Design Model and Management Plan of a Rice–Fish Mixed Farming Paddy for Urban Agriculture and Ecological Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is very interesting and suitable for Land journal. However, I think some issues must be revised. The manuscript needs extensive editing of English language.

1) “Rice-fish farming” should be one of the Keywords, in Line 26. On the other hand, “ecology” is not suitable to be a keyword.

2) Lines 29-43: The benefit of Rice-Fish farming for ecosystem services must be mentioned in terms of the economic values. Please see these papers [2022. Assessing Ecosystem Services of Rice–Fish Co-Culture and Rice Monoculture in Thailand. Agronomy, 12, 1241.] [2020. Valuation of ecosystem services of rice-fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County. China Ecosyst. Serv. 41, 101054.]

3) Lines 58-69: Generally, integrated rice-fish farming can reduce the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticide and herbicide, resulting in reduction of carbon, nitrogen and water footprints.  On the other hand, practicing such organic farming can improve soil fertility, organic carbon, mitigate GHG emission, and carbon sequestration ecosystem services. Please review more papers.

 4) Lines 112-113: Although Likert scale is commonly used, the meaning of values are required for more understanding, for example “+3 refers to …”; “-3 refers to …”.

5) Lines 121-122: What are the factors to limit the number of RFMF paddies in Korea?

6) Lines 306-307: Why these soil chemical values are recommended for Korean paddy soil? Please explain more details.

7) Line 315: “buried seeds” what kind? rice or weed?

8) Line 316: “…which are useful for rapidly developing vegetation” I do not understand this sentence. Why we need buried seeds for rapidly developing vegetation?

9) Line 329: “primary tank” It may be very difficult for farmers to have primary tank. It may need a lot of money and space. Is it possible for digging surface pond?

10) “4. Discussion and Conclusions” I think discussion part should not mixed with conclusion part. I strongly recommend to separate them. The conclusion part must be precisely mentioned about the key findings and consistent with the objectives.

11) Table 5: I recommend to present the results in Figure form.

12) Why the yield in Site 1 was higher that Site 2? Please discuss the reasons.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable opinions and suggestions that have greatly helped in improving our manuscript.
We have attached below our point-by-point responses to all your comments.
Please check, attached file(author response) and red fonts in the manuscript 
Furthermore, we have opted for the English Calibration Service (MDPI).
If further corrections and revisions are required, we would be happy to proceed with the same.
We have revised and improved our manuscript according to your suggestions and advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors:

Your manuscript is good, but it lacks of important components that you must include previous its publication:

Abstract

Lines 17-20: you must mention the statistical analysis used and the obtained results.

Introduction:

Lines 39-44 / 49-50 / 67-69: add references.

Material and Methods / Results /Discussion: in the present form these are poorly explained, you mention biodiversity but there are many biodiversity indices in example (Shannon, Simpson) and you can compare it in example Shannon index comparison between two or more sites (see editions of Zar, J.H. Biostatistical Analysis).

Also, you did not mention the taxas reported in the present study.

On the basis of these changes you must re-write the discussion.

 

Many success !!

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable opinions and suggestions that have greatly helped in improving our manuscript.
We have attached below our point-by-point responses to all your comments.
Please check, attached file(author response) and red fonts in the manuscript 
Furthermore, we have opted for the English Calibration Service (MDPI).
If further corrections and revisions are required, we would be happy to proceed with the same.
We have revised and improved our manuscript according to your suggestions and advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The work presented by the authors is aimed at evaluating the production potential and educational/educational spin-offs of ecological farming and in particular of a mixed rice field with freshwater fish.

The analysis is, however, disconnected from the actual preparation and setting up of an experimental area in which to collect qualitatively and quantitatively relevant data, so much so that the authors themselves acknowledge this formal defect in their conclusions.

The abstract lacks analytically relevant information and some of the units of measurement are not adequately related to what is being collected.

The conditions required to set up the experimental field are complicated to achieve, particularly with regard to water temperature and pH.

The results of the study assume an increase in biodiversity and positive educational benefits. However, dangers for the public, such as the risk of falling into the midden, are also highlighted.

As previously stated, although the article is adequately structured, the abstract has serious shortcomings in analytical information resulting from the major weakness of the entire work, the non-realisation of the experimental field.

 

The manuscript is therefore unclear and thus irrelevant in determining the 'Design model and management plan of a rice-fish mixed farming paddy for agricultural and ecological education'.

There is a very good percentage of current bibliographical references (last 5 years), only a few are older. This is certainly a strength in the reliability of the work.

Figures/charts/tables should be supplemented, however the pictures show the analysed data correctly and are easy to interpret.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

The paper is syntactically and grammatically correct, easy to understand and pleasant to read. The results, however, are of little scientific relevance.

All in all, the article under review could have important bibliographical/dissemination properties as it presents many points of scientific interest, but the experimentation should certainly be deepened.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable opinions.
We have attached below our point-by-point responses to all another riviewers comments.
Please check, attached file(author response) and red fonts in the manuscript 
Furthermore, we have opted for the English Calibration Service (MDPI).
If further corrections and revisions are required, we would be happy to proceed with the same.
We have revised and improved our manuscript according to your suggestions and advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Kindly improve the language and conclusions

Author Response

We divided discussion and conclusion section. And, re-write discussion and conclusion. 
Please check, attached file(author response) and red fonts in the manuscript 
After, we have opted for the English Calibration Service (MDPI).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form!

Author Response

Thank you for your decision and opinions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors:

The manuscript is very improved. I suggest as last change do the verificación of previous conditions forma apply ANOVA (choose one of these options):

1- Ideally you can verify normal distribution and variance homogeneity (cite as support some classic books, such as Zar, J.H., Biostatistical Analysis or Sokhal & Rolf, Biometry).

2- Other option is verify only normal distribution. If you choose it, you must cite any references of Aaron Ellison.

3- The third option is verify only variance homogeneity. If you choose it you must cite any referente of A.J. Underwood (papers of community ecology).

 

Many success and blessings !!

 

ce

Author Response

Thank you for your decision and opinions.
Please check, attached file(author response) and red fonts in the manuscript 
We added reference(Zar, J.H., Biostatistical Analysis) for ANOVA analysis. : line 139

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The work presented by the authors is aimed at evaluating the production potential and educational/educational effects of ecological farming and in particular of a mixed rice field with freshwater fish.

The abstract is sufficiently equipped with analytically relevant information and some of the units of measurement are adequately related to what is being measured.

The conditions required to set up the experimental field are complicated to realise, particularly with regard to water temperature and pH.

The results of the study assume an increase in biodiversity and positive educational benefits. However, dangers for the public are also highlighted, such as the risk of falling into the midden.

As previously stated, the article is adequately structured.

The manuscript is therefore sufficiently clear and thus relevant in determining the 'Design model and management plan of a rice-fish mixed farming paddy for agricultural and ecological education'.

There is a very good percentage of current bibliographical references (last 5 years), only a few are older. This is certainly a strength in the reliability of the work.

Figures/charts/tables are adequate for the work, however, the images correctly show the data analysed and are easy to interpret.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

The paper is syntactically-grammatically correct, easy to understand and pleasant to read. The results, however, are relevant in a scientific context.

All in all, the paper has important bibliographical/dissemination properties in that it presents many points of scientific interest, however, the experimentation should certainly be deepened.

Author Response

Thank you for your decision and opinions.
Please check, attached file(author response) and red fonts in the manuscript. I respect your opinion. I would like to add your suggestion to the limit of the study.
We added line 548 : Then, we will install RFMF paddy in the urban areas through follow-up research. Through that, we will scientifically evaluate the biodiversity and ecosystem service function for RFMF paddy.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx