All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I would like to thank you for accepting of referees' suggestions and improving your article based on their suggestions. I believe your manuscript is now ready for publication, but two small corrections suggested by a reviewer should be considered during the production. We look forward to your next article.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
very good
no problems
very good
on line 263 Change "Dark-inhibited" to "Dark inhibited"
In the caption to Figure 1, need to say what a, b, c and d are.
The study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the types of dormancy observed in Diplachi fusca and seasonal environmental changes, assess the lifespan of the soil seed bank, and evaluate potential weed control methods along with ecological adaptation strategies. In this section, the requested corrections and additions have been appropriately implemented.
The methodological framework is appropriate, and fundamental corrections regarding the sections requiring revision have been made and supported by the literature.
The findings generally demonstrate robustness and consistency. It appears that corrections have been made.
Diplachne fusca is a common grass weed that causes severe yield losses in many crops. Like other troublesome weeds, creating an effective weed management program is only possible if its biology is well understood. Therefore, your research has the potential to contribute new findings on its biology. However, it is essential to address some technical aspects to clarify your article. I suggest thoroughly reviewing the reviewers' suggestions and carefully considering each recommendation. If you disagree with any particular suggestion, it would be beneficial to provide clear and well-reasoned justifications for your perspective.
The authors have asked good questions, and the research was carefully done. The manuscript is easy to follow, and the data support the conclusions. However, I do suggest some minor changes in the wording in various places in the manuscript.
The work was well designed. In particular the authors used freshly-matured seeds.
The conclusions are well supported by the data that the authors collected.
The authors have asked good questions, and the research was carefully done. The manuscript is easy to follow, and the data support the conclusions. However, I do suggest some minor changes in the wording in various places in the manuscript.
Line 25, 30. Change “two” to “2” If a number less than 10 is followed by a unit of measure – do not spell the number.
Line 53. Change to “and are prolific producers of seeds”
Line 75. Change “tempt” to “stimulate”
Line 76. Change to “ likely to die after the below-freezing temperatures of winter begin (Finch-Savage….”
Line 80 Insert “(Poaceae)” after “fusca”
Line 81. Delete “within the Poaceae family”
Line 85. Change to “Hebei provinces of China, becoming…”
Line 86. Change to “both crop quality and yield (Yuan…”
Line 94. Insert “that do not rely solely on herbicides” at the end of the sentence
Line 96. Change “Those” to “These”
Line 97. Change “the germination” to “seed germination”
Line 98. Delete “they discovered that”
Line 102. Change “type” of “kind” In the dormancy classification system the word “type” refers to subcategories of nondeep physiological dormancy. Here, you are talking about kinds of classes of seed dormancy.
Line 113. Change “a week” to “1 week”
Line 114. Change to “2 weeks”
Line 124. Change to “filter paper moistened with 1 mL distilled water.”
Line 127. Change to “Germination was tested at 4ºC…”
Line 133. Change to “respectively, each day.”
Lines 137-138. Change to “incubated in both light and dark at 5/15, ………… for 14 days.”
Line 151. Change to “in both light and dark at 5/15…. For 14 days.”
Line 156. Change “types” to either :”kinds” or “classes”
Line 1589. Change to “incubated in light at 20/30ºC for 14 days.”
Line 160. Change to “daily, and germinated seeds were discarded.”
Line 165. Change to “incubated in light at 20/30ºC for 14 days.”
Line 167. Change to “daily, and germinated seeds were discarded.”
Line 171. Move “soil” to before “depth”
Line 177. Change to “incubated in both light and dark at 4, ….”
Line 183. Delete comma after GA3
Line 192. Change to 2 weeks” and delete “percentage” “Percentage” and “%” mean the same -saying the same thing two times
Line 199. Insert “was” before “extended”
Line 200. Change to “improvement in seed germination percentages (Fig. 1).”
Line 201. Change to “ reached 88 + 4.3% germination when incubated in light at 20/30ºC.” Need to have only one number after the decimal, i.e. round-off
Line 202. Change to “Conversely, germination in dark was only 23 + 4.1% (Fig. 1d)…”
Line 210. Change “rose” to “increased”
Line 211. Change to “ripening, germination reached 80+1.6%.”
Line 212. Change “though” to “although”
Lines 212. Change to “mmol/L, seeds germinated to 58+6.4 and 61+8.4%% ....”
Line 221-222. Change to “20/30ºC. Germination percentages at these temperatures remained high until June…”
Line 222. Insert “int eh field” before “reached”
Line 223. Insert “respectively” before “and”
Line 225. Change “once more” to “again”
Line 228. Change to “2 years”
Line 232. Insert “those from” after “with”
Line 235. Change to “percentage in light than in darkness.”
Line 247. Change to “PD is divided into three levels: non-deep, intermediate and deep (Baskin and Baskin 2014). Non-deep….”
Line 250. Delete “only” that appears before “works”
Line 253. Delete “hence”
Line 261. Insert “ for seedlings to grow enough to reach the soil surface” after “buried”
Line 261. Change “Following” to “During”
Line 257. Change “though” to “although”
Line 273. Change to “allows seeds to germinate early in…”
Line 274. Change “their” to “plant”
Line 274-75. Change to “production, and this germination strategy also reduces…”
Line 276. Delete “the” before “germination” and before “seeds”
Line 277. Delete “the” before “mean” and insert “field” before “temperatures”
Line 290. Change to “2 years”
Line 291. Delete “which may be attributed to their hard seed coat (McIntyre et al., 1989).” Seeds of grasses do not have a hard seed coat, i.e. a water-impermeable seed coat. Seeds of grasses have a ‘physiological problem’ in the embryo. You have already said that seeds have PD, thus talking about ‘hard seed coats’ is very confusing (and incorrect) for the reader.
Line 291. Change “This indicated that “ to “Thus,”
Line 294. Seeds of Astragalus have physical dormancy, i.e. hard seeds or a water-impermeable seed coat. I suggest you delete Astragalus and use Ambrosia artemisiifolia instead. Seeds of A.t. germinated in the 40th year of the Beal buried seed experiment (see Amer. J. Bot. 64(9): 1174-1176. 1977 for details about this).
line 317. Insert “seeds” after “weed”
Line 335. Change to “2 years”
Line 337. Change to “fall germination, which prevents seedlings from begin killed by freezing temperatures…”
Figure 1. change “capital letters” to “uppercase letters” and change “small letters” to “lowercase letters”
The study investigated the correlation between specific dormancy release requirements, dormancy types observed in Diplachi fusca, and seasonal environmental variations. Additionally, it sought to assess the longevity of the soil seed bank and evaluate ecological adaptation strategies, along with potential weed control methods. The study's primary objective is to develop effective weed management strategies through evaluating these methods.
The study emphasizes that weeds pose numerous challenges in both agricultural and natural environments, underscoring the importance of understanding their reproductive biology for effective management. It highlights that many weed seeds exhibit a dynamic dormancy period, fluctuating between dormant and non-dormant states depending on environmental cues. The section on D. fusca, which provides relatively limited information, is concluded in alignment with the study's objectives.
The introduction could be enhanced by incorporating more recent literature on D. fusca, focusing on its challenges in agricultural production, the potential impacts of climate change on its species and management, and the effects of specific agroecological practices on seed dormancy.
It is known that agricultural practices are a significant factor in the ecological adaptation process of weeds and their seeds. Under agroecological conditions, dormancy patterns in weed species can vary. As emphasized in the hypothesis and conclusions of the study, the importance of identifying effective weed management strategies in agricultural production is clear. However, research findings conducted with seeds collected from agricultural production areas exposed to agricultural practices could provide more realistic data for field application.
It would have provided a more robust data flow if the areas where D. fusca seeds were collected had been agricultural lands, which constitute the main component of the study. Climate data for the sampling areas were presented with reference to Xiao et al., 2011. It is recommended that the information be updated with current data. The methodological framework is appropriate, and additional comments regarding sections needing revision have been included.
The findings exhibit robustness and consistency overall. If feasible, integrating the results and discussion sections would streamline result evaluation and potentially reduce the number of subheadings.
While the discussion is comprehensive, enhancing it with concise, results-focused language and updated literature references would elevate its quality. Simplifying the text could enhance the readability and accessibility of key points.
In the introduction section, repetitive use of "first, second, third..." expressions disrupts the flow.
Line 38-40: Literature notifications should be formatted according to journal writing guidelines. Additionally, they can be reduced in number to include more recent sources for academic referencing.
Line 54-55: Many species have high reproductive capacity and seed-producing potential. A single example (Panicum capillare) may not be sufficient here.
Line 80: Diplachne fusca should be revised as [Diplachne fusca (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. & Schult. ssp. fascicularis (Lam.) P. M. Peterson & N. Snow]
Line 90-92: The cited reference (Singh et al., 2009) does not fully support the statement “the extensive use of these chemicals may have prompted the evolution of herbicide resistance within weed species, with multiple instances of resistance to herbicides utilizing various mechanisms reported”.
What are the current herbicide efficacy statuses for D. fusca? Are there reports of herbicide ineffectiveness or resistance? Information regarding these topics can be provided.
Line 95-96: Various recent sources also investigate the influence of environmental factors on the germination of (Syn: Leptochloa fusca (L.) Kunth ssp. fascicularis (Lam.) N. Snow (see: https://plants.usda.gov), of bearded sprangletop. Evaluating these sources would be beneficial.
Line 110: It is stated that the seeds of D. fusca were collected from numerous plants at Weifang University in Shandong Province, China. Given that the primary agricultural areas where this species poses a problem are paddy fields, why were samples collected from non-agricultural areas?
Line 171: “Experimental garden soil” composition should be detailed.
Line 171: Why was only a single burial depth (2 cm) applied?
Line 178: Were the non-germinated seeds tested for viability after the 14-day germination test period?
Line 179: Was monthly precipitation recorded alongside maximum and minimum temperature data? Factors such as humidity and rainfall amounts are also crucial in these studies.
Line 196-205: No emphasis has been placed on Fig. 1b and Fig. 1c.
Line 208-209: “Both GA3 concentration (F = 10.047, p < 0.001) and after-ripening period (F = 127.746, p = 0.002) significantly affected the germination of D. fusca seeds”. It should be noted that the data have not been presented.
Since burial depth and water stress are significant factors limiting seed germination, even though water stress was not studied, this issue should be emphasized in the discussion or recommendation section due to the species being known to pose a significant problem in flooded rice fields.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.