf area". In the methodology you do not mention how you determined this variable. Please add this information to the methodology.
References:
Please provide a DOI reference (where possible).
Please cite some additional ones from the last 3 years that address similar research themes.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we are grateful to you for your comments and suggestions for the improvement of the article. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript in light of your comments.
Abstract:
- Comment: I suggest describing the pesticide dose as L/ha and not mL/ha.
Response: We have revised the abstract part as per your suggestions and also changed the pesticide dose as L ha-1 throughout the text and highlighted at Page 1.
Introduction
- Comment: State the species of weeds most troublesome to wheat cultivation in Pakistan.
Response: The most troublesome weed species of Wheat cultivation in Pakistan are Avena fatua, Carthamus oxyacantha, Chenopodium album, Convolvulus arvensis, Euphorbia helioscopia, Fumaria indica, Phalaris minor and Sonchus oleraceus. Therefore, the current research studies were designed keeping in view that reality. The same has been mentioned in the introduction part of the manuscript and highlighted at Page 2.
Materials and methods section comments:
- Comment: What methods were used to determine the nutrient content of the soil?
Response: Phosphorus and potassium (AB-DTPA extractable) were estimated by the procedure described by Soltanpour and Schwab (1977) using spectrophotometer and flame photometer. The Kjeldhal method of Bremner (1996) was used for calculation of total nitrogen in the soil. Soil organic matter was estimated by the procedure as described by BALL (1964). The DTPA (diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid) micronutrient extraction procedure of Lindsay and Norvell (1978) was used for estimation of soil Zinc, Copper, Iron and Manganese. Analysis of soil for physiochemical properties revealed texture silt loam alkaline with pH 7.1, electrical conductivity 0.29 dSm-1, organic matter 1.02%. All information is provided now and highlighted at Page 3.
- Comment: Please give the content of the tested nutrients in the unit mg/100g soil.
Response: The tested nutrient has been converted in mg/100g soil. The same has been included in the materials and methods part of the manuscript and highlighted at Page 3.
Nitrogen 0.051%, phosphorous 0.085 mg/100 g soil, potassium 0.31 mg/ 100 g soil, zinc 0.232 mg/100 g soil, copper 0.027 mg/100 g, iron 0.024 mg/100 g and manganese 0.97 mg/100g soil respectively.
- Comment: Please specify the soil type on which the experiment was conducted.
Response: The research studies were conducted on Silt loam alkaline soil with pH 7.1. Analysis of soil for physiochemical properties revealed texture silt loam alkaline with pH 7.1. Information provided and highlighted at Page 3.
- Comment: Figure 2. The signature refers to the wrong years.
Response: The subject correct has been performed in Fig. 2 and highlighted at Page 4.
- Comment: Have growth regulators been used?
Response: No growth regulators have not been used in the research studies.
- Comment: In how many repetitions was the number of weeds in each plot calculated according to the day of vegetation?
Response: Number of weeds were counted by randomly throwing Quadrat at two different positions in each plot. Information provided and highlighted at Page 4.
- Comment: 25, 50 and 75 days after sowing.... for wheat in Pakistan, these days correspond to which development stage according to the BBCH scale?
Response: 25, 50 and 75 days after sowing.... for wheat in Pakistan, correspond to Principal growth stage 2, 4 and 7 respectively according to BBCH scale (Lancashire et al., 1991). Information provided and highlighted at Page 4.
- Comment: Please provide the source of the data on the considered market price of wheat in Pakistan.
Response: The source of the data regarding the market price of wheat was Agriculture Policy Institute, Islamabad, Pakistan. The same has been provided in the Materials and methods part economic analysis of the manuscript. Information provided and highlighted at Page 5.
Results Section comments:
- Comment: In Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 please consider what the lower case letters next to the numerical values mean.
Response: In Tables 1, 2, 3 and so on the lower case letters to the numerical values indicate statistically significant difference between the means when they did not share common English letter in a row or column at 5% probability level using Tukey’s HSD test. Information provided and highlighted in all tables i.e. 1-6.
- Comment: The description of each table in the paper should include a description of the unit in which the results are expressed. Please take this into account.
Response: The unit of measured parameter has been provided in the description of each table in the manuscript. Information provided and highlighted in all tables i.e. 1-6.
- Comment: In Table 5 you provide values for the "leaf area". In the methodology you do not mention how you determined this variable. Please add this information to the methodology.
Response: In this regard it has been mentioned in the manuscript that leaf area of wheat plants was measured using Portable leaf area meter CI-202 (CID Bio-Science Inc. USA). Information provided and highlighted at Page 4.
References section comments:
- Comment: Please provide a DOI reference (where possible).
Response: DOI has been provided where it was available in the references. See the reference section. Information provided and highlighted at Page 15-18.
- Comment: Please cite some additional ones from the last 3 years that address similar research themes.
Response: Two new latest references have been added in the revised manuscript at serial #12 (In Introduction section) and serial #38 (In the discussion section). Both the citations are of 2019 and 2020. Information provided and highlighted at Page 2, 15, 16 and 18.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled" Organic and Inorganic Mulching: a Promising Weed Management Strategy in Wheat under Rainfed Conditions of Haripur Pakistan is a well-crafted manuscript by the authors and have interesting results and facts. The organic amendments or the management of weed showed almost promising results to that of inorganic control used, which provide leads for conducting extensive research and further aplicibality to the feild crops-- However the present manuscript needs some changes and clarifications for the overall improvement of the manuscript which is appended below---
Please find the attached suggestions for the article --
Title- As per the article, what I understood that authors compared organic mulching to inorganic one and found that organic mulching are as effective as inorganic. However the title does not convey the same. I suggest please work on it and change it--
Introduction- No comments well written
Materials and methods – well explained no comments and suggestions.
Results-
- Table 1- there were no units provided with the data, its hard to understand please provide the, suitable units for the data.
- Table 1- From the article it seems authors performed stastical analysis, I suggest please include Standard deviations or errors to the values provided in the table.
- Similarly in table 2, please provide the units and also include the standard error so that data becomes more transparent.
- Similarly in table 3, please provide the units along with inclusion of the standard error to the tables.
- Similarly in table 4, its dry biomass which I guess must be in grams or Kilograms or tons etc. Authors are requested to provide units for the values and inclusion of the standard error to the tables.
- Figure 3- Suggestion, from the figure it seems authors have performed stastical analysis, its suggested to please include stastical letters to the figures too (above error bar), as it will be easy to understand the differences in the yields.
Discussions – no comments
Conclusions – well drawn, well written.
Author Response
Title-
- Comment: As per the article, what I understood that authors compared organic mulching to inorganic one and found that organic mulching are as effective as inorganic. However the title does not convey the same. I suggest please work on it and change it—
Response: As per your suggestion the title of the manuscript has been changed to “Comparison of Organic and Inorganic Mulching for Weed Suppression in Wheat under Rain-fed conditions of Haripur, Pakistan”. Title modified and highlighted at Page 1.
Introduction- No comments well written
Materials and methods – Well explained no comments and suggestions.
Results section comments:
- Comment: Table 1- there were no units provided with the data, it’s hard to understand please provide the, suitable units for the data.
Response: The units for each measured parameter of Weed species and wheat has been provided in each table in the revised manuscript.
- Comment: Table 1- From the article it seems authors performed statistical analysis, I suggest please include Standard deviations or errors to the values provided in the table.
Response: The Standard Error of mean has been calculated and provided in all tables in the revised manuscript. Tables are modified and highlighted
- Comment: Similarly in table 2, please provide the units and also include the standard error so that data becomes more transparent.
Response: The unit for the each measured parameter and standard error of mean has been provided in the revised manuscript in all tables.
- Comment: Similarly in table 3, please provide the units along with inclusion of the standard error to the tables.
Response: The units along with inclusion of standard error has been done in the Table 3 in the revised manuscript.
- Comment: Similarly in table 4, its dry biomass which I guess must be in grams or Kilograms or tons etc. Authors are requested to provide units for the values and inclusion of the standard error to the tables.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The Units of Dry Biomass has been included in the Table 4. Similarly standard error of mean has also been provided.
- Comment: Figure 3- Suggestion, from the figure it seems authors have performed statistical analysis, its suggested to please include statistical letters to the figures too (above error bar), as it will be easy to understand the differences in the yields.
Response: The Statistical letters to the figures 3 has been included for understanding in the revised manuscript.
Discussions – no comments
Conclusions – well drawn, well written
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
You are presenting an interesting study but I will have to ask you revise the manuscript according to notes given in the paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
- Comment: I would like to revise the abstract describing background, materials and methods and results.
Response: The abstract has been revised and background of the conducted research studies, materials and methods and results has been included in the revised manuscript. Abstract modified and highlighted at Page 1.
Introduction part comments:
- This does not fit here. First you need to finish on allelopathy and then you can move on to mulch. You have to restructure the rest here it too much mixed and unclear.
Response: The introduction section has been restructured and revised in the revised manuscript as per line reviewer’s comments. Introduction part modified and highlighted at Page 2.
- Comment: This is a control treatment.
Response: Control in the research studies indicates treatment without any mulch application or Herbicide spray. Yes it’s a control treatment. See at page 1 in abstract.
- Comment: Decrease in density compared to what. Will it be the same as relative density compared?
Response: Weed density means density of individual weed species in 0.25 m-2 area, whereas relative weed density mean density of individual weed specie out of total weed species present in the sampling area (0.25 m-2 area). See at page 1 in abstract. Equation modified and highlighted at Page 5.
- Comment: Please use same measure as in the sentence above.
Response: It has been addressed in the revised manuscript as desired. See at page 1 in abstract.
- Comment: This sentence is not easy to understand here because you have not given any explanation to the test species or to environmental factors here.
Response: The explanation for the test species have been provided in the introduction part of the revised manuscript.
- Comment: I don’t think this is part of the work
Response: Yes not part of work. Just information provided.
Results Section Comments:
- In General please restructure results so you only mention significant differences. Don’t mention results that is already present in the table. Is these data accumulated over two years? Don’t use Allelopathic effect as it is what that is not measured (Black plastic mulch) does not have any allelopathic effect. Please mention data for all the weeds accumulated in one table and only show a table for individual species. If it is important and if you actually discuss species differences. Perhaps one table for 75 DAS with the individual species and all parameters. Explain what density is.
Response: The results have been restructured in the revised manuscript. Yes data was accumulated in two years. Weed density indicates number of individual weed species present in 0.25 m-2 (sampling area of Quadrat). We explained species differences therefore data for all weed species was presented in one table.
- Comment: Only significant difference from living mulch.
Response: The overall trend of weed density reduction by various mulching treatment was in the following order: herbicide spray > black plastic mulch > sugarcane bagasse > maize stalk mulch > grass clipping > living mulch > dry leaves of mulberry.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I accept!
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: I accept!
Response: Thank you for your kind support for manuscript under consideration.
Reviewer 3 Report
Interesting work! I have enclosed a few comments in the document
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 3 (Round 2)
Interesting work! I have enclosed a few comments in the document
Response: Thank you for your effort and time for the improvement of the article.
I don't get this part! what is test weed species? were lentil sewn as a cover crop in wheat? and was leaves of mulberry incorprated in the same plots with lentil?
Response: Test weed species (target weed species identified for Control) using different mulch materials. These were the weed species found most troublesome for wheat production in the study area: Avena fatua, Carthamus oxyacantha, Chenopodium album, Convolvulus arvensis, Euphorbia helioscopia, Fumaria indica, Phalaris minor and Sonchus oleraceus.
Lentil was used as cover crop (live mulch), planted in between the rows of main (Wheat) crop just after sowing of wheat.
Are all these expected to have allelopathic effects? I think you should differentiate clearer between cover crops having allelopathic effects, those having other effects including competition towards weed plants and mulch that may have both of these effects.
Response: All the crops mentioned on the subject paragraph possess allelopathic effects including lentil (but lentil used as intercrop in the current research investigations influenced the main crop through competition).
Mulch is not living then it is cover crops!? Please differentiate between these!
Response: Yes dear Reviewer you are right, In crop production, a living mulch is a cover crop or intercrop which are grown in the main crop. The difference between the cover crop and live mulching is that the cover crops are incorporated in to soil or destroyed in the soil or killed by herbicides. In the current research studies, lentil was grown in between the rows of wheat (Hence correct nomenclature may be intercropping) after planting of wheat.
here you may mention both competition and allelopathy.
Response: Yes now we have mentioned both competition and allelopathy.
of plants having allelopathic effect!?.....
Response: The sentence in the revised manuscript has been restructured on the subject place to clear the confusion.
Again you have to differentiate allelopathic effect and competition or other effects!?you also mention that you use inorganic mulch I assume with no allelopathic effects!?.
Response: The sentence on the subject position has been restructured and now it covers both allelopathic effects and competition.
You will have to say something about the nitrogen content in these materials/treatments. I assume you did not measure the nutrient content that may have casued a higher nutrient level in the last three treatments?
Response: Yes we did not found nutrient content increase due to last three treatments.
is this number of plants in relation to total number of weed plants?.
Response: Yes, this is the number of plants in relation to total number of weed plants.
please delete it is not related to your study.
Response: Deleted as suggested by the reviewer.
Please delete.
Response: Deleted as suggested by the reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
