Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:06:18.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chinese oats in temperate Bhutan: Results of field experiments

Subject: Life Science and Biomedicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2023

Khengtala Wangchuk
Affiliation:
National Center for Animal Nutrition, Department of Livestock, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Thimphu, Bhutan
Kesang Wangchuk*
Affiliation:
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Seven varieties of forage oats from China were evaluated in the temperate environment of Bhutan for morphological traits, dry matter production, and forage quality. The oat variety Qingyin No. 1 provided a greater plant height (61 cm) and the largest number of tillers per plant (five tillers per plant). The leaf-stem ratio (LSR) was highest for Longyan No. 2 (LSR 0.73). During harvest in late winter, Longyan No. 2 had a greater plant height (64 cm) and the highest number of tillers per plant (seven tillers per plant), followed by Qingyin No. 1. The top three varieties with high LSRs of 1.49, 1.31, and 1.35 were Longyan No. 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In both summer and winter, Longyan No. 2 had the highest forage yields of around 5.00 and 4.00 DM t/ha, respectively. Qingyin No. 1 was the second largest forage producer, with under 5.00 DM t/ha in summer and under 3.00 DM t/ha in winter. For forage quality, Longyan No. 2 and Longyan No. 3 had the highest levels of crude protein (15%) in summer. However, during late winter, the Linna variety had the highest crude protein content (13%). The overall results of the field experiments suggest that Longyan No. 2 and Qingyin No. 1 are promising new oat varieties for winter fodder production in the temperate environments of Bhutan.

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Forage scarcity and poor nutrition during the dry winter months are among the most significant constraints to promoting livestock development. Because of the acute winter conditions, livestock farming in most mountain environments relies heavily on agricultural production and agroforestry. Forage oats (Avena sativa L.) are a succulent forage crop with excellent growth habits, quick post-cut recovery, good forage quality, and good palatability (Khanal et al., Reference Khanal, Baral, Tiwari and Devkota2017). It belongs to the Poaceae family, is native to the Mediterranean area, and ranks fifth in cereal production worldwide (Numan et al., Reference Numan, Muhammad, Tariq, Fazal, Shamsher and Amir2016). For better growth and productivity, oats prefer temperate and cool subtropical environments. Oat plants tolerate a wide range of soil conditions but require adequate fertility for good dry matter yield and quality (Gyeltshen et al., Reference Gyeltshen, Yonten Nirola and Rai2017).

In Bhutan, winter forage scarcity is a major constraint in animal production. Oats are grown as green forage to provide high-quality fodder during cold, dry winters. Forage oats are generally planted after paddy and buckwheat cultivation since it needs less investment. Currently, only two varieties of oats are available for winter forage production in the extension program—Stampede and Fodder Oat of Bhutan (FOB). Fodder oat varieties are not only limited in number but are also two decades old since their recommended cultivation in 2003. With the genetic improvement of dairy cattle over the last two decades, dairy farmers need more options for quality forage to fully exploit the production potential of improved dairy cattle breeds. Under this study, new varieties were evaluated in the temperate environment of Central Bhutan. The first objective of the study was to assess the growth characteristics, dry matter production, and nutritional quality of oat varieties during the summer and winter seasons under temperate conditions of Bhutan. The second objective was to select and recommend suitable oat varieties for winter fodder production in the temperate environments of Bhutan.

Materials and methods

Oat varieties

A total of seven varieties were included in the field experiments (Table 1). Five cold-tolerant varieties of forage oat originating from China, known to provide high forage yield in high-altitude areas, were introduced in Bhutan in 2017 with assistance from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). The Chinese varieties were Longyan No. 1, Longyan No. 2, Longyan No. 3, Qingyin No. 1, and Linna. They are cultivated in the Tibetan plateau and possess positive attributes such as tolerance to extreme cold, resistance to drought, and tolerance to poor soils. The other two varieties were from the currently cultivated forage oats in Bhutan. These varieties were Stampede and FOB.

Table 1. Varieties of forage oat and their origin

Experimental site, design, and treatment

Two different experiments were performed in the summer and winter. A summer field experiment was conducted between March and October and a winter experiment between November and April. The experiments were carried out in the Chamkhar Valley of Bumthang district in central Bhutan. The valley is located at an altitude of 2,650 m above sea level with a geographic position between 27.54°N and 90.75°E.

A Randomized Complete Block Design was used with seven varieties of oat under experimental treatments. Each variety treatment was repeated six times. The treatments included five cold-tolerant oat varieties: Longyan No. 1, Longyan No. 2, Longyan No. 3, Qingyin No. 1, and Linna. Two existing cultivated oat varieties namely Stampede and FOB were used as control treatments. Individual plots measured 4.5 m2 (3 × 1.5 m) and there was a total of 42 plots. Each replication had seven plots.

Management and treatment application

The seed was sown at the rate of 125 kg per/ha. Fertilizer Single Superphosphate (SSP) was applied at the rate of 370 kg/ha. For summer cultivation, irrigation was not provided because light rains were frequent. For winter cultivation, irrigation was provided when treatment plots were dry.

Field measurement and data collection

The crop was harvested at the booting stage, 75 days after sowing. The data recorded were: fresh and dry matter yield, the number of tillers, plant height, and leaf-to-stem ratio. The entire plot was harvested for the fresh yield, and fresh plant material was weighed with a weighing scale. Ten plants were randomly selected from each plot for plant height, and measured with a measuring scale. Ten plants were selected randomly, and plant parts were segregated into leaf and stem and then weighed separately to calculate the leaf-stem ratio (LSR). The tiller numbers per plant were counted and recorded from 10 plants randomly selected from each plot.

Laboratory analysis

Plant materials were mixed after harvest and a representative sample weighing 250 g was collected from each plot. The total number of samples collected was 42. These samples were used to estimate dry matter content and nutrients. The laboratory tests for dry matter and nutrient content were performed at the Animal Nutrition Laboratory, Bumthang. Samples were dried in a hot air oven at 65°C for 48 hr. Crude protein, which is one of the most important criteria for forage quality evaluation (Assefa & Ledin, Reference Assefa and Ledin2001; Caballero et al., Reference Caballero, Goicoechea and Hernaiz1995), was determined using the Kjeldahl method (AOAC, 1990).

Data analysis

The datasets of summer and winter experiments were analyzed independently. Data were processed in Microsoft Excel and exported to SPSS Version 23. The dataset was checked for outliers, followed by Shapiro–Wilk’s and Levene’s tests for normality of data and homogeneity of variance, respectively. The Generalized Linear Model with Multivariate ANOVA was used to compare the mean differences in various parameters between new and existing oat varieties. Means between treatments were compared with the Tukey Pairwise comparison test. Differences in means were considered significant when the p-value was less than .05.

Results

Plant height, number of tillers per plant, and LSR

The mean plant height, tiller numbers per plant, and leaf-to-stem ratio are presented in Table 2. At the time of harvest in summer, the oat variety Qingyin No. 1 had a greater plant height (61 cm) and the highest tiller number per plant (five tillers per plant). However, the LSR was highest for Longyan No. 2 (LSR 0.73). During harvest in late winter, Longyan No. 2 provided a greater plant height (64 cm) and the highest number of tillers per plant (seven tillers per plant), followed by Qingyin No. 1. Longyan No. 1, 2, and 3 were the top three varieties with LSRs of 1.49, 1.31, and 1.35, respectively.

Table 2. Morphological parameters (mean plant height, tiller numbers, and leaf-to-stem ratio) among oat varieties in summer and winter

Note. **p ≤ .01; ns, nonsignificant (p > .05).

Abbreviation: LSR, leaf stem ratio.

Forage yield and quality

Among the oat varieties, Longyan No. 2 gave the highest forage yields of 5.00 and 4.00 DM t/ha in summer and winter, respectively (Figure 1). Qingyin No. 1 was the second highest in forage yield with less than 5.00 DM t/ha in summer and less than 3.00 DM t/ha in winter. Stampede gave the lowest forage yield in both seasons, 3.00 and 2.00 DM t/ha in summer and winter, respectively.

Figure 1. Forage yield of oat varieties in summer and winter. Means with different letters are significantly different.

In terms of forage quality among oat varieties grown in summer, Longyan 2 and Longyan No. 3 had the highest crude protein contents of 15% each, followed by Longyan No. 1 and FOB with each showing a crude protein content of 14% (Figure 2). The variety Qingyin No. 1 had the lowest crude protein content of 12% in summer. However, in winter cultivation, the oat variety Linna had the highest crude protein content of 13%, followed by Longyan No. 1, Longyan No. 2, and Longyan No. 3, each having a crude protein content of 12%. The variety Stampede gave the lowest crude protein content of 9% in winter.

Figure 2. Crude protein content of oat varieties in summer and winter. Means with different letters are significantly different.

Discussion

Morphological characteristics

Morphological characteristics such as plant height, tiller number, and LSR are indicators that provide accurate yield estimations (Ansar et al., Reference Ansar, Ahmed, Malik, Nadeem, Majeed and Rischkowsky2010; Mendoza-Pedroza et al., Reference Mendoza-Pedroza, Sánchez-Espinoza, Álvarez-Vázquez, Sosa-Montes, Maldonado-Peralta and Garay-Martínez2021). Both Longyan No. 2 and Qingyin No. 1 offered a generally good rate of plant growth. Qingyin No. 1 was also reported to have greater plant height in Nepal’s Lalitpur area (Pant et al., Reference Pant, Ghimire, Prenil and Upreti2022). The results of this study, which are consistent with those of earlier investigations (Chohan et al., Reference Chohan, Naeem, Khan, Kainth and Sarwar2004; Lodhi et al., Reference Lodhi, Marghazani, Hamayun and Marri2009; Mendoza-Pedroza et al., Reference Mendoza-Pedroza, Sánchez-Espinoza, Álvarez-Vázquez, Sosa-Montes, Maldonado-Peralta and Garay-Martínez2021), show that oat cultivars varied from one another in terms of morphological features. Howarth et al. (Reference Howarth, Martinez-Martin, Cowan, Griffiths, Sanderson, Lister, Langdon, Clarke, Fradgley and Marshall2021) found that all the traits of oat crops are significantly influenced by the environment, hence environmental factors and varietal characteristics may both contribute to the variation in morphological traits among oat varieties (Pant et al., Reference Pant, Ghimire, Prenil and Upreti2022; Singh et al., Reference Singh, Singha, Takawle, Shindey and Shrivastav2018). Hence, the adaptability of different oat varieties to a given environment differs, also due to genetic variations that affect hormonal balance and cell division rate (Zaman et al., Reference Zaman, Hussain, Aziz and Hayat2006).

Forage yield

Dry matter yields from Longyan No. 2 (4.0 t/ha) and Qingyin No. 1 (3.0 t/ha) are higher than the average yield (0.5 t/ha) from traditional winter forages like turnip, radish, and pumpkin grown by dairy producers in Bhutan (Wangchuk & Dorji, Reference Wangchuk and Dorji2008). However, the dry matter yields of Longyan No. 2 and Qingyin No. 1 are comparable to those of grass hay and silage, which are typical winter fodder in temperate regions of Bhutan. The greater plant growth also explains the substantially higher dry matter yields of Longyan No. 2 and Qingyin No. 1 in both seasons. Taller plants generally produce more dry matter than dwarf plants (Baron et al., Reference Baron, Salmon and McLeod1999; McKenzie et al., Reference McKenzie, Middleton, Solberg, DeMulder and Najda1997). Compared with Stampede and FOB varieties, the relatively higher plant growth and dry matter production of Longyan No. 2 and Qingyin No. 1 also indicate their greater adaptation to temperate climates of Bhutan. Qingyin No. 1 was also among the high-yielding forage oat varieties in Tibet (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Ma, Shao, Wang, Shen and Fu2019). Additionally, the greater forage yields suggest that these oat varieties are more resistant to cold than Stampede and FOB. Hence, Longyan No. 2 and Qingyin No. 1 have better prospects of addressing the severe fodder scarcity in winter.

Forage quality

All varieties of oat demonstrated appropriate crude protein levels above 7%, which is necessary for ruminants’ growth (Cappellozza, Reference Cappellozza2019). Among oat varieties, Linna and Longyan No. 2 had the highest levels of crude protein at 13 and 12%, respectively. According to studies (Barros et al., Reference Barros, Quaassdorff, Aguerre, Colmenero, Bertics, Crump and Wattiaux2017; Yue et al., Reference Yue, Li, Tong, Li, Zhao, Guo, Guo, SHi and Yan2022), high milk yield is correlated with high crude protein levels in feed. It implies that Linna and Longyan No. 2 have a greater chance of increasing milk yield in the winter. However, it should be noted that while Linna had the highest crude protein content among oat cultivars, its dry matter yield was the lowest. It suggests that Linna may need to be harvested a little later than other oat cultivars to maximize its forage yield. This is important because the forage growth stage determines the amount of dry matter produced and the nutrients present (Reiber et al., Reference Reiber, Peters, Hoffmann and Schultze-Kraft2012), indicating that a trade-off between dry matter production and nutritional value is required to maximize the benefits that Linna oat might offer. Longyan No. 2, which has the second-highest level of crude protein, can provide fodder of high quality as winter forage. Additionally, Longyan No. 2 plants are leafy and can attract animals. As a result, Longyan No. 2 combined with hay or paddy straw may improve the quality of winter feed.

Conclusions

This study was successful in identifying new fodder oat varieties in addition to the current varieties used in the extension program. In comparison to Stampede and FOB, the oat varieties Longyan No. 2 and Qingyin No. 1 have better production performance. As a result, in temperate Bhutan, livestock farmers now have additional options when choosing oat varieties for winter forage production. Although the oat variety Linna appears promising, more research is required to determine whether adjusting the harvest date might improve the forage DM yield and crude protein content. This study recommends Longyan No. 2 and Qingyin No. 1 as new oat varieties for fodder production in late winter in the temperate climates of Bhutan. In the future, there is an opportunity to experiment with combining these varieties with hairy vetch, a species of forage legume shown to be cold-tolerant in Bhutan. Combining oats with legumes, especially in the winter, may significantly boost pasture dry matter yield without compromising quality. The oat-legume mixture may be produced on a wider range of different soils, which could also benefit the environment.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Professor Dr. Ruijun Long, Lanzhou University, China, for arranging oat variety seeds. The authors are also thankful to ICIMOD for its encouragement and support. Core funds of ICIMOD supported this study with funds contributed by the Governments of Afghanistan, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, and Switzerland. The authors also thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/exp.2023.7.

Data availability statement

The data on the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Competing interest

The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.

Disclaimer

The views and interpretations in this publication are those of the authors. They do not imply the expression of ICIMOD’s opinion concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area of its authorities, the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or the endorsement of any product.

References

Ansar, M., Ahmed, Z. I., Malik, M. A., Nadeem, M., Majeed, A., & Rischkowsky, B. A. (2010). Forage yield and quality potential of winter cereal-vetch mixtures under rainfed conditions. Emirates Journal of Food Agriculture, 22, 2536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AOAC. (1990). Official methods of chemical analysis (16th ed.). Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, 78.Google Scholar
Assefa, G., & Ledin, I. (2001). Effect of variety, soil type, and fertilizer on the establishment, growth, forage yield, quality, and voluntary intake by cattle of oats and vetches cultivated in pure stands and mixtures. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 92, 95111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, V. S., Salmon, D. F., & McLeod, J. G. (1999). The evaluation of spring and winter triticale lines for forage quality. http://www1.foragebeef.ca/$foragebeef/frgebeef.nsf/all/frg70/$FILE/foragebeef_caoptimizingyieldqualityofcerealsilage.pdfGoogle Scholar
Barros, T., Quaassdorff, M. A., Aguerre, M. A., Colmenero, J. J. O., Bertics, S. J., Crump, P. M., & Wattiaux, M. A. (2017). Effects of dietary crude protein concentration on late-lactation dairy cow performance and indicators of nitrogen utilization. Journal of Dairy Science, 100, 54345448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caballero, R., Goicoechea, E. L., & Hernaiz, P. J. (1995). Forage yields and quality of common vetch and oat sown at varying seeding ratios and seeding rates of common vetch. Field Crops Research, 41, 135140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappellozza, B. I. (2019). A guide to protein nutrition for cattle. Oregon State University. https://extension.oregonstate.edu/animals-livestock/beef/guide-protein-nutrition-cattleGoogle Scholar
Chohan, M.S.M., Naeem, M., Khan, A.H., Kainth, R., & Sarwar, M. (2004). Forage yield performance of different varieties of oat. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 6, 751752.Google Scholar
Gyeltshen, T., Yonten Nirola, H., & Rai, K. K. (2017). Fodders oats in Bhutan. Ministry of Agriculture and Forest.Google Scholar
Howarth, C. J., Martinez-Martin, P. M. J., Cowan, A. A., Griffiths, I. M., Sanderson, R., Lister, S. J., Langdon, T., Clarke, S., Fradgley, N., & Marshall, A. H. (2021). Genotype and environment affect the grain quality and yield of winter oats (Avena sativa L.). Foods, 10, 2356. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10102356CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khanal, B., Baral, B. R., Tiwari, M. R., & Devkota, N. (2017). Evaluation of different varieties of oats at hills of Rasuwa district, Nepal. Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Science, 15, 4252.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. H., Middleton, A., Solberg, E., DeMulder, J., & Najda, H. (1997). Optimizing barley silage production in Alberta. Alberta Agricultural Research Institute Project 94M608 Final Report. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Mendoza-Pedroza, S. I., Sánchez-Espinoza, J., Álvarez-Vázquez, P., Sosa-Montes, E., Maldonado-Peralta, M.Á., Garay-Martínez, J.R. (2021). Yield estimation of forage oat (Avena sativa L.) Chihuahua variety: Ruler and plate methods. Agro Productividad, 14, 7580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Numan, A., Muhammad, Z. A., Tariq, J., Fazal, M., Shamsher, A., & Amir, S. (2016). Assessing yield associated traits of oat genotypes grown under semi-arid conditions of Pakistan. American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 16, 17841789.Google Scholar
Lodhi, M.Y., Marghazani, I.B., Hamayun, K., & Marri, M.J. (2009). Comparative performance study of different oat varieties under agro-climatic conditions of Sibi. The Journal of Animal Plant sciences, 19, 3436.Google Scholar
Pant, S. R., Ghimire, R. P., Prenil, K. C., & Upreti, S. (2022). Growth and yield of different oat (Avena sativa) varieties in the Lalitpur district of Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 5, 3439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiber, C., Peters, M., Hoffmann, V., & Schultze-Kraft, R. (2012). Adoption and feeding of grass and legume hay in Honduras. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 24, 11. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/11/reib24192.htmGoogle Scholar
Singh, V.K., Singha, A.K., Takawle, P.S., Shindey, D.N., & Shrivastav, M.K. (2018). Evaluation of Different Oat Varieties for Green Fodder and Seed Prduction Yield. International Journal of Recent Advances in Multidisciplinary Research, 5[3]: 36683670.Google Scholar
Wangchuk, K., & Dorji, T. (2008). Animal feed production and management in Bhutan. In Best practices in animal feed production and management in SAARC countries (pp. 233). Dhaka SAARC Agriculture Center.Google Scholar
Yue, Y., Li, L., Tong, M., Li, S., Zhao, Y., Guo, X., Guo, Y., SHi, B., & Yan, S. (2022). Effect of varying dietary crude protein level on milk production, nutrient digestibility, and serum metabolites by lactating donkeys. Animals, 12, 2066. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162066CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaman, Q. M., Hussain, N., Aziz, A., & Hayat, K. (2006). Performance of high-yielding oats varieties under agro-climatic conditions of DI Khan. Journal of Agriculture Research, 44, 2936.Google Scholar
Zhang, G., Ma, H., Shao, X., Wang, J., Shen, Z., & Fu, G. (2019). A comparative study of yield and nutritive value of nine imported oat varieties in the valley region of Tibet, China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica , 28, 121131.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Varieties of forage oat and their origin

Figure 1

Table 2. Morphological parameters (mean plant height, tiller numbers, and leaf-to-stem ratio) among oat varieties in summer and winter

Figure 2

Figure 1. Forage yield of oat varieties in summer and winter. Means with different letters are significantly different.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Crude protein content of oat varieties in summer and winter. Means with different letters are significantly different.

Reviewing editor:  Michael Nevels University of St Andrews, Biomolecular Sciences Building, Fife, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, KY16 9ST
Minor revisions requested.

Review 1: Chinese oats perform well in temperate Bhutan: Results of field experiments

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: Title- Please reformulate, avoid using “well”

The Abstract section- must improve, please don t enumerate the studied varieties, “the seven oat varieties were evaluated for morphological traits…in two growth conditions.”

– please avoid using “tallest” for plant height

– also, for the presentation of the results to be more exact do not use “around” or “approximately”

– in the Introduction section- “Five cold-tolerant… can be moved to the Material and methods section

– please please insert a table with the name of varieties and their origin

– please add soil analyses- if you have any; and also the temperature and rainfall during the experimental period

– “The spacing adopted…”- please delete, is not necessary

– “rate of 50 kg per acre”- please use ha for area

– “thoroughly”- in a scientific paper you don t need to use epithets, try to avoid this type of interpretation

– in the discussion section- “Understanding the morphological…”- please reformulate

– “The quantifiable physical…”- which are these? please specify

– “Forage yield is greatly…” for this formation you must have some correlation

– in all paper please use a scientific language

– please avoid using “leafy” try another term

– “Different oat varieties..”Please reformulate: … the adaptability of oat variety to different environment conditions…

– “their yields are comparable to those…”- which yields?

– “Taller plants generally produce…”- if you make some correlation this can be more visible

– “The relatively higher plant growth…”- not quite, this can be the variety attribute or in relationship with tillering capacity

– “However, it should be noted…”- please reformulate … a negative correlation is highlighted between crude protein content and…

– “It suggests that Linna may need…”- considering that you harvested in the booting stage, the vegetative stages are almost done

– “of the greatest quality as winter…”- please change with “high quality”

– in the Conclusion section- “After paddy and buckwheat…”- this can be inserted in the Introduction section, is not a conclusion

– please insert “in temperate Buthan conditions”.

– “Additionally, there is an…”- also, there is not a conclusion of your research

Presentation

Overall score 2.6 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
3 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
2 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
3 out of 5

Context

Overall score 2.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
2 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
2 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 2.6 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
2 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
3 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
3 out of 5

Review 2: Chinese oats perform well in temperate Bhutan: Results of field experiments

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: A small typo: Conflict of “Iinterest”

Presentation

Overall score 4.4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5