Seed Rate and Cultivar Effect on Contribution of Vicia sativa L. Green Manure to Soil Amendment under Mediterranean Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

DearAuthor,

Your paper entitled “Advantages of incorporating common vetch genotypes as green manure under low seed rate. A comparative field study under Mediterranean conditions towards a sustainable farming system” deals with a topic of great interest that falls within the aim of the Journal. Anyway, the manuscript has many flaws and needs MAJOR revisions.

My greatest concern is that the statistical analysis is not appropriate, thus results are not endorsed and wrongly presented and, accordingly, not sufficiently far-reaching. Introduction should be improved, and discussion is uncertain and not exhaustive.

The English style of the manuscript would benefit from reading through a native speaker. Several phrases appear at least uncommon, subjects and verbs are not in accordance, words are wrongly used.

There are many typos, writing errors, and concept mistakes in the text.
The reference list was carelessly prepared, references are not edited as requested by Agriculture (please refer to Authors’ guidelines).

Specific suggestions to improve the submission are given.

good luck!

Regards

Specific suggestions:

The title is too vague and too long and it is inadequate for the content, and uncommunicative. It should be something like: “Seed rate and genotype can affect the contribute of green manure vetch to soil residual N, in Mediterranean environments” or something similar reflecting the topic of the paper.

Introduction should be improved to better highlight the gap of knowledge leading to the present aims (lines 99-103), that are: investigate the effects of: i) seed rate, ii) and genotypes on: a) crop growth and b) soil amendment.

Some statements need proper references:

- line 62 response to abiotic stress: doi:10.1139/cjps-2015-0268 and dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392014000300003; to N availability 10.1017/S0014479716000685; to biotic stress 10.1094/PDIS-93-12-1348B

- line 67 multi-purpose crop: doi: 10.4081/ija.2018.1112; doi.org/10.5154/r.rchsh.2010.04.013.

- line 70 weed control: Ercoli et al. 2007. Allelopathic effects of rye, brown mustard and hairy vetch on redroot pigweed, common lambsquarter and knotweed. Allelopathy Journal, 19:249-256 (ISSN: 09714693).

Lines 86-92 this has already been said above in the intro.

Methods: Table 1 should be improved (eg exchangeable bases are chemical properties).

It is not clear if treatments were repeated on the same plots, and how and if a second sowing of the crop was performed.

Why does table 2 report the 2-year average? Where did you state there were similar in the two years? and why different genotypes are listed? If there are differences among genotypes why no way to separate them is present? I mean: is 61 different from 63? And from 64?

Lines 153-156 why here in “determination of N content…?”

Lines 163-171 these appear as repeated measures and should be accordingly analyzed.

Line 185 editing of the paragraph name is not correct

How was the year treatment studied? Lines 207-209 are not acceptable, as there could be a main effect of year (I think this is very probable).

These inconsistencies in ANOVA make the results not endorsed, moreover, results are not correctly reported. Only as example table 2 seems to depict an interaction seed rate x genotype as letters are referring in this way: but why 103.2 has a c and 110.6 has a b? and 110.3 a c. The table is not readable.

N content is incorrect, it is N concentration (mg N/kg biomass) (values from Kjeldhal).

Results and discussion do not specifically address the stated objectives of this study. Other than stating main effects and interactions had a significant effect, information showing/explaining the effect of seed rate and genotype.

References are sometimes cited in a wrong way (only eg. Line 442, 509…).

Line 479 what is N3?

Author Response

we thank the reviewer for the valuable comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The specific comments are in the attached file (manuscript with reviewer comments),

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

we thank the reviewer for the valuable comments - our response is given point by point and on the pdf file of the reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear  Author,

Most of my concerns have been addressed: Introduction has been improved as main agronomic features of vetch have been reported and discussed, but the first paragraphs (lines 36-41) are still too vague and verbose.

Aims have been clarified, anyway the English is still uncommon and unclear:  “Therefore, the two-fold objective of the study was: a. to compare the performance of common vetch cultivars grown individually in pure stands or as cultivar mixtures and b.to investigate the effect of applied seed rate, on their agronomic traits (plant height, LAI, biomass production, CGR and N accumulation ability) and on soil amendment (increase of residual N and organic matter decomposition) for use as green manure under Mediterranean conditions.

I would simply refer to the title, the aims should be “to study the effect of 1) Seed rate and 2) cultivar/genotype on a) Vicia sativa L. green manure growth and b) on soil characteristics under Mediterranean conditions”. This would also make consistent aim, methods and results.

Methods have been clarified. Table caption are now self-explicative.

Discussion has not been amended/improved, and looks substantially unchanged.

Finally, some Typos, writing errors, and concept mistakes have been amended

but some remain.
Only eg Line 115 at the Institute.

Days after sowing (DAS) until anthesis is pleonastic. It should be days from sowing to anthesis.

Growth stages should refer to a growth scale to permit reproducibility.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Lines 36-41

Author’s response: Indeed lines 36-41 could be omitted without affecting the structure of the Introduction. Nevertheless, we believe that climate change is among the most important problems that humanity is facing. In our opinion, this should be emphasized and be the source of inspiration for new research. In this context, we would like to maintain lines 36-41 since climate change mitigation was the trigger for our research as well.

Line 102

Author’s response: Changes have been made according to suggestion “Therefore, our two-fold objective of the study was to study the effect of: 1. Seed rate and 2. Cultivar/Genotype on a. a) Vicia sativa L. green manure growth (plant height, LAI, biomass production, CGR and N accumulation ability) and b) on soil amendment (increase of residual N and organic matter decomposition) under Mediterranean conditions”.

Trades in brackets were strongly suggested by the 2nd Reviewer 

Line 115

Author’s response: Correction has been made according to suggestion (line 118 in the revised manuscript)

Days after sowing (DAS) until anthesis is pleonastic. It should be days from sowing to anthesis.

Author’s response: Use of DAS in the analysis was strongly suggested by the 2nd Reviewer

Growth stages should refer to a growth scale to permit reproducibility.

Author’s response: Phenological stages have been identified as growth stage/BBCH 65: 50% flowers open according to suggestion (lines 161, 197 in revised manuscript)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx