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.
Dear Authors,
I am pleased to inform you that the manuscript has been improved following the last revision and can now be accepted for publication.
Congratulations on the acceptance of your manuscript. Thank you for your interest in submitting your work to PeerJ.
With Thanks
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
It is acceptable.
It is acceptable.
It is acceptable.
It is acceptable.
The researcher has taken into account the suggestions and corrections made in the previous version. The article structure and use of literature are appropriate, and the tables are sufficient.
The study is original. The method used is reproducible. All stages of the research were carried out meticulously and explained. The study has no shortcomings in terms of materials and methods.
The findings and discussion sections of the study were rewritten based on suggestions and corrections from the previous version. The research findings were evaluated using appropriate statistical methods and compared with current literature. It is believed that the study's results will make significant contributions to both researchers and the literature on the subject.
.
.
.
.
The authors have thoroughly addressed all of previous comments
The experimental design is appropriate
The findings are supported by robust data
1) This manuscript is overly long and some information are outdated.
2) Some figures / tables are redundant, the whole presentation can be more concise.
3) Key recent studies on this topic are missing.
1) The experiment lack th replication, weak the whole results.
2) lack of economic analysis
The correlation analysis is descriptive only and does not establish causal relationship.
NA
Dear Author
The manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in its current form. It needs a major revision before publication. The authors are invited to revise the paper, considering all the suggestions made by the reviewers. Please note that the requested changes are required for publication.
With Thanks
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
It can be improved through refereeing by other referees.
-
-
The authors are appreciated for the good research they conducted in the field of organic and environmentally friendly fertilizers.
Abstract: it is better to express the results in numerical form.
The introduction is a bit long. It is better to be a little briefer.
Discussion: The discussion should be strengthened a bit. More information should be added to the text about the importance of green manure for the plants studied.
Conclusion: The conclusion is too long. It is better to use your own results for the conclusion.
The study is original, and I think that it adds richness to the article in terms of the parameters examined.
The 4 legumes used in the experiment were suitable for the climatic conditions of the region and planted according to the experimental design.
Perhaps the most important output of the study will be to reduce the use of synthetic fertilisers in the world and our country. It is absolutely important to reduce the use of synthetic fertilisers for sustainable agriculture.
I believe that this study will shed light on other studies to reduce the use of synthetic fertilisers.
-
-
Some research findings in the results section of the article require restatement and correction. After the recommendations in the findings section are fulfilled, the discussion section should be restated by comparing the results obtained with the literature. All corrections and recommendations made are explained in detail in the PDF file uploaded to the system.
All corrections and recommendations made are explained in detail in the PDF file uploaded to the system.
-
-
-
The manuscript " Optimizing legume green manure applications for enhanced forage sorghum-sudangrass performance and soil property improvements " discusses the benefits of using leguminous green manure to enhance soil fertility. This study specifically examines the impact of incorporating legume green manure at different phenological stages on the growth and yield of Sorghum × sudangrass in Mediterranean conditions, with a focus on biomass and forage quality.
I have read the manuscript and supplementary file carefully. The manuscript is written in a good style, and I appreciate the work and effort of the authors.
However, I found a few issues that need to be addressed.
Line 30 → Please explain more clearly the treatments used in the experiment and the statistical design used.
Line 58 " Green manure provides a range of benefits " → Green manure provides many benefits.
Line 59 " improving soil structure, and suppressing weeds. → It is preferable to add a reference.
Line 84: " This process helps in the breakdown." → Please explain the intended process.
Line 97 " significant improvements in WUE " → Please add the full term for the abbreviation "WUE".
Line 146 " Three different forage legumes (common vetch (Vicia sativa L.), narbon vetch (Vicia narbonensis L.), forage pea (Pisum sativum subsp arvense (L.) Asch. & Graebn.)) as green manure, fertilized and control applications were assessed for green manure comparisons. → Please rephrase and clarify the sentence.
Line 174" → Please include the title and figure immediately after the relevant text.
Line 198 " sudangrass, plotted " → sudangrass was plotted
Line 200 " To ensure complete incorporation, the process " → Please explain the incorporation process more clearly.
Line 205" → Please add the source of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer.
Line 209 " mowed except for the edge effect " → Please specify whether the outer line was left at both ends of the plot or whether a specific distance was left to eliminate the edge effect.
Line 247 " the mean leaf area (m²), and A is the sampled area (m²). " → the mean leaf area (cm²), and A is the sampled area (cm²).
Line 262 " of p < 0.01 to compare group means. " → Is there a specific reason for choosing the p < 0.01 level rather than p < 0.05?
Line 271 " and the interplay " → Was the experiment conducted as a one-way analysis of variance, as stated in the Statistical Analyses section, or as a factorial experiment?
Line 345 " affect by increasing biomass of " → affect the biomass of
Line 382 " manure treatments to sorghum " → manure treatments for sorghum
Line 390 " general tendency of decreasing crude " → general tendency for decreasing crude
Line 396 " Among the green manure types, narbon vetch reached 155.63 kg da-1 before flowering, common vetch 151.34 kg da-1 before flowering, and common vetch
149.63 kg da-1 at 10% flowering stage. → Please rephrase and clarify the sentence.
Line 449 " forage pea had the highest SPADc value " → There appear to be no values for SPADc in Table 3.
Line 467 " activity to sorghum " → activity for sorghum
Line 470 " stages treated " → stage treated
Line 487 " higher NDVI values were observed " → with higher NDVI values observed
Line 547 " In the graph, the blue dots represent individual observations, the red line is the linear regression curve, and the shaded area is the confidence interval. " → Is this description available in (Figure 7a)?
Line 555 " In Figure 7b., the relationship between NDVI and LAI (Leaf Area Index) was analyzed. Here, too, it is observed that LAI values increase as NDVI increases, but this relationship shows a slightly wider distribution. When NDVI values are above 0.8, LAI values generally range between 7.5 and 10, indicating that plants with more leaf surface area reach higher NDVI values. At lower NDVI values, LAI values are concentrated between 6 and 7, which may indicate that plants with limited leaf development. These results suggest that green manure applications stimulate plant growth and leaf development, and therefore, the density of vegetation cover increases with increasing NDVI. " → Is this description available in (Figure 7b)?
Line 570 " A strong positive correlation was observed between NDVI and SPAD values " →
Is this description available in (a: pre-flowering)?
Line 571 " treatments incorporated " → treatments were incorporated.
Line 573 " A negative correlation was observed between RFV (Relative Feed Value) and NDF (Neutral Detergent Fiber), indicating that as fiber content increases, forage quality decreases. → It is preferable to add the figure or table number directly after the text related to it, and to add the value of the correlation, whether it is significant or not, to the text.
Line 575 " positive correlation " → positive significant correlation
Line 577 " Significant positive correlation was identified between SPAD and LAI (Leaf Area Index) during the 10% flowering stage treatments." → It appears from the figure (b: 10% flowering) that the correlation is not significant.
Line 579 " A strong positive correlation " → Is the correlation strong? The number in the figure is unclear.
Line 582 " positive relationship " → positive nonsignificant relationship Line 585 " positive correlation " → positive nonsignificant correlation Line 585 " during this " → during the
Line 593 " The results demonstrate that the relationships between certain parameters become …… " → It appears that it was negative relationships in a, c, and positive relationships in b
Line 598 " strong positive relationship " → b, c ?
Line 609 " observed at early phenological stages of treatment, while biomass yield and fiber content increased at later stages of treatment. → Please rephrase and clarify the sentence.
Line 615 " Figure 10a illustrates " → Please refer to Figure 10a.
Line 622 " After sorghum production (ASG) " → after sorghum harvest? Line 625 " A comparative " → Please refer to the comparative analysis. Line 629 " Figure 10b " → Please refer to Figure 10b.
Line 633 " legume-based" → legume-based
Line 635 " After sorghum production (ASG) " → After sorghum harvest?
Line 669 " For instance, Isah et al. demonstrated that green manure significantly increased the growth and yield of tomato varieties, indicating the effective contribution of organic inputs on overall crop production (Isah et al., 2014). " For instance, Isah et al. (2014 demonstrated that green manure significantly increased the growth and yield of tomato varieties, indicating the effective contribution of organic inputs on overall crop production.
Line 671 " Similarly, studies conducted by Kumar et al. emphasize the role of green manure in elevating soil nutrient profiles and enhancing crop outputs (Kumar et al., 2024). → Similarly, studies conducted by Kumar et al. (2024) emphasize the role of green manure in elevating soil nutrient profiles and enhancing crop outputs.
Line 675 " Zhang et al. noted that specific timings could lead to better nitrogen dynamics, which are instrumental in crop performance (Zhang et al., 2024). → Zhang et al. (2024) noted that specific timings could lead to better nitrogen dynamics, which are instrumental in crop performance.
Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 → Please add a note to indicate what the error bars represent. SD or SE
Please clarify the text. The text is small or blurry.
Figure 10 → Please add "a" and "b"
Thank you for considering me to review the manuscript titled Optimizing legume green manure applications for enhanced forage sorghum-sudangrass performance and soil property improvements. The manuscript presents good study with relevance to sustainable agriculture. The experimental design is robust and the findings contribute valuable insights into green manure management under Mediterranean conditions.
Suggestions:
Abstract
The abstract needs to be improved. The sentence “Previous studies have shown that incorporating leguminous green manure enhances soil nitrogen levels, boosts microbial activity, and increases crop biomass” is not appropriate for the abstract. This sentence could be rephrased by “Legume-based green manuring is recognized as an eco-friendly and cost-effective practice that enhances soil fertility and crop productivity. Incorporating green manure crops, especially legumes, into agricultural systems improves soil physical, chemical, and biological properties by increasing organic matter, facilitating nitrogen fixation, and enhancing nutrient cycling. Also “This research evaluates the impact of legume green manure incorporation at various phenological stages on the growth and yield of sorghum × sudangrass in Mediterranean conditions, focusing on biomass and forage quality”, I think using “this research aimed to evaluate” (past tense) in is acceptable and often preferred for completed studies, as it indicates that the research has been conducted and the evaluation is finished.
Introduction
The first four sentences in the introduction without references, the lack of references should be revised and also throughout the manuscript.
The introductions should be carefully revised and avoid repetitions. Some ideas are repeated such as the benefits of green manure for soil health and yield. Avoid long paragraphs and sentences. The introduction would be more effective if the specific knowledge gap addressed by this study was stated earlier and more clearly. Explicitly identify what is unknown about the timing of legume green manure incorporation for sorghum × sudangrass systems, and why this matters in Mediterranean environments. Extend the importance of sustainable forage production under climate change.
Materials and Methods
It is well written, but some parts could be improved. Please provide more details on field management such as tillage practices before and after green manure incorporation and irrigation scheduling and amounts applied.
The applied eleven treatments could be coded and summarized in a table to make it easier for readers.
Provide more details on the reasons for selecting the phenological stages for incorporation.
For all measured variables please provide the number of plants or subsamples per plot ,the timing and frequency of measurements.
The unit kg/da (kilograms per decare) is not commonly used in international scientific literature. Please convert yield and measurement data from kg/da to kg/ha (kilograms per hectare) which is the standard unit in agronomy and widely recognized globally.
Results
The results are poorly structured. It is recommended to divide the results into subtitles based on measured parameters such as yield and biomass production, forage quality, soil organic matter and nitrogen, and physiological traits to improve the organization and presentation of the Results section.
“under scrutiny” in line 471 and “discerned” should be replaced by common and easier terms such as “under study” and “were detected”
The units of studied traits should be added to Tables 2-5
The comparison between the applied treatments with fertilized and unfertilized controls could be presented as a percentage, as it allows readers to easily assess the relative effectiveness of each treatment.
Extend comparisons among legume species and incorporation timings.
Standardize used terms such as "hay yield" or "dry matter yield"
The figures are in very poor resolution and require critical improvement to meet publication standards.
Discussion
The discussion needs to be carefully revised and avoid redundancy. Please avoid presenting results in detail; instead, focus on interpreting the obtained results. Also, it could be improved by exploring why certain legume species, such common vetch, narbon vetch performed better at specific phenological stages. Discuss physiological or ecological mechanisms such as biomass accumulation, nitrogen release patterns, and decomposition rates that could explain these differences. Discuss the practical implications for farmers, such as recommendations for optimal incorporation timing or species selection under Mediterranean conditions. Extend the discussion on the changes in soil organic matter and nitrogen to observed improvements in plant growth and forage quality, presenting the relationships and agronomic significance.
The manuscript language needs to be thoroughly revised to improve the text.
The refrence list needs to be carfully revised. Some journal names are abbreviated such as Sci. Rep. in line 858, while most are written in full names. The authors names are not complete as in line 884, 938, 976, …. Scientific names should be in italic throughout the manuscript (line 999)
The experimental design is appropriate
The findings are supported by robust data
1) Clarify the rationale for not using Rhizobium inoculation, as some readers may find this decision unclear.
2) Consider grouping figures more effectively or combining panels where appropriate to improve conciseness.
1) While the rationale for the phenological stages is hinted at, a clearer justification (e.g., prior literature or preliminary data) would strengthen the methodology.
2) Including a table summarizing the treatment matrix (legume × incorporation time) could enhance clarity for readers.
Discuss any potential limitations (e.g., site-specific soil or climate conditions) that may affect broader applicability, which will make the manuscript much better.
Briefly touch on cost, feasibility, or logistical aspects of green manure implementation for practical relevance.
This manuscript offers valuable insights into sustainable forage production and soil health management under Mediterranean climatic conditions. The data are detailed and well presented, and the integration of soil, plant, and physiological parameters adds depth. I commend the author for a thorough and well-designed study. With minor revisions—mainly in language refinement and figure presentation—the manuscript will be suitable for publication.
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.