Nitrogen Fertilization and Glyphosate as a Growth Regulator: Effects on the Nutritional Efficiency and Nutrient Balance in Emerald Grass

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this Manuscript (Nitrogen fertilization and glyphosate as a growth regulator in nutritional efficiency and nutrients balance of emerald grass).  The study has great results and demonstrates that fertilization with 15 g N m-2 associated with application of 400 g a.i. ha-1 of 461 glyphosate is recommended for emerald grass. There is some aspect that should be reviewed by authors, but the Manuscript is well-written.

 

The introduction is poor. The authors could explore more information about N influence on plants, for example. Give more details about studies with nitrogen and Glyphosate.

Line 55: describe the Ca and Mg

Line 66: why the authors used sod carpets? Give more details about it.

The authors could add a Figure with the treatments, focusing in sod carpets?

Line 80: Explain the N splitting. Five applications? How? N rates?

Explain why “herbicide was applied 15 days”?

Lines 88-89: “e different intervals are because under Brazilian conditions the growth 88 of grass in the autumn/winter is not as intense as in spring/summer.” It was not clear. IS there a size for herbicide application?

Why the authors used the emerald grasses? Explain in the text

Comments in the text the rate in hectare. I think the rates in kg ha-1 is a better form to demonstrate the rates.

Table 1 and 2 (all tables): Add the F value for Nitrogen and Glyphosate insolated.

The results of study explain clearly that glyphosate reduce the plant development and N increase. Why the goal of study? Increase or reduce? If reduce to which size? It is confused in the study because there is no clear idea. Which is the balance of N and glyphosate rates for dry matter?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We are submitting the point-by-point response letter (attached) to reviewers with all suggested changes made and underlined.

We hope that this version meets the reviewers requirement.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is clearly within the scope of the Journal Agronomy. In the study, the interaction between nitrogen and glyphosate on the growth and nutritional status of emerald grass was investigated. The methods and analysis used for the review is generally sound and the text is in general clear.

However, some essential improvements should be done on sections of the introduction and results of manuscript. Thus, I have attached pdf file that contains suggestions and recommendations for the authors.

Therefore, it should be reconsidered after major revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We are submitting the point-by-point response letter (attached) to reviewers with all suggested changes made and underlined.

We hope that this version meets the reviewers requirement.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewing “Nitrogen fertilization and glyphosate as a growth regulator in nutritional efficiency and nutrients balance of emerald grass”. Nitrogen (N) plays a prominent role in the plant metabolic system. It is also a principal component of many organic compounds (protein, nucleic acids, alkaloids enzyme) and is also associated with energy transfer molecules like adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) (ATP). In the current study, authors evaluated the coupling effects of nitrogen and glyphosate on nutrient efficiency of emerald grass. Please find below my concerns/suggestions/comments.

Add some numerical results in abstract. In current form abstract seems like a general summary.

Line 27-28: Authors have given the recommendation. Is this recommendation for all kind of soil and climatic conditions around the globe? Is it fine to give the recommendation based on one year experimentation?

Introduction is written poorly and devoid of recent and updated literature.

Significance of the current study is missing in introduction.

What makes this study special? Enrich the introduction with recent and updated literature. Add reference in line 31 i.e., doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.877544

Provide climatic data during the experimentation period.

Did authors checked the normal distribution of the data? If yes, then which method authors used?

I would suggest authors to check the activities of key enzymes (GS, GOGAT, GDH, and SPC) in nitrogen metabolism to increase the significance of the current study.

Moreover, enrich the introduction especially discussion part with recent and update literature. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.862088;

Add a solid future prospects statement at the end of the conclusion.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We are submitting the point-by-point response letter (attached) to reviewers with all suggested changes made and underlined.

We hope that this version meets the reviewers requirement.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of manuscript clearly indicated that essential improvements have been done regarding to our suggested lines and given recommendations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have improved the manuscript based on my suggestions/comments.