Climate-Resilient Rice Establishment Practices: Findings and Lessons from Two Villages in Bihar, India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

All critical comments and recommendations are showed on the manuscript enclosed file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

It could be checked lastly. It seems reasonable

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer #1

Comment 1: All critical comments and recommendations are showed on the manuscript enclosed file.

Response: All authors thank the reviewer for critical comments to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have considered and duly addressed the comments provided by the reviewer. We appreciate the suggestion made by reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript reports a study evaluating different "direct seeded rice production" practices for productivity and cost-effectiveness. The authors claim that direct seeding is a climate-resistant method of rice production in the title and conclusion of the paper. However, no evidence is provided to support this. Indeed, the study was carried out in one region without a comparison between traditional and direct-seeded rice production practices. In fact, in high rainfall areas, direct seeding is not appropriate since rice seedlings are intolerant of flooding conditions. It is therefore misleading for direct seeding of rice to be referred to as a climate-resistant method.

 

The authors conclude that zero tillage has huge potential for improving rice productivity and farmers' profits. However, in all figures, no significant difference can be seen among the tested rice establishment methods. As a result, the conclusion is not convincing.

 

Some key details about the experiment are lacking, such as the climate conditions during the experiment, planting density, and the water management regime (flooded or drained). In the 2.5 section, it is also unclear how cultivation costs were calculated.

 

The abstract introduces the background and aim of the study till the second last sentence while lacking the methods and key results.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer #2

Comment 1: This manuscript reports a study evaluating different "direct seeded rice production" practices for productivity and cost-effectiveness. The authors claim that direct seeding is a climate-resistant method of rice production in the title and conclusion of the paper. However, no evidence is provided to support this. Indeed, the study was carried out in one region without a comparison between traditional and direct-seeded rice production practices. In fact, in high rainfall areas, direct seeding is not appropriate since rice seedlings are intolerant of flooding conditions. It is therefore misleading for direct seeding of rice to be referred to as a climate-resistant method.

Response: Climate resilient technology should be tailor-made for specific location(s). The present study has focused on a specific location and the geographical location has been given in the map. Hence extrapolating it to a different geographic location needs careful validation in the new location/region in question to ascertain their benefits. This statement has been added to the conclusion to make the conclusion clearer. Thank you!

Comment 2: The authors conclude that zero tillage has huge potential for improving rice productivity and farmers' profits. However, in all figures, no significant difference can be seen among the tested rice establishment methods. As a result, the conclusion is not convincing.

Response: In terms of yield both zero tillage and line showing performed significantly better than broadcasting in terms of yield. Zero tillage also showed a higher benefit ratio over broadcasting and line showing. Considering other benefits and associated ecological services it can be said that zero tillage has huge potential for improving rice productivity and farmers' profits.

Comment 3: Some key details about the experiment are lacking, such as the climate conditions during the experiment, planting density, and the water management regime (flooded or drained). In the 2.5 section, it is also unclear how cultivation costs were calculated.

Response: The crops were grown under Kharif season. Meteorological data collection at village level was not conducted. However, as all the treatments under question were performed in both the villages hence, the treatments were subjected to uniform climatic condition.

Planting density: Under broadcasting planting density varies from place to place within a field. However, under both zero tillage and line sowing a spacing of 20 (Row to row) by 8 cm (Plant to plant).

Water management: One pre-sowing irrigation was given in all the treatments. Water management was done by flooding method in all the treatments.

The cultivation cost was mention in the manuscript.

Comment 4: The abstract introduces the background and aim of the study till the second last sentence while lacking the methods and key results.

Response: We incorporated all the suggestions in the abstract section of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I found it a simple and clear paper, and I have no major issues with the paper as it was presented. 

very minor edits needed. I think one more pass-through would help. For example, in the first line, "resources" should be used rather than resource. 

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer #3

Comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I found it a simple and clear paper, and I have no major issues with the paper as it was presented. 

Response: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for encouraging comment to the manuscript. Thank You.

Reviewer 4 Report

·         Abstract- Background statements must be restricted to 1-2 lines, followed research gap/novelty statement. Add future prospects of the study.

·         L21-22 What is Socially just?

·         At the end of the introduction, mention objectives of the study.

·         What is (α= o.o5). If possible, perform ANOVA. It will give better results than t- test.

·         Statistical analysis must be shown in the graphs.

·         Legend of figure 1 must be below the figure.

·         In Figures- instead of left and right, mention A and B. Also, if possible, mention, location in figure itself.

·         Statistically significant values must be indicated by ‘*’ on the bar.

·         Which Rice variety was used for sowing?

·         2.2 Treatments-Instead of general information about treatments, mention what was done. Mention the quantity of seeds used for sowing in different farm practices.

·         Mention the name of company/manufacturer of Urea, diammonium phosphate (DAP) and muriate of potash.

·         L109-L111 what is best management practices?  Avoid vague statements. Write about climatic/edaphic factors, uniformity in experiments. Also, write about frequency of visits.

·         L113 In 1 point, how many plants were considered for measurement of plant height and other parameters?

·         A photograph of field/representative plants at the time of harvesting will be appreciated.

·         Mention the exact harvesting time.

·         3.1 Plant height- Mention the values while writing the results.

·         L156-161 Mention reference.

·         The variation in tiller mortality

·         3.3. Yield attributing characters- write units after values of studied parameters. For comparison between treatments, fold change/percentage will be more appropriate.

·         3.5 Economics- Mention exact values.

·         If you have prepared questionnaire for survey, add it in supplementary.

·         Discussion must be improved significantly. Cite more studies to prove your hypothesis.

 

 

 

Ms requires extensive language editing.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer #4

Comment 1: Abstract: Background statements must be restricted to 1-2 lines, followed research gap/novelty statement. Add future prospects of the study.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made changes to the abstract based on your as well as other reviewers’ comments. Thank you.

Comment 3: L21-22 What is Socially just?

Response: The word has been removed.

Comment 3: At the end of the introduction, mention objectives of the study.

Response: Objective of the study is clearly given at the end of introduction.

Comment 4: What is (α = 0.05). If possible, perform ANOVA. It will give better results than t- test.

Response: The authors believe that even t-test gives a fairly good idea regarding the treatment performance comparison especially with limited number of treatments. However, we will try to incorporate the suggestion in any of our future manuscript. Thank you.

Comment 5: Statistical analysis must be shown in the graphs.

Response: We will try to incorporate the suggestion in any of our future manuscript. Thank you.

Comment 6: Legend of figure 1 must be below the figure.

Response: Thank you. Correction has been done.

Comment 7: In Figures- instead of left and right, mention A and B. Also, if possible, mention, location in figure itself.

Response: Thank you. Correction has been incorporated in the figures.

Comment 8: Which Rice variety was used for sowing?

Response: Rajendra Mahsuri – 1 variety was sown

Comment 9: 2.2 Treatments-Instead of general information about treatments, mention what was done. Mention the quantity of seeds used for sowing in different farm practices.

Response: Seed rate of 20 kg/ha was followed in line sowing and zero tillage while 50 kg/ha was followed in broadcasting method.

Comment 10: Mention the name of company/manufacturer of Urea, diammonium phosphate (DAP) and muriate of potash.

Response: Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) was the manufacturer of the fertilizers.

Comment 11: L109-L111 what is best management practices?  Avoid vague statements. Write about climatic/edaphic factors, uniformity in experiments. Also, write about frequency of visits.

Response: Thank you. Correction has been done.

Comment 12: L113 In 1 point, how many plants were considered for measurement of plant height and other parameters?

Response: Randomly ten plants were considered for measurement of plant height and other growth attributes.

Comment 13: A photograph of field/representative plants at the time of harvesting will be appreciated.

Response: We will try to incorporate the suggestion in any of our future manuscript. Thank you.

Comment 14: Mention the exact harvesting time

Response: The harvesting time has been mentioned in the manuscript.

Comment 15: 3.1 Plant height- Mention the values while writing the results.

Response: Thank you. Correction has been done.

Comment 16: L156-161 Mention reference.

Response: Thank you. Correction has been done.

Comment 17: The variation in tiller mortality.

Response: Thank you. Correction has been done.

Comment 18: Yield attributing characters- write units after values of studied parameters. For comparison between treatments, fold change/percentage will be more appropriate.

Response: Necessary corrections has been done.

Comment 19: 3.5 Economics- Mention exact values.

Response: Thank you. Correction has been done.

Comment 20: If you have prepared questionnaire for survey, add it in supplementary.

Response: The questionnaire is thoroughly given in the discussion and hence adding it to supplementary file serves no purpose.

Comment 21: Discussion must be improved significantly. Cite more studies to prove your hypothesis.

Response: We have meticulously revised the discussion section to make it more reasonable.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Many thanks for the authors' responses. After revision, I still find the output of the manuscript problematic. If the study "focused on a specific location", how could a generalized conclusion regarding "the superiority of zero tillage" be made? No statistical test results are shown in the figures. How could readers know if there was a significant improvement from one treatment to another? 

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer #2

Comment 1: Many thanks for the authors' responses. After revision, I still find the output of the manuscript problematic. If the study "focused on a specific location", how could a generalized conclusion regarding "the superiority of zero tillage" be made? No statistical test results are shown in the figures. How could readers know if there was a significant improvement from one treatment to another?

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Location specificity of agricultural experiments is too high owing to the role played by climatic, edaphic and management factors. However, the scientific knowledge imparted by location specific study can be extrapolated to similar geographic location. The location specificity of the study and the need of location specific evaluation before large scale recommendation has been added to the conclusion and future scope part of this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors have addressed all the comments. However still critical proof reading for language and grammatical errors is essential.

Moderate editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Comment 1: Authors have addressed all the comments. However still critical proof reading for language and grammatical errors is essential.

Response: The article has been carefully proof read by the authors and corrections have been done. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

As indicated in the authors' response, the study has very high location specificity. Due to this, I am not able to agree with the general messages presented in the article. For example, in lines 33-34, "The study suggested the superiority of zero tillage over broadcasting and sowing in terms of crop performance and economic performance." In lines 304-305, "Zero tillage has huge potential in improving productivity, economic profitability, and enhancing resource use efficiency." These may only be true in the studied location. I suggest the authors check carefully the whole manuscript and indicate clearly that these conclusions may be valid only in the field where the study was carried out, to avoid any misunderstanding.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer #2

Comment 1: As indicated in the authors' response, the study has very high location specificity. Due to this, I am not able to agree with the general messages presented in the article. For example, in lines 33-34, "The study suggested the superiority of zero tillage over broadcasting and sowing in terms of crop performance and economic performance." In lines 304-305, "Zero tillage has huge potential in improving productivity, economic profitability, and enhancing resource use efficiency." These may only be true in the studied location. I suggest the authors check carefully the whole manuscript and indicate clearly that these conclusions may be valid only in the field where the study was carried out, to avoid any misunderstanding.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have incorporated the location specificity throughout the manuscript to avoid any misunderstanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revision.