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 Dr. Kır, I congratulate you on the acceptance of your article for publication.
I carefully reviewed the revised version of the manuscript and the author’s responses.
All my suggested corrections were taken into account, and the quality of the manuscript has improved significantly.
I believe the manuscript is ready for publication.
Dear Dr. Kır, I ask you to make the changes recommended in the review before the manuscript is recommended for publication.
**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.
This study examines the impact of different seeding methods on the yield and forage quality of four cereal crops: barley, rye, triticale, and wheat. The experiments were conducted in the arid climate of Kirsehir Province, Turkey, over two growing seasons. The relevance of this study lies in the fact that arid regions face a severe shortage of high-quality feed. Optimizing seeding methods is an effective way to increase forage crop productivity. The study is consistent with current trends in agronomic science and has practical implications for forage production and livestock farming.
However, the manuscript has a number of shortcomings that require clarification and revision.
1. The Introduction section is overloaded with facts. Huge paragraphs and long sentences are present. The presented material needs to be structured.
2. The purpose of the study is stated very briefly in the Introduction. The research goals and objectives should be described in more detail, as well as the importance of such research and its practical implications.
3. The Materials and Methods section describes the reason for choosing a particular variety only for wheat; for other crops, this information is not included.
4. References in parentheses must be formatted according to the journal's requirements. This also applies to the References section.
5. The text contains formatting inaccuracies.
I believe that after the manuscript has been corrected, it can be recommended for publication.
Table 2 is the main result of your research. Currently, it consists of three or six separate tables, combined into a single table in a very unusual and incorrect manner. The statistical processing of the data in this table does not meet international standards for scientific publications. Furthermore, the methods for comparing samples raise many questions. The numbers in each table cell must be processed using generally accepted statistical methods (+/- standard deviation). Empty cells in this table cannot be published.
I ask you to carefully improve the manuscript before it can be published.
All reviewer comments have been carefully addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. The article corresponds well to the scope of the journal, is scientifically sound, and presents the results clearly. In my opinion, the manuscript now meets the requirements for publication and can be accepted.
All reviewer comments have been carefully addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. The article corresponds well to the scope of the journal, is scientifically sound, and presents the results clearly. In my opinion, the manuscript now meets the requirements for publication and can be accepted.
All reviewer comments have been carefully addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. The article corresponds well to the scope of the journal, is scientifically sound, and presents the results clearly. In my opinion, the manuscript now meets the requirements for publication and can be accepted.
All reviewer comments have been carefully addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. The article corresponds well to the scope of the journal, is scientifically sound, and presents the results clearly. In my opinion, the manuscript now meets the requirements for publication and can be accepted.
Analyzing and evaluating the manuscript in relation to its evaluation to date (reviews, responses to reviewers’ comments, manuscript revisions), I conclude that it has been significantly improved and revised. This will undoubtedly enhance its clarity and credibility. The manuscript was written in correct, understandable English and does not raise any objections. The introduction should be slightly expanded to fully explain the problems associated with other agricultural techniques. The references should be more up-to-date, especially in comparison to the costs of cross-sowing and accompanying agrotechnical measures (e.g. lack of technological paths - extension to the possibility of using other navigation solutions).
For the experiment to be replicated or verified by other scientists, the methodology should include all cultivation and sowing operations. Were any other agricultural practices besides plowing used (to what depth?). Were any weed, fungus, or pest control methods used? If not, this should be clearly stated. The dates of application and sowing should also be specified.
The author does not present a new approach, but uses detailed and reliable precise research and statistical methods aimed at achieving the research goal. The research is well-conducted. The included raw data confirm the credibility of the conducted research. The manuscript concludes with precise and accurate conclusions.
No comment
Dear authors, I ask you to carefully correct the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' fundamental comments.
**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
The study examines how different forage cereal species perform when established using perpendicular and straight row sowing methods. While not new, results indicate yield and quality differences among the species and sowing method. The English language needs to be revised.
See attached for additional comments
The experimental design is a split plot in RCBD. The plant spacing is not mentioned yet critical being one of the treatment.
See attached for additional comments
See attachment
Provided in the main review.
The research question is clear, study well designed and implemented. Methods description can be improved as specified in the main review.
All the data used in the study is provided. Discussion and conclusions are based on results but can be improved.
Review of the manuscript titled: The effects of different sowing methods on the yield and quality of cereal species in sustainable forage production.
The study was devoted to an important subject of forage production using cereals. It was well designed, followed relevant methodology and produced valid data which is presented and interpreted. The study contributes to the knowledge on the subject and certainly deserves publication. The paper has a few challenges which need to be attended at revision process: a) the study focus is on developing practical recommendation for farmers and this need to be in the forefront of interpretation and discussion; b) different effects of two planting methods on forage quantity and quality in four crops are not sufficiently explained from plant physiology and agronomy perspective; c) professional scientific editing will benefit this manuscript.
1. Abstract has potential for improvement. The author does not mention how many varieties for each crop were used and, perhaps, name them. The sowing methods are not sufficiently explained – what is straight and perpendicular. There is also reference to flat sowing method – what is this method. ADF and NDF are not explained.
2. Introduction will benefit from short description of the cropping and forage system in Kirsehir province or Central Anatolia and how much cereals are currently used for forage.
3. Figure 1. The location of Turkey is not necessary.
4. Table 1 title: climate refers to longer term tendencies, alternatively, it is weather.
5. Line 73: “local population of wheat” – explanation is needed.
6. Line 74: reference to Figure 1 while it is Figure 2.
7. M&M and elsewhere: kg/da needs conversion into kg/ha. The seeding rate in seeds per 1 m2 and in kg/ha is needed for each method.
8. The authors refer to the interaction of the crops and seeding methods but the results of ANOVA are not presented.
9. Figure 2 quality is poor and it does not show well the differences between two methods. Perhaps a graphically designed scheme will be better if at all needed.
10. Table 2 combines all data from the study. Perhaps some of this data (mean values for instance) can be presented as graphs.
11. Substantial parts of discussion repeat the results even with reference to tables. A broader view of the results interpretation is needed.
12. In literature references the author mentions all the authors of the cited papers – the journal requirements need to be checked to assure that this is correct.
13. The paper title can be simplified. “Sustainable forage production” has some unique characteristics which are not reflected in this paper. Hence, it may be forage production.
14. The manuscript deserves scientific editing to improve English. Example is the first sentence of the abstract which can be written shorter and clearer: “This research compares the forage yield and quality of barley, wheat, rye, and triticale grown under dry winter conditions using straight and perpendicular row sowing.” Cereal species (more botanical context) or cereal crops (agricultural context)? Line 28 – Barley starts with capital letter in the middle of sentence. Lines 48-50 – very long sentence must be broken into a few. Line 78: “seeding rate per decade”? The author frequently uses “In terms of” – not needed in scientific paper. “Crude protein ratio” or content – the same applies to ADF and NDF. Some paragraphs are very long and can be broken down into a few.
The manuscript is written in professional English, with technical accuracy and clear expression. The terminology is appropriate for the field, and the text is generally well-structured. However, minor language refinements in the methods and discussion sections could improve readability and clarity. The introduction provides a thorough background on the significance of cereal species in forage production and the impact of different sowing methods. Relevant literature is well-referenced, although incorporating more recent studies on similar sowing methods in different environmental contexts would enhance the discussion. The structure follows PeerJ's standard format, ensuring logical progression from background to findings. Figures and tables are appropriately labeled and provide meaningful visual representations of the data, but some figures could be optimized for better readability. The raw data have been made available, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.
The study fits within the journal’s scope and presents original research on optimizing cereal yield and quality through different sowing methods. The research question is well-defined, addressing a significant knowledge gap in sustainable forage production. The authors effectively justify their study by highlighting the need for improved sowing techniques to enhance yield in arid and semi-arid regions. The experimental design is robust, employing a randomized complete block design with split plots and three replications. The methodology is described in sufficient detail, allowing for replication. However, additional clarification on certain aspects—such as soil preparation, sowing depth, and environmental control measures—would further strengthen reproducibility. The research adheres to ethical standards, as it involves standard agronomic practices without environmental or ecological concerns.
The findings are well-supported by data analysis and statistical rigor. The study does not focus on novelty but rather provides a meaningful assessment of sowing techniques for sustainable forage production. The comparison of straight row and perpendicular row sowing methods is well-executed, demonstrating the advantages of perpendicular rows in terms of yield while showing no significant impact on forage quality. Statistical analyses are appropriately applied, but further discussion of model assumptions, such as normality tests and variance homogeneity, would add depth to the results section. The conclusions are well-structured and directly linked to the research question, accurately summarizing the study’s findings. The authors highlight key implications for sustainable agriculture and recommend perpendicular row sowing for triticale in arid regions. The raw data and statistical outputs are available, ensuring transparency and the possibility of independent verification.
This study is a valuable contribution to sustainable agriculture by providing insights into the impact of sowing methods on cereal yield and quality. The research is well-executed, and the findings have practical applications for optimizing forage production. Expanding the discussion to compare findings with similar studies in different climatic conditions would enhance the manuscript’s impact. Some methodological details, such as soil properties and environmental conditions, could be elaborated further. Additionally, minor language refinements would improve readability. The figures and tables are generally well-structured, though adjustments in color contrast and labeling could improve clarity. Overall, the study successfully demonstrates the benefits of perpendicular row sowing in forage production, making it relevant for both researchers and practitioners in sustainable agriculture.
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.