Intensification of Sorghum Production in Flood Recession Agriculture in Yelimane, Western Mali

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, this is a very interesting work but has some problems at certain parts of the manuscript. In particular, the introduction is clearly written, providing interesting information on the subject, but:

1. The overall and specific goals of this research are missing,
2. You do not sufficiently explain why you chose these study sites,
3. I totally disagree with the presentation form of your climatic data. Please use the Bagnouls–Gaussen bioclimatic diagram (ombrothermic diagram)
4. The presentation the experimental design is totally confusing. Try to group them in paragraphs rather than numbered list, presenting only the necessary information so that the reader understands what the design was.
5. Provide information on the soil tests used 
6. Tables: I suggest to be replaced by graphs; they are big, taking a lot of space with information that could have been better addressed graphically
7. The same about the tables presenting the statistical analyses. This is a good way, maybe, for a MSc or a PhD thesis but not for a research article. Please modify them into them.
8. Do not provide results in the discussion! Move them in the relevant section and only criticise the results by similar provided by other researchers or try to relate them to the goals originally set.
9. Even thought this is an interesting work, I am not sure what are the final specific conclusions rather than a general comment on the opportunities providing. 
10. This is an international journal and for being so you have to extrapolate/relate/compare your results to similar cases in other countries, to attract the interest of international readers.

Author Response

 

Our comments are as follow:

 

1. The overall and specific goals of this research are missing,

Comment: The introduction has been updated to address this issue.

Revised objective: The objective of this study is to characterize flood recession farming in the Yelimane district of Kayes region in Mali, and to assess options for increasing yield in this flood recession system.(lines 81-83)

 

 

1. You do not sufficiently explain why you chose these study sites,

Comment: The reasons choice of sites explained. The following sentence is inserted:

These study sites were chosen because of their importance for flood recession farming in Mali and this area is also one of the sites of the project “Adapting Crop and Livestock Systems in Mali to Climate Change”. (lines 95-98.

 

1. I totally disagree with the presentation form of your climatic data. Please use the Bagnouls–Gaussen bioclimatic diagram (ombrothermic diagram)

Comment: The figure has been replaced with the Bagnouls-Gaussen bioclimatic diagram.

1. The presentation the experimental design is totally confusing. Try to group them in paragraphs rather than numbered list, presenting only the necessary information so that the reader understands what the design was.

Comment: We reworked this part and we now think that the Materials and methods gives a better overview of the work.

 

1. Provide information on the soil tests used 

Comment: We have included the methods of soil analysis and the references. Lines 211-215.

 

 

• Tables: I suggest to be replaced by graphs; they are big, taking a lot of space with information that could have been better addressed graphically

 

Comment: We believe that the quality of the paper will not be improved by replacing tables by graphs. Tables are still very much used to present data in major journals because of the accuracy tables provides. It will also require more space to present all the data in graphs. Graphs can give a good overview, but is normally a less precise way of presenting data.

 

1. The same about the tables presenting the statistical analyses. This is a good way, maybe, for a MSc or a PhD thesis but not for a research article. Please modify them into them.

Comment: Using table is still the most common why to present statistical analysis because of the clarity.

 

1. Do not provide results in the discussion! Move them in the relevant section and only criticise the results by similar provided by other researchers or try to relate them to the goals originally set.

Comment: We have removed sentences from the result chapter to make a clearer distinction between the results and discussion chapters. It is difficult to completely avoid repeating some results because the discussion is based on the results. However, we have minimized the presentation of results as much as possible in the discussion.

 

1. Even thought this is an interesting work, I am not sure what are the final specific conclusions rather than a general comment on the opportunities providing.

Comment: The conclusion has been rewritten to provide more clarity. Lines 496-507.

 

 

• This is an international journal and for being so you have to extrapolate/relate/compare your results to similar cases in other countries, to attract the interest of international readers.

 

Comment: There is very little published research on flood recession farming in West Africa and that is the reason why there are relatively few references.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Flood recession production of sorghum has long been of interest in the Niger Valley of Mali, in valley areas of Senegal and 'dambo' areas of southern Africa.

The research is focussed on sorghum production; this needs to be reflected in the title and abstract!!

Better terminology could be used as suggested with inserted comments in the attached. Why call it 'seed priming' when it is 'seed pre-soaking' 'micro-fertilization' when it is simply 'fertilization', etc.

The M&M needs much reorganization. 

Avoid excessive use of sub-headings; each should have at least 2 paragraphs. 

I am not convinced that the survey strengthens the paper while it distracts from the experimentation with little complementarity.

The Discussion has to be more discussion (discussion and interpretation of your research results in consideration of other research findings) and less repetition of results.

The Conclusions needs to be rewritten as concise and precise statements of conclusions drawn from interpretation of your research results.

Tables and figures need to be more self-explanatory. Use consistent formats.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Our comments are as follow:

 

Flood recession production of sorghum has long been of interest in the Niger Valley of Mali, in valley areas of Senegal and 'dambo' areas of southern Africa.

The research is focussed on sorghum production; this needs to be reflected in the title and abstract!!

Comment: The new title of the paper is: Intensification of sorghum production in flood recession agriculture in Yelimane, Western Mali. It is also explained in the abstract that is paper deal with intensification of sorghum.

Better terminology could be used as suggested with inserted comments in the attached. Why call it 'seed priming' when it is 'seed pre-soaking' 'micro-fertilization' when it is simply 'fertilization', etc.

Comment: We prefer to use the terms seed priming and microfertilization as we consider these term to be more specific. Seed priming is the term used by dr. Dave Harris when he developed the scientific basis for the method. Microfertilisation or microdosing are synonyms used for at least 30 years as term for explaining point application of small doses of fertilizer adjacent to the planting pocket.

The term microdosing and seed priming as been better explained in the text.

The M&M needs much reorganization. 

Comment: The Material and method changed to improve readability.

Avoid excessive use of sub-headings; each should have at least 2 paragraphs. 

Comment: We have reduced number of subheadings in the result chapter

I am not convinced that the survey strengthens the paper while it distracts from the experimentation with little complementarity.

Comment: The survey results are important or understanding the socio-economic setting and for justifying the choice of technologies. The farming system in flood recession agriculture in Mali is very poorly documented. This presentation of the survey allows the reader to better understand the farming system and to assess the pertinence of the methodologies used to improve productivity in the area.

The Discussion has to be more discussion (discussion and interpretation of your research results in consideration of other research findings) and less repetition of results.

Comment: It is difficult to completely avoid repetition of some results because the discussion is based on the results. However, we have minimized the presentation of results as much as possible in the discussion.

The Conclusions needs to be rewritten as concise and precise statements of conclusions drawn from interpretation of your research results.

Comment: The conclusion has been rewritten.

Tables and figures need to be more self-explanatory. Use consistent formats.

Comment: The text of the tables has reformulated. The tables are now more uniform and clearer.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Keywords are almost identical to the title of the article. This is wrong as they should provide other "keywords" that identify your work and are not already included in your title,
2. line 44 correct the:..north Western...
3. line 52-53: durra type: be precise using latin names of the varieties
4. the same in line 57:Guinean type
5. lines 71-72: is it the name of a region: North-East
   .... (North-West of Mali)?
6. the same in line 93: Eastern
7. lines 96-98: the existence of a project is not a reason for conducting experiments rather than the reason why this project has been approved/is running in the area... i.e. vulnerability due to climate change effects and mostly by drought since the location neighbours to desert?  or what?
8. 104: replace farmer's to farmers' 
9. lines 108-109: what received the area?
10. line 111: what is the 20.2 standing for?
11. ln 112: 32.9?
12. ln113: add a comma after the parenthesis
13. the ombrothermic diagram speaks by itself! Great!
14. lns 124-126: place the numbers in front of the categories
15. ln 128: represented
16. 132 leave space after the number 1.0
17. lns 136-138: the same issue to my 3rd comment: does Same variety has a latin name?
18. ln 175: above you said it was Same?
19. ln 207: unclear, please rephrase
20. ln 210: replace "each measuring one by one meter by "(1 m x 1 m)
21. ln 219: heads? you mean units?
22. ln 222: fields'
23. ln 228: replace "first gives a description" by "describes"
24. ln 233: use
25. 235: what do you mean by "exodus"?
26. 250: "1 to 1.5 meter between rows and 0.70 to 0.8 meter" use the abbreviation m
27. 268: what is 0.48?
28. lns 290-293: as in comment 14
29. tables 4 to 8 are confusing. Too much information that could not be included in the table. If you wish to present the probability and the interactions, you can do so following the international way for doing so i.e. http://bulletin.ipm.illinois.edu/print.php?id=1136
30. The conclusions are great

Author Response

1. Keywords are almost identical to the title of the article. This is wrong as they should provide other "keywords" that identify your work and are not already included in your title,

Comment: New keywords inserted (lines 29-30).

2. line 44 correct the:..north Western...

Comment: Corrected to northwestern

3. line 52-53: durra type: be precise using latin names of the varieties

Comment: Corrected to durra type (line 53)

4. the same in line 57:Guinean type

Comment: the name remains unchanged as it will be consistent with Durra type in lines 53

5. lines 71-72: is it the name of a region: North-East
   .... (North-West of Mali)?

Comment: This is the northeastern part of Kayes region. This is corrected in the text (lines 72-73).

6. the same in line 93: Eastern

Comment: Corrected to “northwestern part of Mali”. Line 94

7. lines 96-98: the existence of a project is not a reason for conducting experiments rather than the reason why this project has been approved/is running in the area... i.e. vulnerability due to climate change effects and mostly by drought since the location neighbours to desert?  or what?

Comment: The sentence is changed to: These study sites were chosen because of their importance for flood recession farming in Mali and because this is an area very vulnerable drought. Lines 97-98.

8. 104: replace farmer's to farmers' (line 104)

Comment: Changed to: in six farmers’ fields

9. lines 108-109: what received the area?

Comment: changed to: between 500 to 600 mm rainfall

10. line 111: what is the 20.2 standing for?

Comment: changed to: Average minimum monthly temperatures during the year ranged from 20.2 to 28.5 °C

11. ln 112: 32.9?

Comment: We don’t think there is a need to state twice that this is °C.

12. ln113: add a comma after the parenthesis

Comment: done

13. the ombrothermic diagram speaks by itself! Great!

Comment: Thanks

14. lns 124-126: place the numbers in front of the categories

Comment: We think that this is the most common way to present the categories. It therefore remains unchanged.

15. ln 128: represented

Comment: changed to represented (line 128)

16. 132 leave space after the number 1.0

Comment: This is done.

17. lns 136-138: the same issue to my 3rd comment: does Same variety has a latin name?

Comment: All the varieties presented in this paper belong to the species Sorghum bicolor. It is the species that has a latin name, not the variety.

18. ln 175: above you said it was Same?

Comment: We explain this as follows: The local variety of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) called Magaleme in Soninke language was used for the experiments on crop establishment, tillage and urea application, and fertilization. In the variety trials the local variety Same was used. These two local varieties have a growth cycle of 90 days. Both the Mageleme and Same varieties are considered by the farmer as well adapted to the environment. Lines 133-138.

19. ln 207: unclear, please rephrase

Comment: We are not sure what is unclear here. We suggest the following change: Data were collected on grain and stover yield (sun dried) and 1000 grains weight were measured (Lines 208-208).

20. ln 210: replace "each measuring one by one meter by "(1 m x 1 m)

Comment: Done as suggested. Line 211.

21. ln 219: heads? you mean units?

Comment: The head of household was interviewed, therefore this term was used. It is common to use the “term “head of household” in research using household surveys.

22. ln 222: fields'

Comment: We replace fields with field. Line 224.

23. ln 228: replace "first gives a description" by "describes"

Comment: Done as suggested (line 230)

24. ln 233: use

Comment: use replaced by used (line 236)

25. 235: what do you mean by "exodus"?

Comment: exodus replaced by “working abroad”. Line 238.

26. 250: "1 to 1.5 meter between rows and 0.70 to 0.8 meter" use the abbreviation m

Comment: meter replace by m (line 253)

27. 268: what is 0.48?

Comment: % inserted (line 271)

28. lns 290-293: as in comment 14

Comment: We suggest that this remains unchanged.

29. tables 4 to 8 are confusing. Too much information that could not be included in the table. If you wish to present the probability and the interactions, you can do so following the international way for doing so i.e. http://bulletin.ipm.illinois.edu/print.php?id=1136

Comment: We consider this way of presenting tables as standard in scientific journals. We also think it is important to highlight if the interactions are significant. It is very difficult to make these tables smaller unless leaving out valuable information. It is also not possible to merge this two tables as Table 4 deals with crop establishment methods while Table 8 presents differences between varieties.  

30. The conclusions are great

Comment: Thanks