Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2025 Feb 6;20(2):e0316565. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316565

Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) agronomic performances in mixed cultivation using irrigation condition, North-Western Ethiopia

Mihret Anteneh Wolele 1, Fentahun Meheret Zeleke 1,*, Yeshambel Mekuriaw Chekol 1, Bimrew Asmare Limenih 1, Zemenu Birhan Zegeye 1
Editor: Prabhu Govindasamy2
PMCID: PMC11801539  PMID: 39913395

Abstract

In this field experiment, the agronomic performance of Guinea grass was evaluated to assess the optimum planting spacing and harvesting age in mixed cultivation under irrigation conditions. These factors were arranged according to a 3*3 factorial setting, which was fitted to a randomized complete block design and replicated three times. This trial used three planting spaces (20, 30 and 40 cm) and harvesting ages (60, 90 and 120 days), grown in a mixed cropping system with Silver leaf desmodium using a furrow irrigation. The collected data includes plant height, leaves per plant, leaf length per plant, leaf to stem ratio, number of tillers per plant, number of roots per plant, root length per plant, and dry matter yield. The results of the study showed that age at harvest and planting space had a significant (P<0.001) effect on the morphological characteristics and dry matter yield of Guinea grass. The effect of these management practices was also affected the dry matter, crude protein and crude fiber contents of the grass. The maximum performances (high records) of the morphological characteristics and dry matter yield of Guinea grass were obtained by allocating a planting space of 40 cm and prolonging the harvesting period up to 120 days. However, harvesting at 90 days (11.48% of crude protein) resulted in the optimum nutritional contents. Therefore, in the area with irrigation facilities at midland agroecology, a planting space of 40 cm and a harvesting time of 90 days could be suggested through irrigation application in the study area and similar agro-ecologies.

Introduction

Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) is a member of the Megathyrsus genus and the Poaceae family. Tropical countries primarily use Guinea grass as a feed resource due to its high growth rate [1] and high seed and leaf production [2]. Under rainy and irrigated conditions, the annual dry matter yield per hectare was up to 12.2 tons/ha [3] and 42.7 tons/ha [4], respectively. It is suitable for cultivation using irrigation due to its tolerance to drought and saline soil conditions [5]. On the other hand, a feed shortage (quality and quantity) during the dry season strictly reduces livestock productivity in Ethiopia [6]. In this context, the livelihoods of smallholder farmers in terms of per capita consumption of animal products became low and far from the required level [7]. This could be improved by exploring potential forage resources through various means to alleviate sectorial constraints to sustain livestock production [6]. One of the interventions is to scale up forage production using potential grass species such as Guinea grass, which showed promising dry matter yield in a field trial at midland agroecology [8] but has not yet been adopted for optimum effect of harvest age and planting space. The irrigated areas of the country regularly used to grow cash crops, particularly in Mecha District, north-western Ethiopia. On the contrary, feed shortages have profoundly impacted dairy and beef farming in the district, where the number of farms has grown year after year due to the proximity of Bahir Dar, Amhara regional capital to the livestock market [9]. Therefore, the present study was conducted to figure out the effect of planting space and harvesting age on the performance of agro-morphological characteristics and nutritional contents of Guinea grass grown under mixed farming system with Silver Leaf Desmodium using irrigation in the midland agro-ecologies of Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Description of the study area

The filed trial was located at Mecha district, Amhara regional state, north western Ethiopia. It is 520 kilometres from North West of Addis Ababa, capital city of Ethiopia. Geographically, it is located at a latitude of 11° 29’ N, longitude 37° 29’ E, and altitudes between 1807 and 2300 m above sea level (Fig 1). Annual precipitation ranged between 1240 and 1537 mm, with the temperature ranging from 28.01°C to 10.57°C. The dominant soil type is Nitosol. The common feed resources are natural pasture hay from pastureland, and agricultural and industrial by-products.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Experimental design, layout, and treatments

A total of nine treatments (3*3) were arranged in a factorial arrangement using the variable planting space (PS) and age of harvest (AH) as presented in Table 1 below. Each treatment was replicated three times and planted in three blocks using a randomized complete block design (RCBD).

Table 1. List of treatment arrangements using planting space and age of harvest.

Treatment Planting space(cm) Age of harvesting (days)
1 20 60
2 30 60
3 40 60
4 20 90
5 30 90
6 40 90
7 20 120
8 30 120
9 40 120

Land preparation, planting materials and management

The experimental land was deliberately selected with irrigation infrastructure. The selected land ploughed three times. The land used for this trial was sized to 14m x 37m. It was prepared manually for the plantation. There were 27 plots and each sized 3m x 3m. The plots were separated by 1m and 1.5m strip to separate the blocks. The space between the plants was 50 cm. In February 2021, a total of 36 plants were planted using root-splitting within the plots and Silver leaf Desmodium (Desmodium uncinatum (Jacq.) DC.) was mixed at a rate of 25 g per row between the rows following the establishment of Guinea grass after two weeks [10]. The purpose of planting of this legume was the provision of ancillary services such as soil fertility improvement. All agronomic treatments, with the exclusion of fertilizer application were in place throughout the experimental period. It was irrigated three times per week during the period of seedling establishment and once a week after it was established.

Data collection

Plant morphological parameters and dry matter yield

Morphological parameters were measured at 30 days interval using 10 plant samples grown in the middle row to avoid border effects. The biometric measurements used to describe Guinea grass were plant height (PH), leaf length per plant (LLPP), leaf to stem ratio (LR), number of leaf per plant (LNPP), number of tillers per plant (NTPP), number of roots per plant (NRPP) and root length per plant (RLPP). Total Fresh Weight (TFW) for Guinea grass was measured separately after harvest at 5cm above the ground using a 50 kg x 200 g spring balance scale inside a 1m x 1m area of the quadrant. A sub-sample of fresh weight (500 g) was transported to the laboratory in a plastic bag. The sample was dried for 24 hours at 105°C. The yield of dry matter (t/ha) of samples was calculated as follows [11].

DMYt/ha=TFWXDWssX10HAXFWss

Where:

DMY = Dry matter yield.

TFW = total fresh weight kg/plot;

DWss = dry weight of sub-sample in grams;

FWss = fresh weight of sub-sample in grams,

HA = area of plot harvested in square meters and 10 is a constant for converting yields in kg/m2 to t/ha.

Chemical composition analysis

In this trial, 1 mm sieved bulk samples (500g) were used for wet chemical analysis. The oven method of drying at 105°C for 24 hours was used to determine dry matter (DM). Total nitrogen (N) and ash were determined using the method described already in AOAC [12]. The neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) of the fibre components were analyzed using the defined producers [13].

Statistical analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for agro-morphological characteristics (S1 File) and chemical composition contents (S2 File) was executed using a linear model (lm) using the package ‘agricolae’ from R software v. 4.3.2 and the ‘Metan’ package for the analysis of Pearson correlations between the variables. The significance differences (P<0.05) between the individual mean values were separated using the Duncan Multiple Range Test [14].

The statistical model for analyzing the variances fitted with the following model:-

Yij=μ+PSi+AHj+PSi*AHj+eij (1)

Where:

Yij = Agro- morphological characteristics and chemical composition performances responses;

μ = Overall mean;

PSi = ith effect of planting space (20, 30 and 40 cm);

HAj = jth effect of age of harvest (60, 90d and 120 days);

Psi* AHj = interaction effect of planting space and harvesting age

eij = random error

Results

Agro-morphological characteristics as a function of planting space and age of harvest

Plant height

The tallest plant height (75.89 cm) of Guinea grass was recorded at 40 cm planting space. It was also recorded at 120 days of harvest. The shortest plant height was recorded at 20 cm and the age of 60 days. It resulted due to the significant effect (P<0.001) of planting space and age of harvest on plant height performances. In this study, the age at harvest had a greater effect on the height of the plant than the planting space (Table 2).

Table 2. Effect of planting space and harvesting age on morphological characteristics and dry matter yield intercropped Guinea grass with sliver leaf desmodium.
Parameters PH/cm LNPP NLPP LLPP/cm NRPP RLPP/cm
Planting space
20 66.33b 43.03b 333.64b 22.34b 90.58c 6.17ab
30 73.78a 43.70ab 340.23a 22.81b 92.80b 6.41ab
40 75.89a 45.10a 346.02a 23.98a 94.96a 6.63a
P-value <0.001 <0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.001 <0.05
Age of harvest
60 57.89c 36.51c 253.52c 18.86c 76.27c 5.66c
90 71.78b 43.24b 364.48b 22.76b 96.24b 6.37b
120 86.33a 52.08a 401.90a 27.12a 105.83a 7.18a
Overall mean 72 43.94 339.96 23.07 92.8 6.4
MSE 10.52 2.42 34.9 0.71 2.12 0.71
CV 4.51 3.54 1.74 3.66 1.57 13.2
P-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

abc Superscript showed means significant difference of variables in column at P < 0.01, P < 0.001 and P>0.05; Plant height (PH), tillers number per plant (LNPP), number of leaf per plant (NLPP), leaf length per plant (LLPP), number of roots per plant (NRPP); root length per plant (RLPP), mean square error (MSE), and coefficient of variation (CV).

Number of tillers per plant

In this field trial, Guinea grass had more tillers per plant (52.08) when counted at 120 days. It had the lowest number of tillers when counted at 60 days. At a significant level of P<0.001 and P<0.05, Guinea grass tillers per plant were more influenced by the number of harvesting days than planting space respectively.

Number and length of leaf per plant

The longest harvest (120 days) of Guinea grass produced high leaf counts (401.90) and length per plant (27.12cm). It had the lowest leaf number (253.52) and length (18.86 cm) due to its early harvest age and used the narrow planting space.

Number of root and root length per plant

The number of root per plant and its length became highest at 120 days and lowest at 60 days. The 40 cm planting space had a higher root number per plant than the 20 cm and 30 cm planting spaces. Guinea grass root length required an elongated harvest age (high score) rather than planting space allocation (low score).

Interaction effect of planting space and age of harvest

Leaf to stem ratio

Leaf to stem ratio was significantly (P<0.01) more affected by planting space and age of harvest. The highest (1.74) records were obtained at wider planting space (40cm) and early harvest age (60 days) (see Table 3). The lowest (about 1.3) records were obtained at the 120-day harvest at planting spaces of 20cm, 30cm and 40cm.

Table 3. The interaction effect of planting space and age of harvest over the performance of leaf to stem and dry matter yield.
Planting space (PS) Age of harvest (AH) Leaf to stem ratio Dry matter yields ton/ha
20cm 60 days 1.45b 8.97g
  90 days 1.39b 10.33ef
  120 days 1.26c 12.06bcd
30cm 60 days 1.67a 10.11f
  90 days 1.42b 11.37cde
  120 days 1.27c 12.64bc
40cm 60 days 1.74a 11.08def
  90 days 1.4b 12.06b
  120 days 1.28c 14.26a
Overall mean   1.44 11.47
MSE   0.003 0.42
CV   3.94 5.63
P-values   <0.01 <0.001

abcdefg superscript showed a level of mean differences of variables across the columns at P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, mean square error (MSE), coefficient of variation (CV).

Dry matter yield

The dry matter yield (ton/ha) of guinea grass grown under an irrigation system was highly (P< 0.001) influenced by the interaction effect of both planting space and harvest age as leaf to stem ratio. In this study, the highest dry matter yield was obtained at 40 cm planting space and 120 days harvesting age. The lowest (8.97ton/ha) dry matter yield was harvested in combined management of 20 cm planting space and 60 days harvesting age (see Table 3).

Effect of plant spacing and harvesting age on the chemical composition of Guinea grass

Guinea grass chemical composition was highly (p<0.00) influenced by planting space with maximum values of 92.26% at 40cm as shown in Table 4. At 20 cm planting space it was low (89.12%). The chemical content of this grass grows significantly (p<0.001) different from the age of the harvest when irrigated in midland agroecology. Similarly, the percent of organic matter (OM %) content was highly influenced individually by planting space and harvest age with P values of P<0.001 (Table 4). The maximum percept of OM was contributed by 120 days of harvest. The early age of harvest (60 days) and wider space resulted in a low amount of OM contents.

Table 4. Effect of planting space and harvesting age on the chemical composition of the Guinea grass.

Parameters DM% OM% CP % NDF% ADF% ADL%
Planting space(cm)
20 89.12c 85.78a 11.15b 73.79a 43.18b 8.02a
30 91.25b 84.97a 11.47ab 72.35a 43.66b 7.79a
40 92.26a 85.87b 12.03a 68.61b 45.18a 6.86b
P-values <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.05 <0.001 <0.01
Age of harvest(cm)
60 89.66c 83.80c 12.70a 65.93c 42.98c 6.15c
90 90.85b 84.72b 11.48b 71.99b 44.11b 7.24b
120 92.11a 86.12a 10.48c 76.93a 45.15a 9.28a
Overall mean 90.87 84.87 11.55 71.58 44.08 7.55
MSE 0.64 0.7 0.43 12.93 0.65 0.38
CV 0.88 0.98 5.64 5.02 1.83 8.13
P-values <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

abc Mean with different superscripts in a row were significantly different at P < 0.001, Dry matter (DM), Organic matter (OM), Crude protein (CP), Neutral detergent fibre (NDF), Acid detergent fibre (ADF), Acid detergent lignin (ADL), mean square error (MSE), and coefficient of variation(CV)

The crude protein (CP) content of irrigated guinea grass was significantly affected by harvest ages (p<0.001), followed by planting space (p<0.05). The high concentration of CP which was 12.03% and 12.70% records were obtained from wider space (40 cm) and at the early age of harvest (60 days) respectively. The CP content of 10.48% was the lowest record obtained at the prolonged age of harvest. In addition, crude fiber content with NDF, ADF and ADL contents was strongly influenced by harvest age (P< 0.001), followed by planting space with P<0.05, P<0.001 and P<0.01 for the performances of NDF, ADF and ADL contents respectively. The NDF content became high (76.93%) at 120 days and low (65.93%) at 60 days. It was also high at 20 cm and low at 40 cm with scores of 73.79% and 68.61% respectively. The ADL content followed as pattern of NDF content. However, ADF was high at 40cm which accounted for 73.79%.

Correlation among morphological characteristics, dry matter yield and chemical composition of Guinea grass

The Pearson’s correlation (Metan package) analysis showed that Guinea grass plant height showed a significant (P<0.001) positive correlation with NRPP, RLPP and NLPP (Fig 2). The LSR of this grass showed a significant negative correlation (p<0.001) with the morphology of the plants in NLPP, NRPP, PH, TNPP and LLPP. There was a negative correlation between NLPP and LSR, but a strong positive correlation between TNPP, PH, RLPP and NRPP. There was a strong positive correlation between LLPP and NLPP, NRPP, RLPP, PH and TNPP. Furthermore, there was a negative correlation and a significant negative correlation between the CP content of guinea grass and NDF, ADL and OM.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Discussion

Morphological characteristics performance of Guinea grass

Above-ground morphometric performances of guinea grass such as plant height, number of tillers, number of leaves and leaf length per plant reached their maxima by increasing the planting space from 20cm to 40cm. It brings significantly high performance on morphologic changes in comparison of plants from the shortest plant to the tallest plant. It had a maximum score of the number of tillers, number of leaf and length per plant. Such high morphological performance could benefit smallholder farmers to subsidise feed shortage feed in the dry season. It is similar to the current study showed a high score of morphological characteristics obtained as the age of harvest increases by up to 120 days. This is worthy to have adequate feed for livestock production. The consequence of this experiment in coincidence with the prescription of the optimal planting space and the delay of the harvesting age improved the productivity of the grass species [15,16]. Because, the performance of morphological characteristics of Guinea grass was improved to the tallest, largest number of tiller and leaf per plant in this trial when it was managed at wider space and elongated age of harvest. It might be related to adequate nutrients and moisture availability in a wider space [17]. It is similar to wider plating space contributing more tiller number than the narrow planting space as reported for Napier grass [18], Desho grass [19] and Mulat grass [20]. Similarly, age of harvest elongation had a response for morphological characteristic advancement for tropical grass species like Napier grass [21], Desho grass [19] and Para grass [22]. On the other hand, in this study, root morphological performance improved in parallel with increasing planting space and delayed harvest age, but root length was more affected by harvest age than planting space. It is in line with previous reports when the score of roots was done close to 120 days as reported for Desho grass [19] and Para grass [22].

Dry matter yield and leaf to stem ratio

The amount of dry matter (DMY) produced per hectare as well as the estimated leaf to stem ratio fluctuated greatly (P<0.001) depending on the plating space and the age of harvest for the irrigated Guinea grass. Dry matter yield increased significantly at 40 cm and 120 days, while LSR was maximal at 60 days. At a late harvest age (120 days), high dry matter was obtained and minimal at a harvest of 60 days. This was comparable to the dry matter yield (12.72 t/ha) obtained from the Desho grass grown with the vetch species [23]. Moreover, in this study, the 40 cm planting space produced a higher dry matter yield (14.26 t/ha) than the 50 cm planting space (5.41 t/ha) employed during mixed pasture cultivation under rain fed conditions [24]. As a result, due to the advancement of plant morphology, in the current field experiment, the dry matter yield of Guinea grass was strongly influenced by plant spacing and harvesting age. It is in line with the finding when the Chicory plant intercropped with dwarf Elephant grass (4.659 kg/ha DM); established at plant spacing of 25x 25cm and harvested at 60 days [25], mono cultivation of Columbus grass (18.83 t/ha of leaf DM) planted at 25×35cm plant spacing and harvested at 8weeks [26] and Mulato cultivars (12.34.t/ha DM) grown at 30x50cm and harvested at 120 days under irrigation conditions [27]. The dry matter yield differences recorded for Guinea grass might be due to agroecology, the genetic makeup of the species and management aspects. On the other hand, The 40cm planting space produced a maximum LSR score of 1.74 after 60 days of harvest, which was superior to 1.69 from legume combination cultivations of Desho grass harvested after 90 days [23].

Effect of planting space and age of harvest on the chemical composition of Guinea grass

In the current study, the protein content of Guinea grass grown with Silver leaf desmodium was significantly different as a function of planting space and harvest age. It was higher when planted in a 30cm space and harvested after 90 days. It is explained by the fact that the A. gayanus and Stylosanthes mixture had the maximum protein concentration (152 g/kg), which is an indicator of quality animal feed produced from the intercropping of legumes and grass species [28]. It is also consistent with the nutrient content of intercropped species of grasses and legumes, which maximizes the nutritional value of pasture in lowland agroecology [29].

Correlation among morphological characteristics, dry matter yields and chemical composition of Guinea grass

The positive correlation of most morphological characteristics and dry matter yield of Guinea grass in this experiment indicated that optimum planting space and harvesting age could enhance the morphological and dry matter yield performance of grass species like the productivity from natural pasture when intercropped with legumes [29] It is similar results to the dry matter yield performance of desho grass associated with morphological parameters [19]. On the other hand, the crude protein content was positively correlated with leaf to stem ratio and crude fiber contents (NDF, ADF and ADL) moderately positive association with most morphological characteristics. It confirms that the intercropping system increased the nutritive values of feed resources of grass species [23,29].

Conclusion

In the current experiment, variable planting space had a strong effect on the morphological characteristics, dry matter yield and nutrient content of guinea grass in mixed cropping. It had a significant role in the achievement of maximum dry matter yields and showed better development of plant morphology. It is uniform for most morphology characteristics such as PH, NTPP, NLPP, LL, NRPP, RLPP and DMY, which are higher at late harvest age (120 days). It is also reflected in the nutrient contents (DM, Ash, OM, ADF and ADL) of the grass, except for CP which was high at an early age (60 days). Consequently, this experiment concludes that for the nutrient and dry matter production of Guinea grass, a wider plant spacing of 40 cm and an intermediate harvest age of 90 days are both more satisfactory. It could be an alternative fodder resource following further study under rain fed conditions. Moreover, animal evaluation trial and economic feasibility of forage production are of worth to be done as future research.

Supporting information

S1 File. Raw data collected from plant morphology and dry matter yield per ha.

(PDF)

pone.0316565.s001.pdf (230.7KB, pdf)
S2 File. Raw data on chemical composition analysis of Guinea grass.

(PDF)

pone.0316565.s002.pdf (244.7KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

This experiment was accompanied by the support of Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar and Jabi Tehinan District Agriculture Office and Sirinka Research Centre were provided plant material, Ethiopia.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Batistoti C, Lempp B, Jank L, Morais MdG, Cubas A, Gomes R, et al. Correlations among anatomical, morphological, chemical and agronomic characteristics of leaf blades in Panicum maximum genotypes. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2012;171(2–4):173–80. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.11.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Idowu W, Hassan M, Tanko R, Amodu J, Adewumi A, Oyewo T, et al. Chemical Composition of Panicum Maximum as Affected by Pig Manure Rates, Planting Methods and Harvesting Stages in The Northern Guinea Savanna Of Nigeria. Fudma Journal of Sciences. 2020;4(1):340–7. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14574.36169 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Adjolohoun S, Dahouda M, Adandedjan C, Toleba S, Kindomihou V, Sinsin B. Evaluation of biomass production and nutritive value of nine Panicum maximum ecotypes in Central region of Benin. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2013;8(17):1661–8. doi: 10.5897/AJAR12.2026 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Silva EAd Silva WJd, Barreto AC Oliveira Junior ABd, Paes JMV Ruas JRM, et al. Dry matter yield, thermal sum and base temperatures in irrigated tropical forage plants. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 2012;41:574–82. doi: 10.1590/S1516-35982012000300014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kusmiyati F. Turnitin-Nfluence of Rice Straw Mulch on Saline Soil: Forage Production, Feed Quality and Feed Intake by Sheep. 2018. Available from: http://eprints.undip.ac.id/63918/ [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mengistu A, Kebede G, Feyissa F, Assefa G. Review on major feed resources in Ethiopia: Conditions, challenges and opportunities. Academic Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Research. 2017;5(3):176–85. doi: 10.14662/ARJASR2017.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Management Entity. Ethiopia’s Livestock Systems: Overview and Areas of Inquiry. 2021. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/1165788. Adane [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Effects Of Cultivar A. And Harvesting Age On Morphological Characteristics, Yield And Nutritive Values Of Guinea Grass (Panicum Maximum) Grown Under Irrigation Condition In Different Locations Of Western Amhara Region, Ethiopia 2022. Available from: http://ir.bdu.edu.et/handle/123456789/15434?show=full [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Molla T, Asresie H, Biruhalem K, Mekonen T, Yenesew A, Friew T, et al. Participatory rural Appraisal Report: Mecha District. Bahirdar University, Ethiopia, CASCAPE working paper; 2014(retracted). [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gelayenew B, Tamir B, Assefa G, Feyissa F. Effects of spacing of elephant grass and vetch intercropping on agronomic performance and herbage yield of elephant grass. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2020;30(2):13–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mutegi JK, Mugendi DN, Verchot LV, Kung’u JB. Combining napier grass with leguminous shrubs in contour hedgerows controls soil erosion without competing with crops. Agroforestry systems. 2008;74:37–49. doi: 10.1007/s10457-008-9152-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC. 1990; 881–2. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Van Soest Pv Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of dairy science. 1991;74(10):3583–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Published online 2024 [Internet]. 2024. Aviable from: https://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/ [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Choudhary M, Prabhu G, Palsaniya DR. Response of guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) genotypes to intercropping with forage legumes under varying nitrogen management options. Grass and Forage Science. 2018;73(4):888–96. doi: 10.1111/gfs.12384 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Saleem A, Malik AM, Hassan NU, Qamar IA. Effect of Common Vetch (Vicia sativa L) Legume on Growth and Yield of Rye Grass (Lolium multiflorium L). Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research. 2019;32(4). doi: 10.17582/journal.pjar/2019/32.4.675.683 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Craine JM, Dybzinski R. Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients, water and light. Functional Ecology. 2013;27(4):833–40. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wijitphan S, Lorwilai P, Arkaseang C. Effects of plant spacing on yields and nutritive values of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.) under intensive management of nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition. 2009;8(8):1240–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Asmare B, Demeke S, Tolemariam T, Tegegne F, Haile A, Wamatu J. Effects of altitude and harvesting dates on morphological characteristics, yield and nutritive value of desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.) in Ethiopia. Agriculture and Natural Resources. 2017;51(3):148–53. doi: 10.1016/j.anres.2016.11.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Worku M, Lemma H, Shawle K, Adie A, Duncan AJ, Jones CS, et al. Potential of Urochloa grass hybrids as fodder in the Ethiopian highlands. Agronomy Journal. 2022;114(1):126–37. doi: 10.1002/agj2.20789 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bayble T, Melaku S, Prasad N. Effects of cutting dates on nutritive value of Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) grass planted sole and in association with Desmodium (Desmodium intortum) or Lablab (Lablab purpureus). Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2007;19(1):120–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zemene M, Mekuriaw Y, Asmare B. Effect of plant spacing and harvesting age on plant characteristics, yield and chemical composition of para grass (Brachiaria mutica) at Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Scientific Papers Animal Science and Biotechnologies. 2020;53(2):137–. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tesfaye T, Asmare B, Mekuriaw Y, Hunegnaw B. Morphological Characters, Yield, and Chemical Composition Potentials of Desho Grass (Pennisetum glaucifolium H.) Intercropped with Vetch Species in the Highlands of Ethiopia. Advances in Agriculture. 2022;2022. doi: 10.1155/2022/7874717 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ram S, Suresh G, Singh K. Effect of planting geometry and cutting management on productivity, quality and economics of mixed pasture under rainfed conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2007;52(3):251–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zaini N, Tilova A, Umami N, Hanim C, Astuti A, Suwignyo B, editors. Effect of harvesting age of chicory (Cichorium intybus) on the pattern of planting intercropping dwarf elephant grass in the second regrowth on production and quality. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; 2021: IOP Publishing. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/788/1/012173 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gumel I, Baba M, Abdurrahaman S, Ibrahim A, Babangida I, Kiri I, et al. Effect of Plant Spacing on Dry Matter Yield and Proximate Composition of Irrigated Columbus Grass (Sorghum almum). Nigerian Journal of Animal Science and Technology (NJAST). 2020;3(1):53–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wassie WA, Tsegay BA, Wolde AT, Limeneh BA. Evaluation of morphological characteristics, yield and nutritive value of Brachiaria grass ecotypes in northwestern Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security. 2018;7:1–10. doi: 10.1186/s40066-018-0239-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Moura R, Oliveira M, Carvalho W, Rodrigues M, Santos M, Edvan R, et al. Evaluation of grass and legume tropical mixtures and performance of grazed sheep. South African Journal of Animal Science. 2022;52(1):25–33. doi: 10.4314/sajas.v52i1.4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gulwa U, Mgujulwa N, Beyene ST. Effect of grass-legume intercropping on dry matter yield and nutritive value of pastures in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Univers J Agric Res. 2017;5:355–62. doi: 10.13189/ujar.2017.050607 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mohammad Nur Alam

26 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-32761Guinea Grass (Panicum Maximum) Agronomic Performances in Mixed Cultivation using Irrigation conditions, Northern Western EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zeleke,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 10 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Nur Alam, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Datasets are available at the hand of corresponding author]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors

Thanks for your nice work. There are many errors in the MS. Be serious and follow the reviewers' comments, and strictly perform major revisions.

Regards

Mohammad Nur Alam, PhD

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have conducted good research work however; the MS needs major improvement before it can consider for publication. I have provided below some shortcomings identified in the MS and they need to be addressed.

General comments

1. In the abstract there must be research objectives, research methods, results and discussion, and the originality of the research.

2. The introduction should be concise and clear. Other than that, in quoting, you must use a new language and not copy and paste.

3. The research method must be clear about the research location, research methods that are in accordance with the research theory.

4. The results and discussion must be detailed, clear, concise, concise, and easy to understand.

5. Conclusions must be short and clear, provide research suggestions for further researchers

6. Must follow the format that is in accordance with the submitted journal.

Specific comments

1. Change the botanical name of guinea grass from Panicum maximum to Megathyrsus maximus.

2. Use a similar format for keywords.

3. Confirm the statistical design—whether it is CRBD (Completely Randomized Block Design) or RCBD (Randomized Complete Block Design).

4. Table 4: CP values are on the slightly higher side. Please check.

5. Include the soil fertility status of the experimental field.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your manuscript entitled "Guinea grass (Panicum Maximum) Agronomic Performance for Mixed Cultivation using Irrigation conditions, Northern Western Ethiopia". I very much enjoyed reading your manuscript. The authors purpose that at 40 cm plant spacing with 90 day's harvest age is better for nutritional value of Guinea grass however maximum other parameters are given better result with 120 day's harvest age.

The manuscript is well written. It's may be typing mistake in 43 & 281 which is Sliver Leaf Desmodium actually it Silver Leaf Desmodium.

Discussions are logical with tables and figures.

References are suitable for this manuscript, I think if 8,10,13,16,17,19,& 23 references are same style as like 2 it will be better.

It is a nice work I wish it will help the growers to fulfill their cattle feed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Feb 6;20(2):e0316565. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316565.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Sep 2024

Dear Editor,

I would like to thank you for giving us feedback to improve our MS through your committed work and the anonymous reviewers’ efforts.

We have gone through your comments and revised accordingly and prepared an author’s response (submited). We also well come further comments to qualify the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers(2024).docx

pone.0316565.s003.docx (19.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Prabhu Govindasamy

25 Nov 2024

PONE-D-24-32761R1Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) agronomic performances in mixed cultivation using irrigation condition, North-Western EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zeleke,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

  • Please see the attached word file. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 09 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Prabhu Govindasamy, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

There are a few minor suggestions and comments I have made for authors. Kindly resubmit it.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I thank the authors to largely address my comments. Therefore, I think the MS can be accepted in its present form.

Reviewer #2: Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) agronomic performances in mixed cultivation using irrigation condition, North-Western Ethiopia is a good work that will help to increase the cultivation of animals fodder. All comments have been addressed by the authors carefully.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript_Prabhu.docx

pone.0316565.s004.docx (298.9KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Feb 6;20(2):e0316565. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316565.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Dec 2024

Dear Editor,

I would like to thank the academic editor of PLOS ONE and the anonymous reviewers for providing us with suggestions that assisted us in improving the content of our paper. We have incorporated your comments, amended them, and prepared the response shown in the table below. We are happy to receive further comments, thank you in advance.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers(2025).docx

pone.0316565.s005.docx (18.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Prabhu Govindasamy

13 Dec 2024

Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus) agronomic performances in mixed cultivation using irrigation condition, North-Western Ethiopia

PONE-D-24-32761R2

Dear Dr. Zeleke,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Prabhu Govindasamy, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for attending all the comments and suggestions made by reviewers and editor. 

Reviewers' comments:

<gdiv id="ginger-floatingG-container" style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px;"><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG ginger-floatingG-closed ginger-floatingG-posdown ginger-floatingG-spin ginger-floatingG-dirty" style="display: block; left: 650.1px; top: 158.8px; z-index: 51;"><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-disabled-main"><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-bar-tool-tooltip ginger-floatingG-bar-tool-tooltip-enable">Enable Ginger</gdiv></gdiv><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-offline-main"><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-bar-tool-tooltip">Cannot connect to Ginger Check your internet connection

or reload the browser</gdiv></gdiv><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-enabled-main"><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-bar"><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-bar-tool ginger-floatingG-bar-tool-disable"><ga></ga><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-bar-tool-tooltip">Disable Ginger</gdiv></gdiv><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-bar-tool ginger-floatingG-bar-tool-rephrase ginger-floatingG-bar-tool-rephrase_big-circle"><ga class="ginger-floatingG-bar-tool-rephrase__btn" id="ginger__floatingG-bar-tool-rephrase__btn">Rephrase</ga><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-bar-tool-tooltip ginger-floatingG-bar-tool-tooltip_rephrase">Rephrase with Ginger (Ctrl+Alt+E)</gdiv></gdiv><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-bar-tool ginger-floatingG-bar-tool-mistakes"><ga>1</ga><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-bar-tool-tooltip">Log in to edit with Ginger</gdiv></gdiv></gdiv></gdiv><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG__loading-popup">Ginger is checking your text for mistakes...</gdiv><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG__disabling-popup " style="display: none;">Disable Ginger in this text fieldDisable Ginger on this website</gdiv><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-contentPopup" style="display: none;"><gdiv class="ginger-floatingG-contentPopup-wrap-limit">600/2139 free characters checked.Go Premium to check longer texts and entire documents</gdiv></gdiv></gdiv></gdiv>

Acceptance letter

Prabhu Govindasamy

20 Dec 2024

PONE-D-24-32761R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zeleke,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Prabhu Govindasamy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Raw data collected from plant morphology and dry matter yield per ha.

    (PDF)

    pone.0316565.s001.pdf (230.7KB, pdf)
    S2 File. Raw data on chemical composition analysis of Guinea grass.

    (PDF)

    pone.0316565.s002.pdf (244.7KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers(2024).docx

    pone.0316565.s003.docx (19.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Manuscript_Prabhu.docx

    pone.0316565.s004.docx (298.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers(2025).docx

    pone.0316565.s005.docx (18.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES