Target-Site Resistance to Glyphosate in Chloris Virgata Biotypes and Alternative Herbicide Options for its Control
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Target-site resistance to glyphosate in Chloris virgata biotypes and alternative herbicide options for its control" aims to evaluate the herbicide programs for identifying effective herbicide options for the control of GR C. virgata. I consider this study interesting since it addresses one of the major problems present in agriculture in Australia.
The Abstract is written well with clear justification and proper explanation.
Nonetheless, I have some comments about the introduction, material, and method, and the results and discussion section. Please, find the specific suggestions below:
Abstract:
Line 10: “Due” not bold.
Introduction:
Line 34: Chloris virgata change with C. virgata.
Line 43: Chloris virgata change with C. virgata. After the first full formation of the scientific name. No need to continue with the complete scientific name again and again. Check the whole article.
Line 66: Check this line – “tactical” ?
Line 66,67,68: Rewrite this sentence. Not clear.
Material and method:
Line 90: Give the dimensions of the pot.
Line 91: “January 2019” – Give a more specific duration.
Line 92: What were the quantity of water and the interval of watering.
Table 3. “ae” or “ai” continue with a specific one.
Line 155: What is the maximum duration?
Result and discussion:
Line 207: About the digits, consider 3 digits or 4 digits and constant with it in the whole article.
Line 227: Before [22] “]” delete it.
Figure 1. : “Survival percentage (%)” change the font “Palatino Linotype.” Check other axis titles.
Table 5: Chloris virgata change with C. virgata.
Table 6: Chloris virgata change with C. virgata.
Line 329-332: Divide into two precise lines.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic has an interest, however the paper's novelty is inadequately highlighted. For instance, Figure 1 should be sigmoid and Table 6 is rather poorr since it should also include each herbicide alone (i.e. glufosinate ammonium, paraquat) in order to evaluate the efficacy of each component and the potential synergistic action. The last sentence of abstract is wrong (something is missing there), while authors should justify why a resistance level of 20 is considered as being moderate resistant. A major revision is necessary.
Author Response
Attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
A very well-written and logical manuscript with only very minor suggested changes as outlined below:
Line 18 - full stop after 'gene' and starting new sentence with 'Performance....'.
Line 23 - changing to '...paraquat provided 100% control of all four biotypes.....'
Line 24 - delete 'the' to read '.....showed that target-site....'
Line 26 - should 'and' be 'aid'?
Line 38 - delete 'total'
Line 44 - require reference for seed production.
Line 46 - hairs instead of hair
Line 54 - change to '.....such changes have influenced weed management tactics, causing an over-reliance....'
Line 55 - change to 'This has resulted in ...'
Line 57 - change to '....use of glyphosate and single knockdown....'
Line 69 - change to '...in a sequence has been shown to control several...'
Lines 70-71 - Delete sentence 'Weed species are known ….. of plant metabolism.'
Lines 71-72 - Change to 'Applications of different herbicide MOA could lower the risk for development of....'
Line 85 - change to '...in paper bags labelled for future identification.'
Section 2.6 (Lines 139-146) - Need to define how many plants/pot
Line 157 - change to '...were recorded 28 days after herbicide...'
Line 158 - change to '...for the glyphosate ….'
Line 159 - change to '...were recorded 28 days after the second...'
Line 187 - consider changing 'period' to 'history'
Line 197 - delete 'first'
Line 198 - change to '....in 2015 in Australia...' and '...other cases confrimed in ....'
Figure 1 - Label A and B and refer to in caption. For Dry Matter graph, consider changing y-axis label to (% reduction of untreated). Caption - italicise Chloris virgata.
Line 220 - change to '...application of glyphosate alone may...'
Line 222 - 223 - change to '.....mixture and as a first treatment as part of a double knock herbicide application. Glyphosate as part of a double knock has been effective in the control of many weed species such as ….'
Line 225 - change to '...considerable control of many...'
Line 227 - 228 - change to '....the biotypes in this study......glyphosate dose of 9.120...'
Line 233 - change 'has' to 'was'
Line 234 - delete 'It' and change to 'This could be because there are...'
Line 235 - change to 'number than for the two...'
Line 252 - change from 'biotypes' to 'biotype'
Line 254 -change to '....it is more geographically isolated from the other two...'
Tables 6 and 7 (incorrectly labelled) - have vertical line between survival and dry matter data. Also, might be helpful to define which populations are GS and GR in the figure captions.
Line 275 - change to '.....of C. virgata killing 100% of seedlings when sprayed at...'
Line 281 - change to '...not very effective in controlling C. virgata ...'
Line 284 - change from reductions' to 'reduction'
Line 293 - change to '...control on any of the biotypes of...'
Line 302 - change to '...in cereals [36].'
Line 308 - change to 'Therefore it is suggested...'
Line 309 - I don't think herbicide selection pressure is the correct terminology for what you are referring to. Perhaps change to 'In this situation, farmers would not be able to control C. virgata with these glyphosate alternatives.'
Lines 316, 318, 332 - should be Table 7.
Line 337 - change to '...early growth stages.'
Line 341 - supports not suports
Line 343 and 348 - spelling of strategy
Line 344 - change to '....of glyphosate and reduce the risk...'
Line 348 - change to '...nature of the double knock strategy, it can be an effective option for controlling GR...'
Line 352 - change to '....considering the poor economic viability...'
Line 353 - delete 'to control C. virgata'.
Line 360 - delete 'effectively'
Line 363 - change to '...the fact that the double...'
Line 364-365 - change to '...chemical weed control in the future.' You have mispelled control and I have added 'the' before future.
Author Response
Attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Language - missing words or fragmented sentences randomly occur in the text.
Double knock - where is the difference between results of this part of the study and the previous part - alternative herbicide options? Glyphosate can control only susceptible biotypes, not resistant ones - that is clear already from dose-response trial. Paraquat can control all the biotypes - that was proven before. I find this part of the study redundant.
Author Response
Attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have addressed the major issues raised by the reviewers.
