Optimum Sowing Date and Salt Tolerant Variety Boost Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Yield and Water Productivity during Boro Season in the Ganges Delta
, Mohammed Mainuddin 2, Buddheswar Maji 1, Kshirendra K. Mahanta 1, Saheb Digar 1, Dhiman Burman 1, Uttam Kumar Mandal 1 and Subhasis Mandal 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have evaluated the manuscript (agronomy-1454603) submitted for publication in ‘Agronomy’. This MS ‘Optimum sowing date and salt tolerant variety boost rice (Oryza sativa L.) yield and water productivity during Boro sea-son in the Ganges Delta’ investigated the sowing date and salt tolerant rice variety relationship to enhance yield and water productivity. The theme of this study is interesting and falls within scope of journal; however, the manuscript is written and organized very poorly and cannot be considered for publication in its current form. My main concerns are:
- The article is of regional importance. In introduction section, the whole focus is on India which make it to better fit in some local journal. Moreover, there is lack of flow in the story of introduction. In the last paragraph of introduction, the authors did not highlight the already known information and novel aspect of this study. Likewise, the testing hypothesis is missing.
- The data analysis is not proper as there is no test used to compare the treatment means or interaction affect. Data need to be reanalyzed with ANOVA and Posthoc test. Also add lettering in each Fig/Table. Also add statistical details at bottom of each table. There is no need to add pooled data; either give pooled data or data of both years individually. Data can be interpreted in few tables rather than so many Figs. Moreover, the correlation should also be added.
- The graphs need to be restructure with clear appearance.
- Discussion section is written very poorly. There is no need to divide this section into subheadings. At start mention either the testing hypothesis was accepted or not and then discuss results logically. Try to correlate the results rather than individual discussion of each trait. The discussion should be strengthened with latest literature.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Queries are in normal font
Our responses are in italics bold beneath each query
I have evaluated the manuscript (agronomy-1454603) submitted for publication in ‘Agronomy’. This MS ‘Optimum sowing date and salt tolerant variety boost rice (Oryza sativa L.) yield and water productivity during Boro sea-son in the Ganges Delta’ investigated the sowing date and salt tolerant rice variety relationship to enhance yield and water productivity. The theme of this study is interesting and falls within scope of journal; however, the manuscript is written and organized very poorly and cannot be considered for publication in its current form. My main concerns are:
- The article is of regional importance. In introduction section, the whole focus is on India which make it to better fit in some local journal. Moreover, there is lack of flow in the story of introduction. In the last paragraph of introduction, the authors did not highlight the already known information and novel aspect of this study. Likewise, the testing hypothesis is missing.
Reply: Boro rice is cultivated in several states of India (West Bengal, Odisha, Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Eastern Uttar Pradesh) covering more than 4 million hectares area (Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2020, Government of India). Now it is expanding to north eastern states of India (Das et al., 2018). In Bangladesh, Boro rice is the major dry season crop, which fully depends on ground water irrigation (Acharjee et al., 2017). Boro rice contributed more than 55% of the total rice production in Bangladesh with an area of about 5 million hectares (Rahman et al., 2013; Siddique et al., 2020). Therefore, we strongly believe, the study has international significance. We have highlighted the importance of sowing date and variety in the last paragraph of introduction with references (11-16). Hypothesis has been included in the last line of introduction.
Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2020, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Economics and Statistics.
Das, P., Handique, B.K. and Raju, P.L.N. 2018. Expansion of Boro rice in Meghalaya using space technology. Current Science 115(10): 1865-1870. 10.185/cs/v115/i10/1865-1870.
Acharjee, T.K., Ludwig, F., Halsema, G.V., Hellegers, P. and Supit, I. 2017. Future changes in water requirements of Boro rice in the face of climate change in North-West Bangladesh. Agricultural Water Management. 194:172-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.09.008.
Rahman, N.M.F., Hossain, M.I., Aziz, M.A., Baten, M.A. and Kabir, M.S. 2013. Prospects of Boro rice production in Bangladesh. Advances in Environmental Biology 7(14):4542-4549.
Siddique, S.T., Kamruzzaman, M. and Sharna, S.C. 2020. Comparative analysis of chickpea with Boro rice in drought-prone areas of Bangladesh. International Journal of Agricultural Research Innovation and Technology 10(2):21-28. https://doi.org/10.3329/ijarit.v10i2.51572.
- The data analysis is not proper as there is no test used to compare the treatment means or interaction affect. Data need to be reanalyzed with ANOVA and Posthoc test. Also add lettering in each Fig/Table. Also add statistical details at bottom of each table. There is no need to add pooled data; either give pooled data or data of both years individually. Data can be interpreted in few tables rather than so many Figs. Moreover, the correlation should also be added.
Reply: Data analysis has been done by using split-split plot design. LSD0.05 is used to compare treatment means and interaction effect. The level of significance is given in Supplementary Table S1. Letters are now added in each Fig./Table. Thanks to the anonymous reviewer for this useful suggestion. Pooled data is given where the interaction is not significant and year wise data are given when the interaction is significant. Figure 3 has been deleted and given in the form of a Table as suggested. Correlations are given in Supplementary Table S3 and used in discussion section.
- The graphs need to be restructure with clear appearance.
Reply: The graphs are revised for clear appearance.
- Discussion section is written very poorly. There is no need to divide this section into subheadings. At start mention either the testing hypothesis was accepted or not and then discuss results logically. Try to correlate the results rather than individual discussion of each trait. The discussion should be strengthened with latest literature.
Reply: The discussion section is strengthened by addition of correlation data. Our hypothesis was accepted that sowing dates and varieties had significant interaction effect on Boro rice. We have divided the discussion section into important themes which are the crux of the matter. These sections will also help the readers to grasp the important facts quickly. Most of the literature cited in the discussion are latest ones from 2018-2021.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript agronomy-1454603, entitled “Optimum sowing date and salt tolerant variety boost rice (Oryza sativa L.) yield and water productivity during Boro season in the Ganges Delta” submitted by Sukanta K. Sarangi et al. deals with an interesting subject regarding the effect of sowing time on different rice varieties growth and resistance to salinity.
The research activity was carried out by setting up a two-year field experiment where plant growth and productivity, water productivity and salinity were monitored. In general, the experimental activity was carried out following a strict scientific logic and according to widely used methods which have made it possible to obtain reliable results. Indeed, the authors applied an appropriate experimental design that allowed to achieve reliable results.
Taking into consideration the topic investigated and the importance of this kind of study in order to improve knowledge regarding rice cultivation on saline soils, I believe that the manuscript is of potential interest for readers of “Agronomy” Journal and fall within its scope.
However, before the publication, the manuscript needs some amendments in order to improve its quality. In particular, I suggest to improve the statistical analysis by implementing an LSD or Tukey test in order to make it easier to interpret the results. Moreover, also with regard to the statistical analysis please specify in the tables and graphs the p values.
Introduction: it is fine
Materials and methods: please improve statistical analysis and specify how did you treat “year” data.
Results: are clear and well written but I suggest to the authors to present plant production data before water productivity (also economic).
Discussion: it is ok.
Conclusions: this part should be improved.
My specific comments, which I hope will help the authors to improve the manuscript, are reported in the attached files.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Queries are in normal font
Our responses are in italics bold beneath each query
The manuscript agronomy-1454603, entitled “Optimum sowing date and salt tolerant variety boost rice (Oryza sativa L.) yield and water productivity during Boro season in the Ganges Delta” submitted by Sukanta K. Sarangi et al. deals with an interesting subject regarding the effect of sowing time on different rice varieties growth and resistance to salinity.
Reply: Thanks
The research activity was carried out by setting up a two-year field experiment where plant growth and productivity, water productivity and salinity were monitored. In general, the experimental activity was carried out following a strict scientific logic and according to widely used methods which have made it possible to obtain reliable results. Indeed, the authors applied an appropriate experimental design that allowed to achieve reliable results.
Reply: We strongly agree with the reviewer’s comments.
Taking into consideration the topic investigated and the importance of this kind of study in order to improve knowledge regarding rice cultivation on saline soils, I believe that the manuscript is of potential interest for readers of “Agronomy” Journal and fall within its scope.
Reply: We strongly agree with the reviewer’s comments.
However, before the publication, the manuscript needs some amendments in order to improve its quality. In particular, I suggest to improve the statistical analysis by implementing an LSD or Tukey test in order to make it easier to interpret the results. Moreover, also with regard to the statistical analysis please specify in the tables and graphs the p values.
Reply: Thanks to the reviewer for this important suggestion. We have strengthened the statistical analysis by implementing LSD and p values are given in Supplementary Table S1 and mentioned in the text.
Introduction: it is fine
Materials and methods: please improve statistical analysis and specify how did you treat “year” data.
Reply: Year was taken as a sub-sub plot in the analyses as the experimental layout was the same for both the years of study (repeated measures).
Results: are clear and well written but I suggest to the authors to present plant production data before water productivity (also economic).
Reply: Done as per the suggestion.
Discussion: it is ok.
Conclusions: this part should be improved.
Reply: Improved as per the suggestions.
My specific comments, which I hope will help the authors to improve the manuscript, are reported in the attached files.
peer-review-15427606.v1.pdf
Reply: Corrected as per the comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors showed some results on the sowing date mediated salt stress responses in different varieties. The experiment has many data but I think the experimental design is poor.
I am wondering how sowing dates can affect salt tolerance. This might be due to the differences in salt deposition in the soil. As we know, in dry season more salt is deposited. Therefore, the authors must study the soil parameters. Otherwise, only sowing times are no justified.
I have also a concern on the term 'sowing dates'. Boro rice is transplanted crop. So, how you define sowing data. Different seedling ages are considered for transplanting in the farmers field. These must be harmonized.
Unfortunately, none of them are discussed in this paper.
I am wondering why disease score is considered in this study. It is not an agronomic parameter!
Results are poorly written. It should be rewritten. Treatments should be compared properly. No need to mention the experimental data here. Just make a clear comparison (e.g. increased by xx%).
Use standard units and symbol. For example use $ instead of ₹ and convert accordingly.
There should be statistical lettering on the bars.
Discussion is very poor and wrong. The results are not explained properly, especially, linking among the parameters are missing.
Overall, the manuscript is too long. Please make it concise.
Language quality is poor.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Queries are in normal font
Our responses are in italics bold beneath each query
In this manuscript, the authors showed some results on the sowing date mediated salt stress responses in different varieties. The experiment has many data but I think the experimental design is poor.
Reply: Costal salinity is a dynamic phenomenon, which is very much conspicuous during the dry season. We have applied an appropriate experimental design (split-plot) to conduct the field experiment. Sowing dates were taken as main plot factor and varieties as sub-plot factor. The data has been analysed by split-split plot design by taking year as sub-sub plot factor with support of expert biometrician.
I am wondering how sowing dates can affect salt tolerance. This might be due to the differences in salt deposition in the soil. As we know, in dry season more salt is deposited. Therefore, the authors must study the soil parameters. Otherwise, only sowing times are no justified.
Reply: We have not shown that sowing date affect salt tolerance, which is a genetic character. However, the degree of soil and water salinity is affected by sowing dates, which in turn expose the crop to different degrees of salinity stress. Yes, it is the fact that the extent of salt deposition is a function of time in coastal region. We have given the salinity data for soil and water with time and analysed how it affect the crop growth and yield.
I have also a concern on the term 'sowing dates'. Boro rice is transplanted crop. So, how you define sowing data. Different seedling ages are considered for transplanting in the farmers field. These must be harmonized.
Reply: Rice seeds are sown on nursery to grow seedlings, then seedling is transplanted. Here we considered the ‘sowing dates’ of the nursery. We had kept the seedling age constant for all the treatments; therefore, the effect of sowing dates was observed. We agree that farmers use different seedling ages, but deciding the sowing date is one of the most important aspects of Boro rice production in the coastal region.
Unfortunately, none of them are discussed in this paper.
Reply: Since, we had kept the seedling age uniform for all the treatments, we have not observed the effect of different seedling ages, therefore, it is not discussed.
I am wondering why disease score is considered in this study. It is not an agronomic parameter!
Reply: We had observed that disease incidence was the effect of some of the treatments (sowing dates and varieties). Since, it was affecting the crop growth and subsequently yield, this parameter was quantified in the form of disease score as per standard literature.
Results are poorly written. It should be rewritten. Treatments should be compared properly. No need to mention the experimental data here. Just make a clear comparison (e.g. increased by xx%).
Reply: Thanks for these suggestions. We have now significantly revised the results section.
Use standard units and symbol. For example use $ instead of ₹ and convert accordingly.
Reply: For convenience in presentation, the values are presented in ₹, as the figures will be decimal, if converted into $. However, as per the suggestions, we have now given the conversion rates of ₹ in terms of $ both in materials and methods as well as in the results section, for easy understanding by the readers.
There should be statistical lettering on the bars.
Reply: Done. Thanks for this important suggestion.
Discussion is very poor and wrong. The results are not explained properly, especially, linking among the parameters are missing.
Reply: The discussion is now improved by giving the correlations and revised as suggested.
Overall, the manuscript is too long. Please make it concise.
Reply: We have tried to make the MS concise by deleting some of the figures and converting to one table.
Language quality is poor.
Reply: We have now checked the language and corrected the grammar wherever it was inappropriate.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have evaluated the revised manuscript (agronomy-1454603) submitted for publication in ‘Agronomy’. The revised manuscript is in better shape compared with originally submitted manuscript but still it is not in a condition which can be considered for publication. With respect to my previous comments the authors only incorporated the 2nd comment (About data analysis and results interpretation) in true sense and incorporated other comments superficially. Manuscript can be considered for publication after major revisions. My main concerns are:
The authors just added the name of Bangladesh in introduction to change the regional importance of article to international standard, which is not the right way. Moreover, the authors did not do any revision to improve flow in the story of introduction. In the last paragraph of introduction, the authors did not highlight which is the already known information and novel aspect of this study. The authors should revise introduction section following above said comments.
In revising discussion section, the authors just added one or two sentences about correlation and nothing is done except that. In current format, this section is not interesting and too much informative. There is no need to divide this section into subheadings. At start mention either the testing hypothesis was accepted or not and then discuss results logically. The discussion should be strengthened with latest literature as well.
Conclusion section is too long, add concrete conclusion just within 2-3 sentences.
Author Response
Reply to the Comments of Reviewer 1
Queries are in normal font
Our responses are in italics bold beneath each query
I have evaluated the revised manuscript (agronomy-1454603) submitted for publication in ‘Agronomy’. The revised manuscript is in better shape compared with originally submitted manuscript but still it is not in a condition which can be considered for publication. With respect to my previous comments the authors only incorporated the 2nd comment (About data analysis and results interpretation) in true sense and incorporated other comments superficially. Manuscript can be considered for publication after major revisions. My main concerns are:
The authors just added the name of Bangladesh in introduction to change the regional importance of article to international standard, which is not the right way. Moreover, the authors did not do any revision to improve flow in the story of introduction. In the last paragraph of introduction, the authors did not highlight which is the already known information and novel aspect of this study. The authors should revise introduction section following above said comments.
Introduction is now revised significantly as suggested, following logical sequence. First brief introduction of the constraints in this region, then the importance of the Boro rice and factors affecting this system are described, followed by this, importance of sowing dates, varieties are given. Then already known information and novel aspect of this study are described. The hypotheses of the study are given at the end of the introduction.
In revising discussion section, the authors just added one or two sentences about correlation and nothing is done except that. In current format, this section is not interesting and too much informative. There is no need to divide this section into subheadings. At start mention either the testing hypothesis was accepted or not and then discuss results logically. The discussion should be strengthened with latest literature as well.
The subheadings of discussion are removed and focussed to the important aspects as suggested. In the first paragraph it is mentioned that testing of hypothesis is accepted. Then discussion of results followed. The following latest literature are cited to strengthen the discussion.
Acharjee, T.K.; Ludwig, F.; Halsema, G.V.; Hellegers, P.; Supit, I. Future changes in water requirements of Boro rice in the face of climate change in North-West Bangladesh. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 194,172-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.09.008.
Singh, B.; Mishra, S.; Bisht, D.S.; Joshi, R. Growing rice with less water: improving productivity by decreasing water demand. In Rice Improvement, 2021, Ali, J.; Wani, S.H. Eds. S
Pandey, S.; Yadav, S.; Hellin, J.; Balie, J.; Bhandari, H.; Kumar, A.; Mondal, M.K. Why technologies often fail to scale: policy and market failures behind limited scaling of alternate wetting and drying in rice in Bangladesh. Water, 2020, 12, 1510. https://doi.10.3390/w12051510.pringer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66530-2_5.
. Mainuddin, M.; Maniruzzaman, M.; Alam, M.M.; Mojid, M.A.; Schmidt, E.J.; Islam, M.T.; Scobie, M. Water usage and productivity of Boro rice at the field level and their impacts on the sustainable groundwater irrigation in the North-West Bangladesh. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 240, 106294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106294.
Conclusion section is too long, add concrete conclusion just within 2-3 sentences.
Conclusion part is shortened and revised as per suggestion.
Reviewer 3 Report
Although the authors revised the manuscript there is still some scope for improvement. The authors were asked to concise the manuscript but it is not done.
Results are still poor. Thee authors unnecessarily put the values. But comparison is largely missing.
Author Response
Reply to the Comments of Reviewer 3
Queries are in normal font
Our responses are in italics bold beneath each query
Although the authors revised the manuscript there is still some scope for improvement. The authors were asked to concise the manuscript but it is not done.
The manuscript is now revised keeping above fact in view. We have deleted many sentences to make it concise.
Results are still poor. The authors unnecessarily put the values. But comparison is largely missing.
We have now revised the results section by deleting the values and by putting figures in comparison terms.
