Ranking Species for Veld Restoration in Semi-Arid Regions Using Agronomic, Morphological and Chemical Parameters of Selected Grass Species at Different Developmental Stages under Controlled Environment
, Hilda Kwena Mokoboki 1,2, Sydney Mavengahama 2,3 and Lebogang Ezra Motsei 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title of the manuscript is too long and complicated. Abstract and introduction needs revision. Provide SAS version details. Add chemical analysis methodology if it was carried out in your lab using Van Soest et al. method. The manuscript needs rework rework on English Language and grammar corrections. The graphs needs to be modified(see comments)The conclusion section shows no new insights. It can be modified based on their findings.
Edits to be done:
Line 19: Use “ A greenhouse…..”
Line 34: Use “outperformed…….”
Line 36: Use “ those animals that graze grasses……”
Line 42: Use “a” in the sentence “ As part of ………” and Use “contribute” not “contributes”.
Line 54: Remove “the”
Line 75: Add “ Planted in individual…..”
Line 116: Please add the SAS version details
Line 151: Not “ages” but “age”
Line 160, 172: Please see in the comment box
Line 254: Redundancy of allows or enhances (use one of it)
Line 255: “carbohydrates” not “carbohydrate”
Line 258: use “significantly”
Line 263: use “tiller”
Line 314: Remove “the”
Line 315: Use “ degradation”
Line 321: use “higher”
Line 358: use “than those….”
Line 364:Use “ Acid detergent fiber is a part of …….”
Line 374: Use “increase”
Line 375: Incomplete sentence” prone to high ?....”
Line 397: remove “a”
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Ranking species for veld restoration in semi-arid regions using agronomic, morphological and chemical parameters of selected grass species at different developmental stages under controlled environment.
The above article describes a greenhouse trial evaluating the growth and chemical composition of 9 different forage species at 3 growth stages.
Overall review: This paper has conducted analyses that may be substantial enough to support a peer-review publication, however much more detail would be required to approve the manuscript. In particular the experimental design is not clear, as 99 pots are present and 9 species and 3 growth stages (which are assumed independent treatments) and triplicate replication is described, which gives an experiment of 81 pots.
It is also important to categorically state that the growth stage samples were in separate independent pots, as if this is not not the case the 2 way ANOVA may not be appropriate and an alternative statistical analysis may be required.
Finally, in order to achieve the goal of recommending species appropriate to address the issue it will be important to emphasise differences that can occur between greenhouse experiments and field experiments. Also, the rating index system needs more support if it is to be used, currently the varieties are rankedon each parameter and the average is then calculated, which would allow minor differences in a minor characteristic have the same influence as a major difference in another characteristic. My feeling is this analysis needs significant alteration.
Specific comments:
L41 – “the sole and most cost effective and easily accessible natural resource” – consider rewriting
L55 – consider “stages in harvested grasses”
L75 – Please provide more information about the formulation of the potting media and clarify its relationship to the paragraph above
L77 – The 9 species x 3 stages x 3 replicates = 81, so what are the other 18 pots?
L79- How much water?
L85-87 – The point described here is confusing, suggest rewriting
L97 – Evidence from the literature is needed to support this ranking system. It suggests that single unit differences are allocated to species without taking into account the scale of the difference
L115 – For ANOVA independence is required, please confirm earlier in the experimental design that all factors were independent.
Fig 1 – State what the error bars relate to
Table 5 – This regression analysis seems to not fit with the overall goal of the study.
L239 – Do plant heights in greenhouse trials correspond to effects seen in field trials? This should be discussed.
L311 – Please provide a reference to support this absolute statement
L390 – DM intake was modelled in this study so is this fair to state?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
