Biomass and Protein Yields of Field Peas and Oats Intercrop Affected by Sowing Norms and Nitrogen Fertilizer at Two Different Stages of Growth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the revised draft is in much better shape but still, I have concerns about data interpretation. Data presented in Fig 2 and 3 are not convincing. Table 4 indicated that the authors analyzed data following three-way ANOVA separately for 2016, 2017 and 2018. For years 2017 and 2018, three-way ANOVA was significant for hay yield and crude protein yield but for year 2016 was non-significant. Therefore, the authors have to draw out the three-way Figs taking phases, N levels and crops as factor but the authors used year, N levels and crop factors which is totally wrong. They have to use phases rather than years and has to draw out the Figs separately for years 2017 and 2018 only as interaction during 2016 was non-significant. Likewise, they have to draw out the three-way Fig for biomass yield for all three years taking phases, N levels and Crops as factors. It will be a better option to draw three-way table rather than Figs. The authors did not insert SE and just put lettering for average yield only. Average yield has some merit when years effects will be non-significant and in this case no need of data of all years. After that change results section accordingly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very thankful for the second round of suggestions and your effort. In the corrected manuscript, you can find all the corrections made in regards to the suggestions of all reviewers.

In regards to your suggestion and observations:

„Data presented in Fig 2 and 3 are not convincing. Table 4 indicated that the authors analyzed data following three-way ANOVA separately for 2016, 2017 and 2018. For years 2017 and 2018, three-way ANOVA was significant for hay yield and crude protein yield but for year 2016 was non-significant. Therefore, the authors have to draw out the three-way Figs taking phases, N levels and crops as factor but the authors used year, N levels and crop factors which is totally wrong. They have to use phases rather than years and has to draw out the Figs separately for years 2017 and 2018 only as interaction during 2016 was non-significant. Likewise, they have to draw out the three-way Fig for biomass yield for all three years taking phases, N levels and Crops as factors. It will be a better option to draw three-way table rather than Figs. The authors did not insert SE and just put lettering for average yield only. Average yield has some merit when years effects will be non-significant and in this case no need of data of all years. After that change results section accordingly.“

 

The concerns and suggestions made by You were all thorough and crucial to us, and likewise to this manuscript. We have carefully followed your suggestions and added figures to include the phase factor, which was overlooked in the previous version. We would also like to add that besides adding figures for the years 2017 and 2018 for crude protein yields, we have also added a figure for the year 2016 since this year had significant differences for all the tested factors as 2017. and 2018.

 

Once again, we are very thankful for the second round of your suggestions, as we put a lot of effort and care into making this manuscript as precise as possible.

Best regards,

 

Authors

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The mixtures of field pea and oat grown for forage are suitable for areas with shortage of some environmental factors. In this aspect the presented manuscript shows intresting results that can be directly adopted to agricultural practice of fooder production. 

The methodology of performed experiment and analyses as well as results are well described. The discussion part could be more developed.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very thankful for the second round of suggestions and your effort, as we put a lot of care into making this manuscript as precise as possible. In the corrected manuscript, you can find all the corrections made in regards to the suggestions of all reviewers.

Best regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

 

 The article “Biomass and protein yields of field peas and oats intercrops affected by sowing norms and nitrogen fertilizer at two different stages of growth” is an interesting topic. The presentation of results and discuss in the light of researchers results is good. The authors have presented more data and are wroth. However, I have still some important minor suggestion.

General comments

Line 16: no relation with your study, please delete.

Line 19: change kg ha-1 to kg ha^-1

Line 30-32: Please re-phrase

Line 38: Please write (shows a decline in the quality of forage)

Figure 2 and 3: I suggest re-plotting and please add statistical letters and standard error.

Conclusion: please combine in one paragraph

Please avoid old citations and use recent (2015-2021)

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very thankful for the second round of suggestions and your effort. In the corrected manuscript, you can find all the corrections made in regards to the suggestions of all reviewers.

More specifically we would like to responde point by point to Your suggestions and clarify the specifics of this second round.

 

Reviewer suggestion 1: Line 16: no relation with your study, please delete.

Authors response: Delted

Reviewer suggestion 2: Line 19: change kg ha-1 to kg ha-1

Authors response: Changed

Reviewer suggestion 3: Line 30-32: Please re-phrase

Authors response: Corrected

Reviewer suggestion 4: Line 38: Please write (shows a decline in the quality of forage)

Authors response: Corrected

Reviewer suggestion 5: Figure 2 and 3: I suggest re-plotting and please add statistical letters and standard error.

Authors response: More figures have been added to clarify this issue (as suggested by other reviewers). Also we have added both lettering and standard error to the figures.

Reviewer suggestion 6: Conclusion: please combine in one paragraph

Authors response: Corrected

Reviewer suggestion 7: Please avoid old citations and use recent (2015-2021)

Authors response: We have updated most of the literature and included the latest research on the subject. Some literature that has remained presents the material associated with the methodology and procedure for these trials. All can be viewed in the newly updated manuscript.

Once again, we are very thankful for the second round of your suggestions, as we put a lot of effort and care into making this manuscript as precise as possible.

Best regards,

 

Authors

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments included are suggestions. See attached document for details.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very thankful for Your response and suggestions as we found them to be crucial for the correction of our manuscript and possible publishing in the MDPI Agriculture journal. In the newly submitted manuscript you can check and evaluate all the changes we have made regarding the suggestions You have made, and the suggestion other reviewers have made.

More specifically we would like to respond point by point to Your suggestions and clarify the specifics.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors describe the Biomass and protein yield of field pea and oat intercrops affected by sowing ratio and nitrogen fertiliser at two different stages of growth. The title is a little long.

They describe the effects of different fertilizers, please refer to a new study (2021) that addresses this topic. In the descriptive section of the material, I recommend that the authors read and supplement the manuscript with a discussion with research on the obtained biomass:

Konieczna, A., Roman, K., Roman, M., Śliwiński, D., & Roman, M. (2021). Energy Efficiency of Maize Production Technology: Evidence from Polish Farms. Energies, 14(1), 1–20. http://doi.org/10.3390/en14010170

It would be also good to describe the economic impact of the technology used and compare how much the commonly used technology (an example estimate by the used fertilizers) would cost to that proposed by the author's technology. This is important because the cost of implementing the technology is the basis for its application. 

I am not sure about the correlation drawings if they have been properly prepared. Do the authors know what is happening between the averages in the anova chart? is there really a linear waveform? proposes to remove them. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very thankful for Your response and suggestions as we found them to be crucial for the correction of our manuscript and possible publishing in the MDPI Agriculture journal. In the newly submitted manuscript you can check and evaluate all the changes we have made regarding the suggestions You have made, and the suggestion other reviewers have made.

More specifically we would like to respond point by point to Your suggestions and clarify the specifics.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I have evaluated the manuscript (agriculture-1253027) entitled “Biomass and protein yield of field pea and oat intercrops affected by sowing ratio and nitrogen fertiliser at two different stages of growth” submitted for publication in ‘Agriculture’. The manuscript has the following problems to be improved.

1. I have concerns about data analysis. Authors studied three factors for three consecutive years under field conditions using factorial design. Therefore, the authors analyze data at least using three-way ANOVA separately for each year. If three-way interaction is significant then the authors should focus only on interaction results rather than focusing the individual factors. Therefore, the authors should redraw the tables showing three-way interaction and then rewrite the whole results section. Also put lettering to differentiate the means in Figs.
2. Discussion section should be separate from results. In its current form results are not logically explained.  In discussion section, the authors should explain results logically and try to correlate the results to draw some important implications of study. Mere comparison with the results of some earlier studies is not discussion.
3. Add economic analysis to judge the economic suitability of used treatments.
4. In abstract section, background of study and concrete conclusion based on study results is missing. Treatments used needs clarity and avoid use of abbreviations without explaining once. The 1^st sentence of abstract is difficult to follow.
5. Many statements in introduction section are given without proper citation. For instance, from line 37-50 and in last paragraph of this section relevant literature is not cited. Moreover, whole section is focused on Serbia which make it to better fit in some local journal. Scientific names of crops are missing. Rationale and novelty of study is not clear.
6. Details about crop husbandry (details of seedbed preparation, seed rate, sowing method/geometry, irrigation and fertilizer details weeds, management, sowing and harvesting dates etc.) is totally missing. Treatments need clarity. What are net plot size dimensions?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very thankful for Your response and suggestions as we found them to be crucial for the correction of our manuscript and possible publishing in the MDPI Agriculture journal. In the newly submitted manuscript you can check and evaluate all the changes we have made regarding the suggestions You have made, and the suggestion other reviewers have made.

More specifically we would like to respond point by point to Your suggestions and clarify the specifics.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx