Impact of Conservation Tillage Technologies on the Biological Relevance of Weeds
and Magdalena Daria Vaverková 2,3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Impact of conservation tillage technologies on the biological relevance of weeds" is prepared quite clearly and comprehensibly.
The experimental research was carried out almost 20 years ago, but the manuscript was submitted to the journal only now. I wonder why the authors waited so long.
My opinion of the manuscript is quite good. I have only a few minor comments. If the authors take them into account, the manuscript could be accepted after minor revisions.
Lines 102-110. I would suggest to add what kind of agricultural machines were used, their brands, main parameters.
I would suggest adding future perspectives to the conclusions. Since now MT and NT are already quite popular technologies, what could be relevant research, looking from today's perspectives.
The list of references is long, but there are many old sources. I would suggest to abandon the oldest ones, if they are not very important, and to supplement them with new sources.
Author Response
Q: The manuscript entitled "Impact of conservation tillage technologies on the biological relevance of weeds" is prepared quite clearly and comprehensibly.
A: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your positive feedback on our work.
Q: The experimental research was carried out almost 20 years ago, but the manuscript was submitted to the journal only now. I wonder why the authors waited so long.
A: Very interesting question. Unfortunately, other work tasks had a higher priority, and the amount of time is very little. But we believe that the data is so interesting and worth publishing.
Q: My opinion of the manuscript is quite good. I have only a few minor comments. If the authors take them into account, the manuscript could be accepted after minor revisions.
A: Many thanks to the reviewer for giving us this opportunity.
Q: Lines 102-110. I would suggest to add what kind of agricultural machines were used, their brands, main parameters.
A: We agree and have edited and corrected.
Q: I would suggest adding future perspectives to the conclusions. Since now MT and NT are already quite popular technologies, what could be relevant research, looking from today's perspectives.
A: We agree and have edited and corrected.
Q: The list of references is long, but there are many old sources. I would suggest to abandon the oldest ones, if they are not very important, and to supplement them with new sources.
A: Due to older results, we also used older literature with interesting results.
We thank the reviewer for his/her valuable time to review and comment our manuscript and for all the recommendations to improve the level and quality of this paper.
Sincerely, on behalf of all authors,
JanWinkler
Reviewer 2 Report
The Materials and Methods section lacks clarity. Experimental protocols are not well described. Tillage treatments carries ambiguity. There is no mention that which tillage implement was used in CT and which one was used in MT. What was the working depth of these implements? What type of weeds were noted and which weedicide was used? Dose of its application? Its active ingredient? Life stage or age of weeds when weedicide was applied? Method of application of weedicide? Line 104: Sub-sowing? What does it describe? Line 183: Reference 58 shows clear contradiction with Reference given in Line 387. It reflects carelessness at the end of writer.
Author Response
Q: The Materials and Methods section lacks clarity. Experimental protocols are not well described. Tillage treatments carries ambiguity. There is no mention that which tillage implement was used in CT and which one was used in MT.
A: Thank you very much for this comment. We edited M+M
Q: What was the working depth of these implements?
A: Thank you very much for this comment. The depth of processing is shown in lines 104-106.
Q: What type of weeds were noted and which weedicide was used? Dose of its application? Its active ingredient? Life stage or age of weeds when weedicide was applied? Method of application of weedicide? Line 104: Sub-sowing? What does it describe?
A: Thank you very much for this comment. Corrected.
Q: Line 183: Reference 58 shows clear contradiction with Reference given in Line 387. It reflects carelessness at the end of writer.
Thank you for pointing out the typo in the name (line 387 error "Torresan" listed corrected to "Torreson").
We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely, on behalf of all authors,
Jan Winkler
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Suggested changes has been properly incorporated.
