Interactive Effect of Weeding Regimes, Rice Cultivars, and Seeding Rates Influence the Rice-Weed Competition under Dry Direct-Seeded Condition
, M. Jahangir Alam 2, Akbar Hossain 3,*, A. K. M. Mominul Islam 4, Tahir H. Awan 5, Walid Soufan 6, Ahmed Ali Qahtan 7, Mohmmad K. Okla 7 and Ayman El Sabagh 8,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript reports the interactive effects of weeding regime, rice cultivar and seeding rate on rice-weed competition and rice yield performance in dry direct-seeded rice (DSR). Weeds are the major constraints to the success of direct-seeded rice, especially in dry direct seeding. Weed compete with rice for sharing the resources such as light, water and nutrient. Therefore, timely and cost-effective weed management is important to the success of DSR. Hand weeding which is the most effective weed control option in rice but this practice becoming less practical day by day. Herbicidal weed management is cost-effective but has some negative effects on the environment as well as risks in developing resistance weed biotypes. Therefore, weed management needs an integrated approach using cultural, mechanical, biological and chemical methods. Competitive cultivars greatly help in reducing weed competition by suppressing the weeds growth or tolerance the competition. The high seed rate of crops helps quick canopy coverage and suppress weed growth.
The finding of the manuscript is novel and contributes to science. Overall, this is a clear, concise, well-written and well-organized manuscript. The introduction is relevant and informative and the authors did a good job of synthesizing the latest literature. The results and discussion are written well.
Specific comments:
Line 21: after abstract: the word Dry made the bold.
Line 26-27: Change the sentence as “Improving competitiveness against weeds, weed competitive rice cultivars and high seeding rates are the most promising IWM strategies in DSR”.
Line 35: Need a space after ha-1 and use the before further. Space before Conversely
Line 37: Use of after up to SR
Line 41: Need a space between competitiveness and resources
Line 47: need a space between as and aus
Line 49: need a space between aus and
Line 50: Need space before Boro
Line 51:there is an extra space before the. Delete this.
Line 53: need a space between part and of. Between boro and season. Before irrigation. Before Bangladesh
Line 54: Between the and profitability need a space.
Line 87-89: Re-write this sentence to make it more clear.
Line 90: add an before intregartion
Line 94-97: Re-write this sentence to make it more understandable.
Line 115: Need a space between in and the
Line 116: need a space before on
Line 118: Remove a space before high. Provide space between are and encouraging
Line 128: provide a space between aus and rice
Line 131-142: Several words merge together and need a space between number and word.
Line 157: need a space between aus and season.
Line 158: Check the spelling popular.
Line 198-202: check these sentences. These sentences are not formatted properly.
References: some references are not formated properly.
Author Response
Date: 19 December 2020
Reviewer #1
Reviewer comments: The manuscript reports the interactive effects of weeding regime, rice cultivar and seeding rate on rice-weed competition and rice yield performance in dry direct-seeded rice (DSR). Weeds are the major constraints to the success of direct-seeded rice, especially in dry direct seeding. Weed compete with rice for sharing the resources such as light, water and nutrient. Therefore, timely and cost-effective weed management is important to the success of DSR. Hand weeding which is the most effective weed control option in rice but this practice becoming less practical day by day. Herbicidal weed management is cost-effective but has some negative effects on the environment as well as risks in developing resistance weed biotypes. Therefore, weed management needs an integrated approach using cultural, mechanical, biological and chemical methods. Competitive cultivars greatly help in reducing weed competition by suppressing the weeds growth or tolerance the competition. The high seed rate of crops helps quick canopy coverage and suppress weed growth.The finding of the manuscript is novel and contributes to science. Overall, this is a clear, concise, well-written and well-organized manuscript. The introduction is relevant and informative and the authors did a good job of synthesizing the latest literature. The results and discussion are written well.
Authors’ response: Thanks for the good comments.
Specific comments:
Reviewer comments: Line 21: after abstract: the word Dry made the bold.
Authors’ response: Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer Comments: Line 26-27: Change the sentence as “Improving competitiveness against weeds, weed competitive rice cultivars and high seeding rates are the most promising IWM strategies in DSR”.
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 35: Need a space after ha-1 and use the before further. Space before Conversely
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 37: Use of after up to SR
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 41: Need a space between competitiveness and resources
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 47: need a space between as and aus
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 49: need a space between aus and
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 50: Need space before Boro
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 51:there is an extra space before the. Delete this.
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 53: need a space between part and of. Between boro and season. Before irrigation. Before Bangladesh
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 54: Between the and profitability need a space.
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 87-89: Re-write this sentence to make it clearer.
Authors’ response: Now re-written
Reviewer comments: Line 90: add an before intregartion
Authors’ response: Now added
Reviewer comments: Line 94-97: Re-write this sentence to make it more understandable.
Authors’ response: Now rewritten the sentence
Reviewer comments: Line 115: Need a space between in and the
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 116: need a space before on
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 118: Remove a space before high. Provide space between are and encouraging
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 128: provide a space between aus and rice
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 131-142: Several words merge together and need a space between number and word.
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 157: need a space between aus and season.
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 158: Check the spelling popular.
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: Line 198-202: check these sentences. These sentences are not formatted properly.
Authors’ response: The correction has been done.
Reviewer comments: References: some references are not formated properly.
Authors’ response: Authors’ response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have thoroughly checked all the references in text and also in reference section and vice-versa. We also formatted all references in text as well as reference list as per guidelines for authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research titled “Interactive Effect of Weeding Regimes, Rice Cultivar, and Seeding Rates on Rice-Weed Competition Under Dry Direct-Seeded Conditions” is an interesting study. It is a novel study if we consider the cropping system and the geographic location.
The strongest section of this manuscript is the Conclusion. It contains recommendations based on Results. However, overall, the manuscript requires clarity in detailing the Discussion section. The discussion section is the weakest point of this manuscript. The authors failed to corroborate their results in the discussion part in a scientific manner. Furthermore, the manuscript requires extensive English language editing for clarification.
In many places, this manuscript requires spacing, commas, and word corrections. Please, revise extensively and use “Grammarly” in Microsoft word for convenience.
Abstract
The beginning of the abstract is concise and to the point. However, the last few lines are very confusing. May be re-write them to clarify? Also, please, indicate whether the results were statistically significant. Please, write the scientific name of rice at its first mention, and please, do this for the rest of the manuscript.
Introduction
This section is lengthy and needs reconsideration. A concise but well-written and in-depth explored literature review is missing here. It does not have to be wordy. Please, emphasize the fact that a few field studies or field trials are available on the weed competitiveness on aus rice in Bangladesh and the current research has novelty in this regard
Maybe a simple thought process can be employed-
- What is the importance of rice in South Asian countries, what type of rice-growing practices are available in South Asia, and what is most common in Bangladesh? What are the major constraints in rice growing in BD?
- Focus on weed problem and then the additional cost of weeding in terms of herbicides and labor cost
- The uniqueness of the study in terms of field trials with aus rice for weed competitiveness in BD. Also, shed some light on similar studies in other countries in South Asia and Southeast Asia
This will be the "Introduction".
Materials and Methods
Experimental Site
Please, write the scientific names of the crop species mentioned in this section
Experimental Treatments and Design
This section is a bit confusing to read, especially in the “sub-sub plot” sections. What was the experimental design?
Crop management
How was the moisture level monitored and how did the irrigation take place? How much was irrigated?
Observations
The temperature to oven-dry the weeds is 70 degrees C. I have some reservations here. The optimum temperature for drying biomass is 55 to 65 degrees Celsius. Why 70 degrees is selected?
Results
In Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4, please, indicate the dry weight basis or fresh weight basis. Please, indicate statistical significance in the paragraph/texts.
Figure 4. Please, indicate with a and b, instead of “left side” or “right side”.
The result section is well constructed; however, this reviewer suggests that the authors should consult a native English language speaker just for clarity.
Discussion
This section seems to be an extension of the results rather than a discussion. Besides, this reviewer is confused about the need to write this paragraph separately with citations. In the discussion, just throwing supportive literature at random is not the right way.
Line 43 to Line 49. Please, cite. This paragraph contains strong claims and suggestions; thus, citations are needed.
Line 50 to Line 56. Please, incorporate them while discussing the “Discussion”.
Line 368 to Line 370. This discussion is irrelevant.
Please, indicate whether the increase or decrease in grain yield or weed competition, etc. is statistically significant or not (indicate alpha level).
Line 415. Please, discuss ‘sink regulation” Why this is mentioned?
Line 425 to Line 430. Please, incorporate them into the Conclusion section.
Conclusion
This is a well-written section.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #2 comments
Reviewer comments: The research titled “Interactive Effect of Weeding Regimes, Rice Cultivar, and Seeding Rates on Rice-Weed Competition Under Dry Direct-Seeded Conditions” is an interesting study. It is a novel study if we consider the cropping system and the geographic location.
Authors’ response: We agree with the reviewer and thanks for the positive comments.
Reviewer comments: The strongest section of this manuscript is the Conclusion. It contains recommendations based on Results. However, overall, the manuscript requires clarity in detailing the Discussion section. The discussion section is the weakest point of this manuscript. The authors failed to corroborate their results in the discussion part in a scientific manner. Furthermore, the manuscript requires extensive English language editing for clarification.
Authors’ response: Thanks for the good suggestions. Now we have revised and improved the discussion section. We all and also a native English speaker have been thoroughly checked the language of the whole manuscript and have been corrected where necessary.
Reviewer comments: In many places, this manuscript requires spacing, commas, and word corrections. Please, revise extensively and use “Grammarly” in Microsoft word for convenience.
Authors’ response: Now we have checked very carefully and provided space and comma where required and used grammarly for word check.
Reviewer comments: Abstract
The beginning of the abstract is concise and to the point. However, the last few lines are very confusing. May be re-write them to clarify? Also, please, indicate whether the results were statistically significant.
Authors’ response: Now rewritten some sentences for clear understanding and the significant results were indicated using p value.
Reviewer comments: Please, write the scientific name of rice at its first mention, and please, do this for the rest of the manuscript.
Authors’ response: The suggested correction has been done
Reviewer comments: Introduction
This section is lengthy and needs reconsideration. A concise but well-written and in-depth explored literature review is missing here. It does not have to be wordy. Please, emphasize the fact that a few field studies or field trials are available on the weed competitiveness on aus rice in Bangladesh and the current research has novelty in this regard
Maybe a simple thought process can be employed-
- What is the importance of rice in South Asian countries, what type of rice-growing practices are available in South Asia, and what is most common in Bangladesh? What are the major constraints in rice growing in BD?
- Focus on weed problem and then the additional cost of weeding in terms of herbicides and labor cost
- The uniqueness of the study in terms of field trials with aus rice for weed competitiveness in BD. Also, shed some light on similar studies in other countries in South Asia and Southeast Asia
This will be the "Introduction".
Authors’ response: Thank you so much for your suggestion. Now we have improved the introduction following the guideline of reviewer. We deleted some less important sentences from this section to make it short.
Reviewer comments: Materials and Methods
Experimental Site
Please, write the scientific names of the crop species mentioned in this section
Authors’ response: The suggested correction has been done
Reviewer comments: Experimental Treatments and Design
This section is a bit confusing to read, especially in the “sub-sub plot” sections. What was the experimental design?
Authors’ response: The experiment design was a split-plot in a randomized complete block arrangement.
Reviewer comments: Crop management
How was the moisture level monitored and how did the irrigation take place? How much was irrigated?
Authors’ response: The irrigation was based on soil water tension using tensiometers. We already mentioned this at lines 187-190.
Immediately after sowing the field was irrigated lightly, and succeeding irrigations were arranged based on a soil water tension threshold (15 kPa at 15 cm soil depth) which was found the safe threshold for rice [33]. Once seedling was established, irrigation at each time water has added to the plots until the depth of water on the soil surface reached 5 cm (40-50 mm water).
Reviewer comments: Observations
The temperature to oven-dry the weeds is 70 degrees C. I have some reservations here. The optimum temperature for drying biomass is 55 to 65 degrees Celsius. Why 70 degrees is selected?
Authors’ response: Actually Oven dry purpose is to reach a constrant biomass. Actually it depends on many factors and ranges from 55-80 oC. In Bangladesh mostly practice 70 degree centigrade for 2 to 3 days depending on plant sample preparation.
Reviewer comments: Results
In Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4, please, indicate the dry weight basis or fresh weight basis.
Authors’ response: The weed biomass was dry weight basis and now we mentioned this.
Reviewer comments: Please, indicate statistical significance in the paragraph/texts.
Authors’ response: Thanks for this suggestion. Now we have mentioned the significant level where it was significant.
Reviewer comments: Reviewer comments: Figure 4. Please, indicate with a and b, instead of “left side” or “right side”.
Authors’ response: These corrections have been done
Reviewer comments: The result section is well constructed; however, this reviewer suggests that the authors should consult a native English language speaker just for clarity.
Authors’ response: Thanks for the good comments. We all and also a native English speaker have been thoroughly checked the language of the whole manuscript and have been corrected where necessary.
Reviewer comments: Discussion
This section seems to be an extension of the results rather than a discussion. Besides, this reviewer is confused about the need to write this paragraph separately with citations. In the discussion, just throwing supportive literature at random is not the right way.
Authors’ response: Now we reviewed the discussion and hope it has now improved.
Reviewer comments: Line 43 to Line 49. Please, cite. This paragraph contains strong claims and suggestions; thus, citations are needed.
Authors’ response: Now we added citations.
Reviewer comments: Line 368 to Line 370. This discussion is irrelevant.
Authors’ response: Now deleted this sentence.
Reviewer comments: Please, indicate whether the increase or decrease in grain yield or weed competition, etc. is statistically significant or not (indicate alpha level).
Authors’ response: Now indicated.
Reviewer comments: Line 415. Please, discuss ‘sink regulation” Why this is mentioned?
Authors’ response: Sink regulation of photosynthesis is highly dependent on the physiology of the plant. This physiological state regulates photosynthesis through signal transduction pathways that co-ordinate the plant carbon : nitrogen balance, which match photosynthetic capacity to growth and storage capacity and underpin and can override the direct short-term controls of photosynthesis by light and CO2. We think this terminology is not so relevant with this work, therefore, we deleted this sentence from the discussion section.
Reviewer comments: Line 425 to Line 430. Please, incorporate them into the Conclusion section.
Authors’ response: Now moved and incorporated to the conclusion
Reviewer comments: Conclusion
This is a well-written section.
Authors’ response: Thanks for the good comments.
Overall authors’ response: Besides above comments and suggestions we have thoroughly checked the whole manuscript and corrected where necessary. We also prepared the manuscript as per guidelines for authors, particularly checking all references in text as well as reference list.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It looks much improved as suggested and commented.
Author Response
Reviewer #1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Reviewer comments: It looks much improved as suggested and commented.
Authors’ reply: Thanks for the good commnts.
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract
Mention the scientific name of rice here
Introduction
Overall, not much improved. Consider shortening. Still has the weakness where the audience might lose their attention.
Line 54. Small letter “m” in Mechanized
Line 77. Please, revise. There is a random bracket.
Line 103 to 104. Reconsider this sentence whether to keep it or not.
Line 99 to 120. Long! Please, consider re-writing. Make these shorter.
Materials and Methods
Line 183. Cite.
Line 189. Immediately
Results
For all the Tables write “dry weight basis”
Discussion
Line 344 to 348. Too long of a sentence! Again, I am not sure why this was written. Seems like reporting results to me. Why do you think this “both weed competitive CVs and increased SR could decrease weed growth and yield loss”? Cite and give a plausible reason.
Line 348 to 353. This is close to discussing results. However, there is no need to mention the numeric from the results again.
For example, ‘The upward yield trends in inbred and hybrid cultivars could be attributed to increased crop density. “
Line 353 to 355. Break down this sentence into multiple and write it at the beginning of the Discussion. State what these studies found very concisely. Afterward, relate to your discussion and start your Discussion.
Line 376 to 377. It is always a good practice to give a prelude to your discussion before actually writing it. Thus, re-write this supporting finding before Line 373.
For example,
“Previous studies indicated a possible positive relationship between panicle density and seeding rate while an inverse relation with filled grain [41,42]. We observed rice panicle numbers….”
Try and follow this pattern for the most part of the discussion….
Author Response
Response to Reviewer comments #2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors’ response: All edits are showing as track change mode in the text of the manuscript
Reviewer comments: Abstract
Mention the scientific name of rice here
Authors’ response: Scientific name of rice has been added in Abstract
Reviewer comments: Introduction
Overall, not much improved. Consider shortening. Still has the weakness where the audience might lose their attention.
Authors’ response: Now deleted some sentences to justify the background of the study and also improve the quality of the manuscript.
Line 54. Small letter “m” in Mechanized
Authors’ response: The suggestion has been satisfied and small letter “m” has been added in word ‘Mechanized’
Line 77. Please, revise. There is a random bracket.
Authors’ response: done
Line 103 to 104. Reconsider this sentence whether to keep it or not.
Authors’ response: Now deleted this sentence.
Line 99 to 120. Long! Please, consider re-writing. Make these shorter.
Authors’ response: As per your suggestion, we have revised this section after deleting a few sentences.
Materials and Methods
Line 183. Cite.
Authors’ response: Added a citation
Line 189. Immediately
Authors’ response: done
Results
For all the Tables write “dry weight basis”
Authors’ response: As per your suggestion, words “dry weight basis” were added in all Tables
Reviewer comments: Discussion
Line 344 to 348. Too long of a sentence! Again, I am not sure why this was written. Seems like reporting results to me. Why do you think this “both weed competitive CVs and increased SR could decrease weed growth and yield loss”? Cite and give a plausible reason.
Authors’ response: Thanks for your good suggestions. We have revised all suggested edits which have allowed us further to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Line 348 to 353. This is close to discussing results. However, there is no need to mention the numeric from the results again.
For example, ‘The upward yield trends in inbred and hybrid cultivars could be attributed to increased crop density. “
Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestion. We have revised all suggested edits accordingly.
Line 353 to 355. Break down this sentence into multiple and write it at the beginning of the Discussion. State what these studies found very concisely. Afterward, relate to your discussion and start your Discussion.
Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestion. We have revised all suggested edits accordingly.
Line 376 to 377. It is always a good practice to give a prelude to your discussion before actually writing it. Thus, re-write this supporting finding before Line 373.
For example,
“Previous studies indicated a possible positive relationship between panicle density and seeding rate while an inverse relation with filled grain [41,42]. We observed rice panicle numbers….”
Try and follow this pattern for the most part of the discussion….
Authors’ response: Thanks for the good suggestion. We have revised all suggested edits accordingly.
Overall authors’ response: Besides the above comments and suggestions we have thoroughly checked the whole manuscript and corrected where necessary. We also prepared the manuscript as per guidelines for authors, particularly checking all references in the text as well as the reference list.
