Mechanical Weed Control: Sensor-Based Inter-Row Hoeing in Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in the Transylvanian Depression
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction is too long and provides for many unnecessary informations. Please reorganize it by shortening and deleting informations that do not provide additional information to the manuscript.
Results:
line 107-115: correct weeds species scientific name and authority
Figure 1 : provides letters for distinguish the 2 images and correct the fist one by providing labels within square brackets.
lines 124-126: rewrite these sentences.
Figure 2: write on plot axis what they represent
line 131: WCE is explained in the discussion section which is in line 188. Please write the extended form of parameters or whatever the first time they apper in the manuscript.
table 2: different letters represents values with significant differences? add p values and add these informations in figure caption and text.
table 3: same as table 2
line 155: provides for 2021 yield results in table 4
Figure 3: in my opinion is better a bar plot. Why authors named this plot 'specific curves'? It represent the effect of different treatments at 2 different moments. is not enough to produce a curve.
Discussion:
Discussion section lack of comparison with other works. Authors need to make an effort in find similar studies and compare from different point of views their results.
Materials and methods:
line 218: correct (beta vulgaris)
line 226-228: provide additional informations regarding the tillage operations, tractor and tool used
table 6: add at least temperature data
table 7: why authors refers to table 3 here?
line 245: add manufacturer info of '3 m wide camera 245 guided hoeing system Chopstar from Einböck'
from line 245 to line 257: divide this part in a Mechanical treatments subparagraphs and move the mechanical implements in this section. to enhance the clarity.
do the same for the herbicides treatments.
correct WCE equation format
Is there a specific reason to analyze years separately? why authors did not analyzed everything together so to find and comment eventual interactions? Also provides anova results in a table.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
authors need to reorganize the manuscript so to improve the clarity.
Shorten the introduction, dividing materials and method in more subsections are some ideas.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the manuscript is relevant. May be of interest to readers. However, the current level of the manuscript allows us to believe in a better presentation.
See my comments below:
· Line 60. It is necessary to correct km/h-1
· According to the journal's instructions for authors, Research manuscript sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions (optional). This requirement for section order is not correct in this manuscript. This is not a good presentation because reading the results raises so many questions.
· Table 7. What is the purpose of the abbreviations HWC 2021 and HWC 2022? Because they are no longer used in the manuscript.
· Figure 7 is first mentioned in the text, followed by Figure 6.
· Figure 7 shows an incorrect scale of 12.5 cm and 1.0 cm.
· Line 308. When writing a tractor or other agricultural machine, it is necessary to indicate the type of machine, the manufacturer and the country.
· Line 325. The same for the sugar beet harvester.
· Line 114. Figure 1 has no numbers, nothing in parentheses.
· Figure 2. What does A, B, C mean.
· Figure 3. MWC, HWC and HWC+MWC are different weed control options and cannot be connected in lines. A bar graph would work better here.
· Figure 3 shows the weed control efficacy results for 2022, but does not show 2021.
· Lines 161-165. It is not clear on what basis such a sugar beet yield is written. The results obtained do not indicate this.
· Conclusions should summarize research findings with future perspectives. But there should be no source analysis.
Overall, the manuscript did not leave a good impression. Therefore, I propose to reorganize the manuscript fundamentally so that it can be published in the journal Agronomy.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Review of the manuscript entitled „Mechanical weed control: sensor-based inter-row hoeing in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. Vulgaris L.) in Romania”The reviewed manuscript concerns weed management in sugar beet and the reduction of herbicide use within IPM.
The methodology from the manuscript does not well describe the method of conducting research, especially in the part regarding the application of herbicides. The authors write that the research included 4 experiments. Meanwhile, results from two years were presented and it was not written that the results from each year were the mean of two experiments. The question arises: how many experiments were conducted? Table 7 (l. 242) shows that herbicides were used three times. When describing herbicide spraying, the reader is referred to Table 3, which contains data on weed density and WCE. The authors' intention was probably to direct the reader to Table 8. Meanwhile, in the further description of the methodology - lines 265-269, the authors wrote that 6 herbicide sprayings were carried out in 2021, and 4 sprayings in 2022. Generally, the intention of combining mechanical and chemical weed control is not only to improve effectiveness, but also to reduce herbicide doses. The authors did not clearly demonstrate whether such a reduction occurred.
The way the results are presented is messy and incomplete. The weed control effectiveness results for 2021 and 2022 are presented in a completely different way. The authors write that in 2021 there were no differences in yield between treatments. Knowing the biology of sugar beet and the impact of weeds on this crop, it seems unrealistic. Even if this was the case, it was necessary to explain why it happened. Data on the most important parameter, i.e. yield, are therefore represented numerically for one year, which makes them unsuitable for an original peer-reviewed scientific publication.
The results regarding issues related to weed management in sugar beet include, in most articles in this field, data on weight of weeds (fresh or fresh and dry), and, above all, sucrose content in beet roots, which allows for the calculation of sugar recovery percentage. The manuscript in its present form is not suitable for publication as an original scientific article. After major changes in the methodology, results and discussion, according to the comments presented in the review, it can be resubmitted as an article with preliminary results in the title.
Detailed commentsl. 25: It should be ”Beta vulgaris”
l. 45-46. Desmedipham has been withdrawn from use in the EU. Therefore, the sentence „The most important herbicide mixtures contain the following active ingredients: metamitron, phenmedipham, desmedipham and ethofumesate” should be amended to reflect the current status of the recommendations, e.g. “The most important herbicide mixtures contain the following active ingredients: metamitron, phenmedipham, ethofumesate. Before being withdrawn from use in the EU, the mixtures included desmedipham also.” l. 48: not “3–5 post herbicide applications” but “3–5 postemergence herbicide applications” probably. l. 229. In addition to describing the soil as "loam", it is worth providing its classification according to FAO: IUSS Working Group WRB. 2015. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106. FAO, Rome.
Date of manuscript received: 19 December 2023
Date of this review: 22 December 2023 Comments on the Quality of English Language The English language of the manuscript is understandable, but requires detailed linguistic and stylistic corrections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors addressed the comments, however the manuscript language still need to be edited in order to improve clarity.
In my opinion introduction should be further sharpened in order to clearly highlight problems and prospectives. Discussion as well
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish check is required throughout the manuscript
Author Response
Authors addressed the comments, however the manuscript language still need to be edited in order to improve clarity.
Answer: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for appreciating the improvements made to our paper. We also thank you for the recommendations made, they were made as follows:
In my opinion introduction should be further sharpened in order to clearly highlight problems and prospectives. Discussion as well
Answer: All paper was checked for English language correction; the introduction and discussions have been clarified for accuracy and to include new research perspectives. All changes are made with red color.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been quite heavily corrected and improved. In my opinion, a manuscript in this condition could be accepted with minor corrections.
Figure 5. Too little informative figure. The machines should be presented from a closer distance. Then at least the construction would be visible.
Figure 6. What is shown in figures a and b should be explained?
Figure 7. Very poor quality in figures b. What do the numbers mean? What are their units? Percentage?
Table 7. write the sign (-) above ha. t ha-1
Author Response
The manuscript has been quite heavily corrected and improved. In my opinion, a manuscript in this condition could be accepted with minor corrections.
Answer: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for appreciating the improvements made to our paper. We also thank you for the recommendations made, they were made as follows:
Figure 5. Too little informative figure. The machines should be presented from a closer distance. Then at least the construction would be visible.
Answer: we have included 2 new pictures (Figure 5) that show the machine in detail and the effect on the work performed in the field.
Figure 6. What is shown in figures a and b should be explained?
Answer: we have included in the explanation of the Figure 6 what a and b respectively represent.
Figure 7. Very poor quality in figures b. What do the numbers mean? What are their units? Percentage?
Answer: the Figure 7 has been redone, now it is much clearer and we explain what it represents (%)
Table 7. write the sign (-) above ha. t ha-1
Answer: thank you very much, we made the corrections
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made corrections in accordance with the reviewers' comments. Necessary corrections and additions have been made. It is worth making some changes in the revised version of the manuscript in the "Conclusions" section. This applies to both style - too long sentences - and content.
The sentence “Results show that is possible to reduce the pre-emergence herbicidesbut not replace the post-emergence ones entirely in sugar beet weed control scheme
from Romania because of the weed density and abundance of species in most of the
farms, and could be achieved a better yield including the integrated strategies of weed
management”, should be divided into shorter ones. Weed infestation in Romania should
be compared to the situation in Western European countries. The second part of the conclusions,
which should refer strictly to the presented research, is more like an introduction and discussion.
An example of this is the sentence "Kunz, et.al studied that automatic machine guidance systems
for inter-row weed hoeing have slightly increased efficacy of weed control compared to
conventional mechanical weed control methods" which is recommended to be deleted.
After taking into account the suggested changes, the manuscript can be published.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language is correct and understandable, but stylistic corrections would be welcome.
Author Response
The authors made corrections in accordance with the reviewers' comments. Necessary corrections and additions have been made.
Answer: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for appreciating the improvements made to our paper. We also thank you for the recommendations made, they were made as follows:
It is worth making some changes in the revised version of the manuscript in the "Conclusions" section. This applies to both style - too long sentences - and content.
The sentence “Results show that is possible to reduce the pre-emergence herbicides but not replace the post-emergence ones entirely in sugar beet weed control scheme from Romania because of the weed density and abundance of species in most of the farms, and could be achieved a better yield including the integrated strategies of weed management”, should be divided into shorter ones.
Answer: The sentence has been clarified and split into several sentences. The changes are marked in red.
Weed infestation in Romania should be compared to the situation in Western European countries.
Answer: We have this sentence:
*We also have to specify that weed abundance is much higher in Romania that in the West Europe countries that cultivates sugar beet, species of weeds that grow in agricultural lands are up to 5–6 times more than in Germany for example. Under these conditions we consider that this study is necessary and further studies are needed to improve weed control and yield in sugar beet.*
The second part of the conclusions, which should refer strictly to the presented research, is more like an introduction and discussion. An example of this is the sentence "Kunz, et.al studied that automatic machine guidance systems for inter-row weed hoeing have slightly increased efficacy of weed control compared to conventional mechanical weed control methods" which is recommended to be deleted.
Answer: sentence has been deleted, and phrases clarified for accuracy
After taking into account the suggested changes, the manuscript can be published.
Answer: thank you very much
