Analyzing Alternatives for Managing Nitrogen in Puddled Transplanted Rice in a Semi-Arid Area of India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Analyzing Alternatives for Managing Nitrogen on Puddled Transplanted Rice in a Semi-Arid Area of India”, presents a comprehensive and well-structured investigation into various nitrogen management practices. The study is pertinent and up to date since it addresses important problems with agricultural sustainability in semi-arid areas. The findings provide insightful information that could be very helpful to farmers along with others who influence agricultural policy. I highly recommend this manuscript be published (after revision of some major mistakes) in sustainability, as it is completely under the domain of sustainability.

However, there are still some mistakes chapter-wise mentioned below.

Title and Abstract

Line 1-2: The title is clear and succinct, effectively conveying the study's content. However, it could be clarified by specifying the major outcomes or focus, such as "yield improvement" or "environmental impact."

Line 9-26: The abstract provides an effective overview, but it may be improved by stating the statistical significance of the results. Also, provide quantitative evidence to support the concepts "better farm livelihoods" and "GHG reduction".

Introduction

Lines 30-33: The introduction clearly sets the context and importance of nitrogen management in rice cultivation. However, the historical data on fertilizer usage could be supported with a citation.

Lines 34-39: This section presents the problem, however it lacks specific references to previous studies in the region. Including these would improve the background information.

Materials and Methods

Lines 82-90: The description of the experimental site is thorough. However, the presentation of soil properties (pH, electrical conductivity, etc.) would benefit from a table for better readability.

Lines 91-105: The climate data is detailed. Including a brief explanation of how climate conditions affect rice growth in the region would provide better context for readers unfamiliar with the area.

Lines 106-118: The description of the experimental design is clear, but the reasoning behind choosing specific nitrogen management treatments (ON, FFP, etc.) should be explained.

Lines 140-147: The description of crop performance measurement techniques is comprehensive. However, it would be beneficial to include specific statistical methods used for data analysis.

Discussion

Lines 575-593: The discussion effectively interprets the results. However, the implications of the findings could be expanded. For instance, discuss how these results compare with other studies in similar semi-arid regions.

Lines 594-599: This section mentions future research but should provide more concrete suggestions, such as specific areas of study or methodologies that could address current limitations.

References

Line 60 and 543: Reference 7 is missing please improve it?

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Lines 102-105: The figure is informative but could be improved with clearer labeling and a brief explanatory caption.

General Comments

 

Language and Grammar: The manuscript is generally well-written, but there are minor grammatical errors that should be corrected for clarity. For example, in Line 131 (Page 5), "nursery of establish" should be revised to "nursery was established."

Author Response

REVIEWER 01

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Analyzing Alternatives for Managing Nitrogen on Puddled Transplanted Rice in a Semi-Arid Area of India”, presents a comprehensive and well-structured investigation into various nitrogen management practices. The study is pertinent and up to date since it addresses important problems with agricultural sustainability in semi-arid areas. The findings provide insightful information that could be very helpful to farmers along with others who influence agricultural policy. I highly recommend this manuscript be published (after revision of some major mistakes) in sustainability, as it is completely under the domain of sustainability.

However, there are still some mistakes chapter-wise mentioned below.

Title and Abstract

Comment 1: Line 1-2: The title is clear and succinct, effectively conveying the study's content. However, it could be clarified by specifying the major outcomes or focus, such as "yield improvement" or "environmental impact."

Response: The term productivity has been added to show the yield improvement.

Comment 2: Line 9-26: The abstract provides an effective overview, but it may be improved by stating the statistical significance of the results. Also, provide quantitative evidence to support the concepts "better farm livelihoods" and "GHG reduction".

Response: The statistical significant and quantification of the results have been added in abstract section.

Introduction

Comment 3: Lines 30-33: The introduction clearly sets the context and importance of nitrogen management in rice cultivation. However, the historical data on fertilizer usage could be supported with a citation.

Response: The historical data on increasing nitrogen consumption has been added and is supported with the citation.   

 

Comment 4: Lines 34-39: This section presents the problem, however it lacks specific references to previous studies in the region. Including these would improve the background information.

Response: The Bundelkhand region is not common for the rice crop production, the area under the rice significantly increases from last few years and lacks of the systematic studies.  

Materials and Methods

Comment 5: Lines 82-90: The description of the experimental site is thorough. However, the presentation of soil properties (pH, electrical conductivity, etc.) would benefit from a table for better readability.

Response: We agreed to the reviewer the soil properties are represented in the Table.

 

Comment 6: Lines 91-105: The climate data is detailed. Including a brief explanation of how climate conditions affect rice growth in the region would provide better context for readers unfamiliar with the area.

Response: The explanation has been added

Comment 7: Lines 106-118: The description of the experimental design is clear, but the reasoning behind choosing specific nitrogen management treatments (ON, FFP, etc.) should be explained.

Response: The reason is explained. 

Comment 8: Lines 140-147: The description of crop performance measurement techniques is comprehensive. However, it would be beneficial to include specific statistical methods used for data analysis.

Response: The standard protocols were adopted to collect the quality data and described in materials and method section for better understanding of readers. SPSS tool was used for the analysis of the data and explained in statistical analysis section.

Discussion

Comment 9: Lines 575-593: The discussion effectively interprets the results. However, the implications of the findings could be expanded. For instance, discuss how these results compare with other studies in similar semi-arid regions.

Response: Semi arid region is not common for rice growing, however, in last few years the area of rice has been increased in this region. Very less standard study on site specific nutrient management reported in this region. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the results.   

Comment 10: Lines 594-599: This section mentions future research but should provide more concrete suggestions, such as specific areas of study or methodologies that could address current limitations.

Response: The explanation has been included in the conclusion part of the manuscript.

References

Comment 11: Line 60 and 543: Reference 7 is missing please improve it?

Response: Reference has been added

Figures and Tables

Comment 12: Figure 1 Lines 102-105: The figure is informative but could be improved with clearer labeling and a brief explanatory caption.

Response: Figure captions have been revised

General Comments

 Comment 13: Language and Grammar: The manuscript is generally well-written, but there are minor grammatical errors that should be corrected for clarity. For example, in Line 131 (Page 5), "nursery of establish" should be revised to "nursery was established."

Response: The manuscript has been thoroughly checked for grammatical errors

At last, we are thankful to the reviewer for providing valuable feedback on our manuscript, the comments have been useful for improving quality of manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present the results of research on proper nitrogen management, which is particularly important in field production under specific conditions, and makes the results of important practical significance and a contribution to science.

Notes:
Information on the content of components in the soil is redundant in the abstract.
The sentence in line 60 “the region has a 0.5 mha area fellow” is not understood
In section 2.1, “The soil is somewhat saline
in reaction (8.23), electrical conductivity (1.036 dSm-1), low in organic carbon (0.34%), medium in accessible phosphorus (20.5 kg ha-1) and high in accessible potassium (244 kg ha-1)” the value given does not show how the content of bioavailable forms was determined, the depth of sampling and the method by which bioavailable nutrients were determined.
In line 97 “The evaporation was 5.11 mm and 4.42 mm” what method was used to determine this parameter?
In the methodology section, there is no explanation of how the tools count GHG emissions, based on what assumptions the data given in the results section are obtained. The introduction lacks a literature reference to GHG emissions, linking emission levels to mineral nitrogen fertilization.

In Figure 3, the units and values given are not understood, what is the reference and against what conditions were higher or lower emissions obtained?

Author Response

REVIEWER 02

Notes:
Comment 1: Information on the content of components in the soil is redundant in the abstract.
The sentence in line 60 “the region has a 0.5 mha area fellow” is not understood
In section 2.1, “The soil is somewhat saline
in reaction (8.23), electrical conductivity (1.036 dSm-1), low in organic carbon (0.34%), medium in accessible phosphorus (20.5 kg ha-1) and high in accessible potassium (244 kg ha-1)” the value given does not show how the content of bio available forms was determined, the depth of sampling and the method by which bioavailable nutrients were determined.
In line 97 “The evaporation was 5.11 mm and 4.42 mm” what method was used to determine this parameter?

Response:

The soil information has been removed from the abstract.

Line 60: The sentence has been modified for better understanding.

The depth of sampling has been mentioned. The references of determination of soil properties have been added.

Line 97: The evaporation was measured by open pan evaporimeter added in the manuscript.

Comment 2: In the methodology section, there is no explanation of how the tools count GHG emissions, based on what assumptions the data given in the results section are obtained. The introduction lacks a literature reference to GHG emissions, linking emission levels to mineral nitrogen fertilization.
Response: The brief about GHG emission has been included in the revised manuscript in introduction section.

The brief of effect of SSNM on GHGs emission has been added in Introduction with support of references. 

Comment 3: In Figure 3, the units and values given are not understood, what is the reference and against what conditions were higher or lower emissions obtained?

Response: In figure 3 is not a reference plot: The green bar represents total GHG emission and orange bar represents per kg CO₂ emission per kg. The caption of the figure has been changed for better readability.

At last, we are thankful to the reviewer for spending time and providing valuable feedback on our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on the manuscript (sustainability-3027153)

Analyzing alternatives for managing nitrogen on puddled transplanted rice in a semi-arid area are important for increasing rice production in India. The research results have certain theoretical value and practical significance. In my opinion, the manuscript has potential for publication in the journal Sustainability. However, there are the following concerns that need to be further improved.

--Why did the authors choose Bundelkhand as the study area? What is the level of rice cultivation and yield in this region in India? This important background should be set out in the Introduction.

--As an academic article, the manuscript should have clear scientific questions and directed research hypotheses. Scientific questions and research hypotheses should be explained in the Introduction, while in the Discussion, authors should answer scientific questions and test research hypotheses.

--In order to make the experimental design of this study more clear to readers, the authors should supplement the field real scene map and experimental plot diagram in the Materials and Methods.

--The Conclusions are long and unfocused. Conclusions should be highly distilled from scientific questions, not rephrased from research findings.

--It is strongly suggested that the authors carefully examine the details of the manuscript, which I found to have many irregularities, for example, Table 3: Test Weight (gm)? Table 4: t ha-1; Figure 3: Total GHG Emission (000 kg? L493: CO2.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs to be polished by a native English-speaking expert.

Author Response

REVIEWER 03

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on the manuscript (sustainability-3027153)

Comment 1: Analyzing alternatives for managing nitrogen on puddled transplanted rice in a semi-arid area are important for increasing rice production in India. The research results have certain theoretical value and practical significance. In my opinion, the manuscript has potential for publication in the journal Sustainability. However, there are the following concerns that need to be further improved.

Response: We are thankful to reviewer for providing positive feedback on our manuscript. We have considered all the comments and revised manuscript as per reviewers suggestions.

Comment 2: Why did the authors choose Bundelkhand as the study area? What is the level of rice cultivation and yield in this region in India? This important background should be set out in the Introduction.

Response: Bundelkhand region of India has high temperatures and evaporation and is unsuitable for rice growing. However, rice cultivation is increasing in this region due to heavy texture soil and 850 mm rainfall during growing season. Hence, the region has been selected for the study.   

The rice production in the area is more than 50 thousand hectare in this region.

Comment 3: As an academic article, the manuscript should have clear scientific questions and directed research hypotheses. Scientific questions and research hypotheses should be explained in the Introduction, while in the Discussion, authors should answer scientific questions and test research hypotheses.

Response: Agreed and revised accordingly

Comment 4: In order to make the experimental design of this study more clear to readers, the authors should supplement the field real scene map and experimental plot diagram in the Materials and Methods.

Response: Agreed and revised accordingly. The layout of the experiment can be provided as supplementary information.

Comment 5: The Conclusions are long and unfocused. Conclusions should be highly distilled from scientific questions, not rephrased from research findings.

Response: Agreed and revised accordingly.

 

Comment 6: It is strongly suggested that the authors carefully examine the details of the manuscript, which I found to have many irregularities, for example, Table 3: Test Weight (gm)? Table 4: t ha-1; Figure 3: Total GHG Emission (000 kg? L493: CO2.

Response: Agreed and revised accordingly

At last, we are thankful to the reviewer for spending time and providing valuable feedback on our manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your trust. The author revised the manuscript carefully and the revised version has significant improvement.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors increased the quality of the manuscript, taking into account the reviewer's recommendations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I am satisfied with the revision version, which can be accepted.