Effectiveness of Herbicide to Control Rice Weeds in Diverse Saline Environments
, Mohammad Sohidul Islam 5,*, M. Kaium Choudhury 6, Walid Soufan 7, Hesham Alharby 8, Atif Bamagoos 8, Muhammad Aamir Iqbal 9, Frantisek Hnilicka 10, Jan Kubes 10, Muhammad Habib Ur Rahman 11,12, Shah Saud 13, Mohamed M. Hassan 14 and Ayman EL Sabagh 15,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
In my opinion, an interesting article, however, requires some corrections, which I have included directly in the text. In addition, I would like to point out that it requires supplementation in terms of literature. There are too few references to the data obtained. Please, discuss the results in more detail.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 comments
To Editor of sustainability;
Sub: Submission of revised version of the Manuscript: sustainability-1046870
Thank you so much for considering our manuscript entitled " Efficacy of herbicides for controlling rice weeds under diverse saline environment” and for sending your additional editorial as well as reviewers’ comments, which have allowed us to make considerable improvements to the manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have been able to address all of your and the reviewer’s requests. Please find our response in blue below the message and in the revised text in Red. If we missed any aspect by chance, please feel free to let us know.
We look forward to seeing our accepted manuscript published online in ‘sustainability’. We have fully revised the manuscript and all authors have seen and approved the final version for re-submission to ‘sustainability.
Sincerest regards,
Ayman ELSABAGH (Corresponding author)
Comments
In my opinion, an interesting article, however, requires some corrections, which I have included
Directly in the text. In addition, I would like to point out that it requires supplementation in terms
Of literature. There are too few references to the data obtained. Please, discuss the results in more
Detail.
Dear reviewer
We would like to acknowledge your contribution explicitly. Thank you very much for your kind comments on the manuscript. Those comments are very helpful for improving the manuscript.. We have considered the comments and made correction. The corrections were highlighted in red in the revised version .We have added this information in all section and we have done all requirements based on your request.
- row2 Title does not include neither different herbicide dosage nor different salinity
Response: we have added this information in the 2.1 section.
- and to evaluate toxicity on rice
Response: dear reviewer, we have done.
- 23 efficacy on species level is not indicated
Thank you so much for taking interest in this matter, we have done and added some information about that.
- 27 in case of ‘Propanil + thiobencarb 1.6 + 3.6 kg’ treatment the value of ‘1.6’ may be a typo. ‘1.8’ value is presumed. Returning typo in the manuscript.
Response: in this study, we compared the data of each parameters and the treatment and confirmed.
- Figs 37 no toxicity on ‘grain’
Response: confirmed.
- 44 per year à delete
Response: done
- 50 à w m of rice in coastal areas
Response: Dear reviewer, done.
- 52-53 typo
Response: done
- 56 use
Response: we have revised it based on your request.
- 57 and herbicides may be not effective to control salty weeds
Response: Response: we have revised this part.
- 58 differ
Response: we have revised.
- 63 data of temperature, humidity, daily light cycle, irrigation level & method is missing
Response: we have added based on your request.
- 67 herbicide & a.i. name, Returning
Response: We am feeling sorry we have returned.
- 67-2 recommended dosage is not indicated here à 50%, 75%, 100%, 150% of recommendation …
Response: we have revised and done.
- 71 coordinates are needed
Response: we have revised it.
- 76 there is not reference that 4 and 8 dS levels are comparable of potentially rice producing fields
Response: Response: we have revised it.
- 81 pot size
Response: we have revised it.
- 82 to calculate kg/ha value the surface of pots have to be added; to add g/pot value is more beneficial; timing and dosage is not clear [? 3x 60 kg ha-1]
- Response: we have revised it based on your request.
- 85 20 seeds per species? Or totally
Response: we revised and confirmed per species
- 86 conflict in Fig1
- Response: revised and confirmed.
- 88 to start before transplanting would be better
Response: we revised it as your recommend.
- 95 data of type of nozzle, pressure, quantity of liquid to be added
Response: we have revised this part and added.
- 96 data of Fig1 presume these values were recorded as the effect of treatment and not before them
Response: Thanks for good suggestion. He has written details about that
- 99 Y axis: no. m-2 – pot size is not added so this dimension is irrelevant
Thanks, we have revised the manuscript according to your suggestion. we have revised after your comments.
- 100 Does this figure really show data collected BEFORE applications?
We are happy to confirm that we have modified.
- 107 increasing rate of a.i. is suggested
This suggestion is well taken
- 107 application time have to be completed by weed phenology at treatments
Response: This suggestion is well taken.
- 108 ‘DAT’ is described on the top of table, too.
This suggestion is well taken
- 114 data collection process should be collected to a table as ‘parameter’, ‘method’, ‘timing’
- Corrected as suggested
- 119 were al pots harvested at the same time
The suggestion has been made
- 124 Does it mean average of check pots?
Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions for that.
- 126 this table is result
Thanks for your suggestion, done as per recomeneded.
- 126b weed control rating - based on all weeds consistently?
Response: Good suggestion. We have changed these in whole manuscript
- 126c salinity level ‘0’ is not de facto zero
Response: The suggestion has been modified
- 126d Is it an average of replications?
Yes, we tried to best for that.
- 132 which kind of data
Showed fair control of all selected weeds under saline conditions
- 143 in conflict to Table2
We tried to best for descriptive added now.
- 148 but usage of recommended
Yes, we tried to best for that.
- 166&170&172 in --> in pots treated by
Response: tried to best for descriptive added now.
- 171 ‘bensulfuron + MCPA (0.03 + 0.05 kg ai/ha)’ à ‘bensulfuron + MCPA (0.03 + 0.05 kg ai/ha) treatment’
Response: The suggestion has been made
- 172 ‘in’ à ‘in pots treated by’ repeating in the text
Response: it has been modified
- 175 these data does not describe a process --> bar-chart is suggested as Fig1. mean +- SD
Response: The suggestion has been modified and added
- 183 At control salinity level
The suggestion has been added
- 184 see above
Thanks for good suggestion, it has done.
- 186&189&189&190 conflict in Table3
We tried to best for more details.
- 191 might be à this is a result chapter. It have to be added
Response: The suggestion has been made
- 191-192 less emergence of new weed species à more emergence of new weeds (individuals)
Response: it has been modified
- 197 visually, it is much better if the same decimals are at the same vertical positions
Response: Now we formatted all references as per recommended.
- 199 à Rice/crop plant high
Response: Now we changed.
- 208 conflict in Table4
All suggestions have been modified in the text.
- 211&211&213 a.i. and dosage of a.i. is missing
All suggestions have been modified
- 233 ‘C. iria, E. colona and J. linifolia.’ à weeds (if results are not recorded on species level)
All suggestions have been modified.
- 233 treatments
It has been modified
- 234 delete
Done as suggested.
- 240 effected
This suggestion is well taken
- 251 and table6 commonly not the lowest herbicide dose effected the highest SPAD values by different salinity regimes and by different herbicides. This results need to be linked more clearly to conclusions. (Conclusions are general).
Response: Conclusion has been modified
- 276 also conclusions:
- Salinity reduce rice yield potential and vitality by all of measured factors
- All herbicides treatments reduced rice yield potential and vitality by all of measured factors
We have revised after your comments.
- 310&341 I do not see clearly justified to use both references
Corrected as suggested and the suggestion has been satisfied.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments: this manuscript describes the potential use of herbicidal treatments in saline conditions. The experiments were performed rigorously with appropriate controls. The statistical analyses were appropriate, the discussion and conclusion drawn from the study were supported by the data. The paper in general is well, but, due to the number of authors, in this paper there are many errors, and the authors should be encouraged to address the comments below before publication.
Page 1, line 3: I suggest change “efficacy” by effectiveness.
Page 1 Line 27: There are not author from this address, please check.
Page 1 Line 43: Please rewrite.
Page 1 Line 46: Do not assume reader's knowledge, I suggest completing the follow: weedy check (control),
Page 1 Lines 46-49: Please be consistent, rewrite.
Page 1 Lines 49-50: maybe???
Pahe 1 Keywords: Rewrite, preferably add words that are not in the title.
Page 1 Abstract, use ha-1
Page 1 line 47: typo
Page 2 Line 60: Delete the dot after Latin America.
Page 2 line 62: Country population? World population? Explain.
Page 2 line 66: please change “damage” by injure, and translate acres by hectares.
Page 2 line 79: [8]. Worldwide.
Page 2 lines 96-97: Please rewrite.
Page 3 lines 106 107: Please, check font size. Insert space before µmolm.
Page 3 line 115 observations.
Page 4 line 126 chech font size .
Page 4 line 142 figure 1.
Page 5 table 1: I suggest delete commercial names.
Páge 5 line 170 where is the formulae 21?
Page 5 formulae 1: typo
Page 5 table 2: Please use ha-1.
Page 6 line 177: Delete.
Page 6 line 183 add city and state.
Page 6: please check, I suggest use ha-1 as others units (v.gr. line 197) why use this only sometimes? .
The same in line199, 215, 216, 217, 220, 229, table 4 among many others.
Page 6 line 203. Use injure instead damage, such as line 197.
Page 6 line 208: simplify
Page 7 line 213 (figure 1 and 2
Page 7 line 221: delete commercial name, are missing a rate?, delete “@” or replace, also lines 236 and 237.
Page 8 line 247 [21, 23-25]
Page line 285 where is reference 27?
Page 9 line 290 (37.1)
Conclusion: I suggest adding a statement declare the problematic respect the use of lower herbicide doses in relation to weed resistance, what do you think?
References format is lousy, check and correct, scientific names, spaces, journal names. Please check Sustainability | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 comments
To Editor of Sustainability;
Sub: Submission of revised version of the Manuscript: sustainability-1046870
Thank you so much for considering our manuscript entitled "Efficacy of herbicide to control rice weeds in diverse saline environments” and for sending your additional editorial as well as reviewers’ comments, which have allowed us to make considerable improvements to the manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have been able to address all of your and the reviewer’s requests. Please find our response in blue below the message and in the revised text in Red. If we missed any aspect by chance, please feel free to let us know.
We look forward to seeing our accepted manuscript published online in ‘Sustainability’. We have fully revised the manuscript and all authors have seen and approved the final version for re-submission to ‘Sustainability’.
Sincerest regards,
Ayman ELSABAGH (Corresponding author)
General comments:
this manuscript describes the potential use of herbicidal treatments in saline conditions. The experiments were performed rigorously with appropriate controls. The statistical analyses were appropriate, the discussion and conclusion drawn from the study were supported by the data. The paper in general is well, but due to the number of authors, in this paper there are many errors, and the authors should be encouraged to address the comments below before publication.
We would like to acknowledge your contribution explicitly. Thank you very much for your kind comments on the manuscript. Those comments are very helpful for improving the manuscript. We have considered the comments and made correction. The corrections were highlighted in red in the revised version. The responses are as follows.
- Page 1, line 3: I suggest change “efficacy” by effectiveness.
Response: we have changed “efficacy” by effectiveness this information in the line 3.
- Page 1 Line 27: There are not author from this address, please check.
Response: Dear reviewer, we have already checked and modified correctly.
- Page 1 Line 43: Please rewrite.
Response: Thank you so much for taking interest in this matter, we have written correctly accordingly.
- Page 1 Line 46: Do not assume reader's knowledge, I suggest completing the follow: weedy check (control)
Response: We have already completed the following weedy check (control).
- Page 1 Lines 46-49: Please be consistent, rewrite.
Response: Dear reviewer, we have modified accordingly in the lines 46-49 of page 1.
- Page 1 Lines 49-50: maybe???
Response: We have done correctly.
- Pahe 1 Keywords: Rewrite, preferably add words that are not in the title.
Response: Dear reviewer, done.
- Page 1 Abstract, use ha-1
Response: Done
- Page 1 line 47: typo
Response: We have revised it based on your request.
- Page 2 Line 60: Delete the dot after Latin America.
Response: Done.
- Page 2 line 62: Country population? World population? Explain.
Response: We have revised.
- Pge 2 line 66: please change “damage” by injure, and translate acres by hectares.
Response: We have corrected based on your request.
- Page 2 line 79: [8]. Worldwide.
Response: We have revised accordingly.
- Page 2 lines 96-97: Please rewrite.
Response: We have written correctly on the basis of your suggestion.
- Page 3 lines 106 107: Please, check font size. Insert space before µmolm.
Response: Done.
- Page 3 line 115 observations.
Response: We have revised it.
- Page 4 line 126 check font size.
Response: we have checked and revised it.
- Page 4 line 142 figure 1.
Response: We have revised it based on your request.
- Page 5 table 1: I suggest delete commercial names.
Response: We have deleted.
- Page 5 line 170 where is the formulae 21?
Response: Revised and confirmed.
- Page 5 formulae 1: typo
Response: Done.
- Page 5 table 2: Please use ha-1.
Response: We have revised the table 2 based on your request.
- Page 6 line 177: Delete.
Response: Dear reviewer, deleted.
- Page 6 line 183 add city and state.
Response: We have changed based on your request.
- Page 6: please check, I suggest use ha-1as others units (v.gr. line 197) why use this only sometimes? .
Response: We are happy to confirm that we have modified.
- The same in line199, 215, 216, 217, 220, 229, table 4 among many others.
Response: Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your query. We have revised according to your suggestion.
- Page 6 line 203. Use injure instead damage, such as line 197.
Response: We have revised.
- Page 6 line 208: simplify
Response: We have simplified.
- Page 7 line 213 (figure 1 and 2)
Response: Corrected as suggested
- Page 7 line 221: delete commercial name, are missing a rate?, delete “@” or replace, also lines 236 and 237.
Response: The suggestion has been made and deleted accordingly.
- Page 8 line 247 [21, 23-25]
Response: Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions for that. We have modified.
- Page line 285 where is reference 27?
Response: Thanks for your suggestion, done as per recomeneded.
- Page 9 line 290 (37.1)
Response: Done
- Conclusion: I suggest adding a statement declare the problematic respect the use of lower herbicide doses in relation to weed resistance, what do you think?
Response: Conclusion has been modified according to your suggestion.
- References format is lousy, check and correct, scientific names, spaces, journal names. Please check Sustainability
Response: Corrected as suggested and the suggestion has been satisfied.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I would like to thank you for submitting the corrected version of article. I have no fundamental comments. Most of them have been added. The only thing that suggests is checking its preparation in accordance with the author guidelines of the journal. I recommend publication of this manuscript.
Reviewer
Reviewer 2 Report
I accept the paper in present form, however, there are some typos.
I am sure in the final proofs these errors will be corrected.
best regards
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
2 row2 Title does not include neither different herbicide dosage nor different salinity
22 … and to evaluate toxicity on rice
23 efficacy on species level is not indicated
27 in case of ‘Propanil + thiobencarb 1.6 + 3.6 kg’ treatment the value of ‘1.6’ may be a typo. ‘1.8’ value is presumed. Returning typo in the manuscript.
37 no toxicity on ‘grain’
44 per year à delete
50 à w m of rice in coastal areas
52-53 typo
56 use
57 and herbicides may be not effective to control salty weeds
58 differ
63 data of temperature, humidity, daily light cycle, irrigation level & method is missing
67 herbicide & a.i. name, Returning
67-2 recommended dosage is not indicated here à 50%, 75%, 100%, 150% of recommendation …
71 coordinates are needed
76 there is not reference that 4 and 8 dS levels are comparable of potentially rice producing fields
81 pot size
82 to calculate kg/ha value the surface of pots have to be added; to add g/pot value is more beneficial; timing and dosage is not clear [? 3x 60 kg ha-1]
85 20 seeds per species? Or totally
86 conflict in Fig1
88 to start before transplanting would be better
95 data of type of nozzle, pressure, quantity of liquid to be added
96 data of Fig1 presume these values were recorded as the effect of treatment and not before them
99 Y axis: no. m-2 – pot size is not added so this dimension is irrelevant
100 Does this figure really show data collected BEFORE applications?
107 increasing rate of a.i. is suggested
107 application time have to be completed by weed phenology at treatments
108 ‘DAT’ is described on the top of table, too.
114 data collection process should be collected to a table as ‘parameter’, ‘method’, ‘timing’
119 were al pots harvested at the same time
124 Does it mean average of check pots?
126 this table is result
126b weed control rating - based on all weeds consistently?
126c salinity level ‘0’ is not de facto zero
126d Is it an average of replications?
132 which kind of data
141-143 in conflict to Table2
148 but usage of recommended …
166&170&172 in --> in pots treated by
171 ‘bensulfuron + MCPA (0.03 + 0.05 kg ai/ha)’ à ‘bensulfuron + MCPA (0.03 + 0.05 kg ai/ha) treatment’
172 ‘in’ à ‘in pots treated by’ repeating in the text
175 these data does not describe a process --> bar-chart is suggested as Fig1. mean +- SD
183 At control salinity level …
184 see above
186&189&189&190 conflict in Table3
191 might be à this is a result chapter. It have to be added
191-192 less emergence of new weed species à more emergence of new weeds (individuals)
197 visually, it is much better if the same decimals are at the same vertical positions
199 à Rice/crop plant high
208 conflict in Table4
211&211&213 a.i. and dosage of a.i. is missing
233 ‘C. iria, E. colona and J. linifolia.’ à weeds (if results are not recorded on species level)
233 treatments
234 delete
240 effected
251 and table6 commonly not the lowest herbicide dose effected the highest SPAD values by different salinity regimes and by different herbicides. This results need to be linked more clearly to conclusions. (Conclusions are general)
276 also conclusions:
- Salinity reduce rice yield potential and vitality by all of measured factors
- All herbicides treatments reduced rice yield potential and vitality by all of measured factors
310&341 I do not see clearly justified to use both references
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 comments
To Editor of Agriculture;
MDPI, St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
Sub: Submission of revised version of the Manuscript: Ref. Ms. No. 960055
Thank you so much for considering our manuscript (Ref. Ms. No. 960055) entitled "Efficacy of herbicides for controlling rice weeds under diverse saline environment” and for sending your additional editorial as well as reviewers’ comments, which have allowed us to make considerable improvements to the manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have been able to address all of your and the reviewer’s requests. Please find our response in blue below the message and in the revised text in blue. If we missed any aspect by chance, please feel free to let us know.
We look forward to seeing our accepted manuscript published online in ‘Agriculture’. We have fully revised the manuscript and all authors have seen and approved the final version for re-submission to ‘Agriculture.
Sincerest regards,
Ayman ELSABAGH (Corresponding author)
Dear reviewer
We would like to acknowledge your contribution explicitly. Thank you very much for your kind comments on the manuscript. Those comments are very helpful for improving the manuscript. We have considered the comments and made correction. The corrections were highlighted in red in the revised version. The responses are as follows.
Comments
- row2 Title does not include neither different herbicide dosage nor different salinity
Response: we have added this information in the 2.1 section.
- and to evaluate toxicity on rice
Response: dear reviewer, we have done.
- 23 efficacy on species level is not indicated
Response: Thank you so much for taking interest in this matter, we have done and added some information about that.
- 27 in case of ‘Propanil + thiobencarb 1.6 + 3.6 kg’ treatment the value of ‘1.6’ may be a typo. ‘1.8’ value is presumed. Returning typo in the manuscript.
Response: in this study, we compared the data of each parameters and the treatment and confirmed.
- Figs 37 no toxicity on ‘grain’
Response: confirmed.
- 44 per year à delete
Response: done
- 50 à w m of rice in coastal areas
Response: Dear reviewer, done.
- 52-53 typo
Response: done
- 56 use
Response: we have revised it based on your request.
- 57 and herbicides may be not effective to control salty weeds
Response:Response: we have revised this part.
- 58 differ
Response: we have revised.
- 63 data of temperature, humidity, daily light cycle, irrigation level & method is missing
Response: we have added based on your request.
- 67 herbicide &a.i. name, Returning
Response: We am feeling sorry we have returned.
- 67-2 recommended dosage is not indicated here à 50%, 75%, 100%, 150% of recommendation …
Response: we have revised and done.
- 71 coordinates are needed
Response: we have revised it.
- 76 there is not reference that 4 and 8 dS levels are comparable of potentially rice producing fields
Response: Response: we have revised it.
- 81 pot size
Response: we have revised it.
- 82 to calculate kg/ha value the surface of pots have to be added; to add g/pot value is more beneficial; timing and dosage is not clear [? 3x 60 kg ha-1]
- Response: we have revised it based on your request.
- 85 20 seeds per species? Or totally
Response: we revised and confirmed per species
- 86 conflict in Fig1
- Response: revised and confirmed.
- 88 to start before transplanting would be better
Response:we revised it as your recommend.
- 95 data of type of nozzle, pressure, quantity of liquid to be added
Response: we have revised this part and added.
- 96 data of Fig1 presume these values were recorded as the effect of treatment and not before them
Response: Thanks for good suggestion. He has written details about that
- 99 Y axis: no. m-2 – pot size is not added so this dimension is irrelevant
Thanks, we have revised the manuscript according to your suggestion.we have revised after your comments.
- 100 Does this figure really show data collected BEFORE applications?
We are happy to confirm that we have modified.
- 107 increasing rate of a.i. is suggested
This suggestion is well taken
- 107 application time have to be completed by weed phenology at treatments
Response: This suggestion is well taken.
- 108 ‘DAT’ is described on the top of table, too.
This suggestion is well taken
- 114 data collection process should be collected to a table as ‘parameter’, ‘method’, ‘timing’
- Corrected as suggested
- 119 were al pots harvested at the same time
The suggestion has been made
- 124 Does it mean average of check pots?
Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions forthat.
- 126 this table is result
Thanks for your suggestion, done as per recomeneded.
- 126b weed control rating - based on all weeds consistently?
Response: Good suggestion. We have changed these in whole manuscript
- 126c salinity level ‘0’ is not de facto zero
Response: The suggestion has been modified
- 126d Is it an average of replications?
Yes, we tried to best for that.
- 132 which kind of data
Showed fair control of all selected weeds under saline conditions
- 143 in conflict to Table2
We tried to best for descriptive added now.
- 148 but usage of recommended
Yes, we tried to best for that.
- 166&170&172 in --> in pots treated by
Response: tried to best for descriptive added now.
- 171 ‘bensulfuron + MCPA (0.03 + 0.05 kg ai/ha)’ à ‘bensulfuron + MCPA (0.03 + 0.05 kg ai/ha) treatment’
Response: The suggestion has been made
- 172 ‘in’ à ‘in pots treated by’ repeating in the text
Response: it has been modified
- 175 these data does not describe a process --> bar-chart is suggested as Fig1. mean +- SD
Response: The suggestion has been modified and added
- 183 At control salinity level
The suggestion has been added
- 184 see above
Thanks for good suggestion, it has done.
- 186&189&189&190 conflict in Table3
We tried to best for more details.
- 191 might be à this is a result chapter. It have to be added
Response: The suggestion has been made
- 191-192 less emergence of new weed species à more emergence of new weeds (individuals)
Response: it has been modified
- 197 visually, it is much better if the same decimals are at the same vertical positions
Response: Now we formatted all references as per recommended.
- 199 à Rice/crop plant high
Response: Now we changed.
- 208 conflict in Table4
All suggestions have been modified in the text.
- 211&211&213 a.i. and dosage of a.i. is missing
All suggestions have been modified
- 233 ‘C. iria, E. colona and J. linifolia.’ à weeds (if results are not recorded on species level)
All suggestions have been modified .
- 233 treatments
It has been modified
- 234 delete
Done as suggested.
- 240 effected
This suggestion is well taken
- 251 and table6 commonly not the lowest herbicide dose effected the highest SPAD values by different salinity regimes and by different herbicides. This results need to be linked more clearly to conclusions. (Conclusions are general).
Response: Conclusion has been modified
- 276 also conclusions:
- Salinity reduce rice yield potential and vitality by all of measured factors
- All herbicides treatments reduced rice yield potential and vitality by all of measured factors
We have revised after your comments.
- 310&341 I do not see clearly justified to use both references
Corrected as suggested and the suggestion has been satisfied.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript had an interesting objective of determining whether soil salinity around rice plants would affect the efficacy of selective herbicides on the weeds and the selectivity of the herbicides on the crop. But the work and the manuscript have a number of deficiencies. A major one for the manuscript is the standard of the English which will need to be improved dramatically before it will be acceptable for publication.
As a result of the poor English, I may have understood some aspects of how this work was conducted. But it appeared the work was done only once, and generally this sort of work is repeated before being acceptable for publication in an international journal.
Details on herbicide application were not clear. It simply says that a knapsack sprayer was used to apply the herbicide treatments. How can a knapsack sprayer apply herbicide precisely enough to pots to give credible application rates for a scientific trial? No mention is made of water rate of the applications.
In Figure 1, the information appears to show the number of weeds per square metre across the various pots prior to herbicide application. It appears that the weed density in the untreated pots (T14) was much higher than in the other pots prior to treatments being applied. They should have been the same as the other treatments, and treatment allocation to pots should have been done in such a way that the weed densities were similar for all herbicide treatments. Then later, weed control efficiency is calculated by comparing with the weediness of the untreated pots, yet these had more weeds before herbicides were applied, totally ruining any credibility of the research.
It appeared that for Treatments T10 to T13 that the MCPA was applied 40 days after transplanting yet the bensulfuron was applied 7 days after transplanting. Yet all data in Table 2 was expressed as scores 10 days after application. After application of which component? And given that herbicides differ in their speed of activity, why was it considered that 10 days was the best time to score the pots? Were symptoms of all herbicides fully expressed by this time? The scoring within Table 2 was confusing anyway, as a score of 1 meant severe effects on weeds yet very little effect on crops. One would have thought it would make more sense to have the same system for both weeds and crops.
There appears to be no reason for data to be presented as line graphs in Figure 2, as it is not a continuous progression from one treatment to the next. There is no indication of variability in the results within this graph, and the same data is apparently presented in Table 3 anyway but presented in a different way, making Figure 2 redundant. Not that the data in Table 3 is very valid though, if it is comparing with the untreated pots which had more weeds before the trial began.
The crucial sets of results are in Table 3 in which the effect on weed control is best shown and in Table 7 where effects on the grain yield of the rice is presented. Yet in these tables and most other tables, it states that lettering only shows if means are significantly different within columns. Surely the whole objective of the work was to see if there were significant differences for each herbicide between the three salinity levels, not to compare herbicides with each other, so to have a trial design or method of data analysis that doesn’t allow an assessment of whether means are different between each salinity level for each herbicide has defeated the objective of the exercise.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 comments
To Editor of Agriculture;
MDPI, St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
Sub: Submission of revised version of the Manuscript: Ref. Ms. No. 960055
Thank you so much for considering our manuscript (Ref. Ms. No. 960055) entitled "Efficacy of herbicides for controlling rice weeds under diverse saline environment” and for sending your additional editorial as well as reviewers’ comments, which have allowed us to make considerable improvements to the manuscript. We are pleased to inform you that we have been able to address all of your and the reviewer’s requests. Please find our response in blue below the message and in the revised text in blue. If we missed any aspect by chance, please feel free to let us know.
We look forward to seeing our accepted manuscript published online in ‘Agriculture’. We have fully revised the manuscript and all authors have seen and approved the final version for re-submission to ‘Agriculture.
Sincerest regards,
Ayman ELSABAGH (Corresponding author)
Dear reviewer
We would like to acknowledge your contribution explicitly. Thank you very much for your kind comments on the manuscript. Those comments are very helpful for improving the manuscript.. We have considered the comments and made correction. The corrections were highlighted in red in the revised version. The responses are as follows.
- This manuscript had an interesting objective of determining whether soil salinity around rice plants would affect the efficacy of selective herbicides on the weeds and the selectivity of the herbicides on the crop. But the work and the manuscript have a number of deficiencies. A major one for the manuscript is the standard of the English which will need to be improved dramatically before it will be acceptable for publication.
Response: Thank you so much for taking interest in this matter. We are pleased to confirm that we are able to revise all of these comments and all requested has been confirmed. The manuscript has been improved by the professional English editor.
- As a result of the poor English, I may have understood some aspects of how this work was conducted. But it appeared the work was done only once, and generally this sort of work is repeated before being acceptable for publication in an international journal.
Response: Thank you very much for your logical comments. We have conducted this experiment very sincerely and also did the work properly due to this work was the part of my PhD work.
- Details on herbicide application were not clear. It simply says that a knapsack sprayer was used to apply the herbicide treatments. How can a knapsack sprayer apply herbicide precisely enough to pots to give credible application rates for a scientific trial? No mention is made of water rate of the applications.
Response: We would like to very much grateful for your nice and valuable comments. We first wrongly included knapsack sprayer but we used in hand sprayer during our experiment and it has been corrected in the text by the hand sprayer with model name that was two L high pressure hand water pump and application rate was 0.75 cc per litre.
4_ In Figure 1, the information appears to show the number of weeds per square metre across the various pots prior to herbicide application. It appears that the weed density in the untreated pots (T14) was much higher than in the other pots prior to treatments being applied. They should have been the same as the other treatments, and treatment allocation to pots should have been done in such a way that the weed densities were similar for all herbicide treatments. Then later, weed control efficiency is calculated by comparing with the weediness of the untreated pots, yet these had more weeds before herbicides were applied, totally ruining any credibility of the research.
Response:
Thank you very much for your very nice comments. We received more weeds in untreated pots (T14) due to no control of weeds by any kind of herbicides but other treatments showed significant difference among the maximum treatments. We mentioned the weed population data 15 days after imposition of treatments. So, it is clearly indicated that after applying herbicides weed density apparently reduced by the effect of herbicides. We calculated weed control efficiency (WCE) by renowned formulae by the comparison with untreated weed cheek pots. So, it could be acceptable.
- It appeared that for Treatments T10 to T13 that the MCPA was applied 40 days after transplanting yet the bensulfuron was applied 7 days after transplanting. Yet all data in Table 2 was expressed as scores 10 days after application. After application of which component? And given that herbicides differ in their speed of activity, why was it considered that 10 days was the best time to score the pots? Were symptoms of all herbicides fully expressed by this time? The scoring within Table 2 was confusing anyway, as a score of 1 meant severe effects on weeds yet very little effect on crops. One would have thought it would make more sense to have the same system for both weeds and crops.
Response:
Thanks a lot for your critical comments. For the treatments T10 –T13 actually we applied MCPA 10 days after transplanting but wrongly we put 40 days after transplanting in Table 1. We already corrected in the Table 1 in the text. We are extremely sorry for that kind of unexpected errors. We got from review of literature that the herbicides that we incorporated in our experiment mostly can be affected when apply within 7-10 days after transplanting in rice plant. We did the experiment very sincerely and carefully thus we got the data that we showed in Table. So, please appreciate and also consider our actual data.
6_ There appears to be no reason for data to be presented as line graphs in Figure 2, as it is not a continuous progression from one treatment to the next. There is no indication of variability in the results within this graph, and the same data is apparently presented in Table 3 anyway but presented in a different way, making Figure 2 redundant. Not that the data in Table 3 is very valid though, if it is comparing with the untreated pots which had more weeds before the trial began.
Response:
Thank you for your constructive criticism regarding Figure 2 and Table 3. We are clarifying here that weed dry matter are very important parameter in our experiment that we showed in Figure 2. In Table 3, we presented weed control efficiency of applying treatments that not related weed dry matter but related with weed number in plots/pots. We mentioned in the above point that weed control efficiency is related to untreated pot. Without untreated pot we cannot calculate weed control efficiency according to the used renowned formula. So, it might be acceptable.
7_ The crucial sets of results are in Table 3 in which the effect on weed control is best shown and in Table 7 where effects on the grain yield of the rice is presented. Yet in these tables and most other tables, it states that lettering only shows if means are significantly different within columns. Surely the whole objective of the work was to see if there were significant differences for each herbicide between the three salinity levels, not to compare herbicides with each other, so to have a trial design or method of data analysis that doesn’t allow an assessment of whether means are different between each salinity level for each herbicide has defeated the objective of the exercise.
Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We agree with you and your logical suggestions. We politely say that one of the members of PhD advisory committee of first author was the expert of biometry as well as statistics. He helped to do the sorts of design/method regarding this experiment. Our experimental result clearly indicated that the significant difference between salinity levels as well as among the treatments.
Thank you very much.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I am afraid I do not feel that many of my concerns have been addressed by this rewrite. I was surprised to see this paper was resubmitted, so it meant I had to look at it again, and noticed further issues.
If you used a professional English editor, I hope you didn’t pay for their services as they did a poor job. Many of the issues with the English were not addressed, and in fact some of the English used in the rewrite was as bad as the original manuscript. It is well short of the quality required for an international science journal. Even the simple things like formatting herbicide names was done incorrectly. Names such as pretilachlor, thiobencarb and propanil should not have capital letters, though this is correct for MCPA. It is only trade names such as Golteer 5G that use capital letters (though that trade name should not have been used on Line 220, the active ingredient was needed, likewise on Line 218). This is basic stuff.
Although you may have got advice from a statistical expert, the data should have been analysed so that you could show for each herbicide whether salinity had significantly affected the activity of that herbicide. The analysis was only showing which herbicides were better than other herbicides at each level of salinity, which was not really the main objective of the work.
For an international weed control paper, field work is always repeated. You may feel the work was done well because it was for a PhD. But most research is published by people who have had their PhD for many years, and they have repeated the work before publishing it to verify that results are correct.
You have not convinced me that the herbicide was applied precisely at the application rates stated because of the use of a hand-held sprayer. How do we know how much herbicide got applied to each pot if it was a hand-held sprayer? Precision sprayers are usually used for this sort of work, or else a carefully calibrated boom-sprayer, but never just a hand-held sprayer. To say in your covering letter that the application rate was 0.75 cc per litre suggests you really have a poor understanding of how to apply herbicide precisely, as that statement is meaningless. If the herbicide was not applied precisely at the rates per ha stated, then the findings are not valid.
At least you have cleared up the riddle of how you could compare weed control against untreated controls that were more weedy than the other pots at the time of application, due to an incorrect labelling of your original Figure 1. But it is rather inexcusable to put in a manuscript to be peer-reviewed with such a basic mistake in place.
But the scoring in Table 2 is still unacceptable. The herbicides were applied at different times after transplanting, according to Table 2. Yet scoring was done 10 days after application, which means each treatment was scored at different times, because one was applied 4 days after transplanting, one at 10 days after transplanting and the other 40 days after transplanting. Those scores are a very poor measure of what happened. Herbicides differ in the speed with which symptoms appear. And Figure 2 should have been presented as bar graphs, not line graphs. The work would have been more useful if the effects on each of the three weed species had been separated out. Different herbicides probably affected different weeds, and it would not have been that much extra work to separate out the three weeds at harvest to weigh them separately. To determine if there was an effect of the herbicide on the crop, for each herbicide, there needed to be a hand-weeded control treated with the herbicide, so the effects of any herbicide damage on the crop could be separated out from weed competition. Without that, it is not valid to say whether the herbicide affected the crop or not under each level of salinity. The effect is confounded by weed competition.
