Impacts of Mechanized Crop Residue Management on Rice-Wheat Cropping System—A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Present article "Mechanized crop residue management impacts on rice-wheat  cropping system of Indo-Gangetic plains- a review"  is  a case study of the particular region. Author had tried to compile the implication residue generation and their effect but didnot provide the solution.  So  add a section of sustainable  approach ( like microbial technology) to manage these  crop residue

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful to you for thoroughly reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable suggestions. Suggestions are useful to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have addressed all comments and suggestions and made changes in the manuscript and also provided detailed point-to-point response in the letter attached.

Please note that the reviewers’ comments are in bold blue text. Our responses are in black text. Revised manuscript file is under track change. The line numbers provided in our response are according to the revised manuscript with track changes.

Thanks,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This reviewer would like to thank this journal and the authors for the opportunity to submit a review report on this manuscript.

While this reviewer perceives scientific value in the current version of the manuscript, this reviewer would like to share the following comments/ questions with the intention keep and increase the likelihood of publication of the manuscript in its current or future versions:

 

 

1.      Abstract. Objective of the manuscript:

Consider making even clearer what the objective of the manuscript is.

This reviewer refers to:

In the abstract:

Re Lines 32 – 37 “As a result (…) is needed…”

 

2.      Consider strengthening how the manuscript indicates knowledge/ research gaps or questions for future:

In this valuable review manuscript, if the first author Korav is also the author of the following bibliographic source referred in the manuscript “Korav, S. Rice crop residue management in no-till wheat under rice-wheat cropping system. Ph.D. Thesis CCSHAU Hisar Har- 717 yana, India. 2021.”

then it likely valid to assume that the above referred PhD thesis has been an important source of information for this manuscript.

 

Given the review type of the manuscript, it is likely to expect a more highlighted and explicit indication of knowledge/ research gaps or questions for future.

For example, in the current manuscript version, lines 421 – 424 and then in section 4. Conclusions read nearly identical and not necessarily in an elaborated way.

 

Here a copy of the referred lines:

Lines 421 – 424: However, more study is needed to better under- 421 stand other areas of soil management, such as insect pests, diseases, earthworms, etc., 422 which are anticipated to become increasingly more crucial as mainstream agricultural 423 practitioners shift towards more sustainable production systems.

 

Indication of themes for further research, maybe in the form of research questions

Lines 509 – 515 “However, more research is 509 needed to better understand other areas of soil management, such as insect pests, diseases, 510 earthworms, rodents, etc., which are anticipated to become increasingly more crucial un- 511 der residue retention fields. Therefore, researcher need to find possible solutions for faster 512 degradation of residues and more efficient machineries with lower energy requirement in 513 a short sowing window needs to be developed.”

 

This reviewer would like to again thank the authors and the journal, and looks forward to further steps in this review process.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful to you for thoroughly reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable suggestions. Suggestions are useful to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have addressed all comments and suggestions and made changes in the manuscript and also provided detailed point-to-point response in the letter attached.

Please note that the reviewers’ comments are in bold blue text. Our responses are in black text. Revised manuscript file is under track change. The line numbers provided in our response are according to the revised manuscript with track changes.

Thanks,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Lines 2-3: Title

The tile is good, however I suggest a minor correction:

Impact of mechanized crop residue management on rice-wheat cropping system - a review

This is an overview article, so it should not be limited to a specific area or a special conditions.

 

Lines 19-37: Abstract

The abstract mainly contains the introducing issues and general contents and does not go to the main point. The main problem that is traditional or local management of residue has not been seriously challenged and the old issues that have been repeatedly presented have been raised again. Also, the main topic of the article, which is the mechanization of crop residue management, has not been deeply considered.

 

Lines 39-39: Key words

The suitable words are selected.

 

Lines 61-67: needs a valid and related reference.

However, I think the introduction is well written and follows a good line. Just revise the references. Newer sources should be used.

 

Line 119: According to Niti Ayog (2019) data

Follow the instructor of the journal.

 

Summarize the articles and researches you have reviewed in a table; which can quickly and briefly understand what results have been obtained in them.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful to you for thoroughly reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable suggestions. Suggestions are useful to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have addressed all comments and suggestions and made changes in the manuscript and also provided detailed point-to-point response in the letter attached.

Please note that the reviewers’ comments are in bold blue text. Our responses are in black text. Revised manuscript file is under track change. The line numbers provided in our response are according to the revised manuscript with track changes.

Thanks,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article can be accepted in the present form