Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-qmkzp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-02T05:36:45.171Z 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: Kesang.Wangchuk@icimod.org

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.

Information

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
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