Effect of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizer on the Growth and Yield Components of Traditional and Improved Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Genotypes in Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

According to my opinion, this article contains some interesting and partially novel data on the effects of inorganic and organic fertilization on the growth and rice yields in Malaysia. The authors have studied a high number of rice genotypes, with the regard to their response on fertilization practices.

However, the article needs major changes, before reconsidered for publication, on the following points:

a) at the end of the Abstract, it was concluded that the optimum treatment to increase crop yield is T2; however, it was not written anything with regard to the beneficial effects of T2 on decreasing fertilization inputs and boosting the sustainability of rice crop. 

b) in the Introduction it lacks a clear hypothesis of your study

c) in the M&M I suggest you to submerge some paragraphs into new ones, more extensive (for example 2.1, 2.2. and 2.3., 2.4. and 2.7. e.t.c.)

d) an extensive English editing is required throughout the whole text; many linguistic mistakes exist in the text needing corrections before publication

The number of Tables (12) is exaggerate and should be significantly decreased by approximately 50% (either by choosing the most important data for publication or by decreasing the number of genotypes for presentation). Alternatively, some of these Tables may be presented as supplementary material.     

 

Recommendation to the Editor: The article may be reconsidered for publication after major review 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The manuscript has poor quality of English, like for example in the abstract “Rice is the most important staple cereals human nutrition…” and “has been increased tremendously in Malaysia insensitive irrigation…”. In several places, words that are not appropriate have been used. The entire manuscript needs to be revised by an English native language speaker.
2. At line 29, CFRR should be explained when first mentioned.
3. At line 36, it is not necessary to analyze again the treatment T2.
4. At line 42, consider revising “apt phrase”.
5. At lines 104-106, what is this procedure that is described? Why the seeds were dried, were they wet? This part is incomprehensible.
6. At 2.3 same information of major importance concerning the experimental design is missing. How many seedlings were planted per pot? What is the hill to hill distance? how much was the surface area of each plot? The plant density was similar to a commercial cultivation of rice?
7. At line 119, why is this the recommended rate?
8. The 3 treatment combinations are symbolized in a complicated way. It is suggested to use for example T1: CM, T2: CM + 50% CF, T3: 100% CF and after this to explain the rates of each fertilizer that was used. In the manuscript, consistency regarding the applications will help to avoid misunderstanding.
9. At 2.4, use the data from table 3 here and make the relevant calculations for the nutrients as you do with CF. It should be clearly presented the nutrient quantity of each treatment that was used.
10. At line 125, consider revising P₂0₅: 60 k₂
11. How many samples per treatment were analysed?
12. At table 2, link is not working. Are the data retrieved reliable? Are these historical data? Do you have the licence to use them in a scientific publication?
13. At Table 4, consider revising “SXT” to SxT. The same for the following cases.
14. At Tables 5-12, these are huge tables really difficult to read. At the headline of the tables instead of using the same title at 4 columns (eg PH), you could use it only once centered. LSD value could be removed as letters are used to indicate the statistically significant differences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In the M&M section, please change the subtitles into: 2.1. Plant material, 2.3. Experimental design and treatments, 2.5. Soil analyses, 2.6. Plant tissue analyses, 2.7. Obtained data, 2.8. Statistical analysis. 

The exaggerate number of Tables still remains... If you do not want to delete data, please, present some of the less important results as supplementary material, at the end of the article. 

Finally, I advise you to add at the end of the Abstract some little information on the benefits of the mixed fertilization (organic+inorganic) not only on crop yields, but also on the promotion of soil health, on the reduction of chemical fertilizer inputs e.t.c. 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf