SRI 2.0 and Beyond: Sequencing the Protean Evolution of the System of Rice Intensification
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
System of Rice Intensification (SRI) was firstly established in Madagascar about 40 years ago. In current, the methodology of the SRI has been used in many crops around the world except for rice plants because SRI has positive function in solving labor shortage, water crisis, and environmentally friendly production in the background of high yield and high quality in plants. In this manuscript, author systematacially summarized evolution of SRI from SRI 1 to SRI 7 based on the existed documents and author's own investigation and findings. Generally, this manuscript is well prepared with comprehensive and objective. Only minor revision would be activated to publish the manuscript into Agronomy.
Lines 24 to 25: The first letter needs to be capitalized for key words.
Line 130: Please check the spell.
Line 218: Italic type could be needed for the summary sentence.
Line 226: Build Up Soil Fertility should be changed as “Build up Soil Fertility”.
Line 248: The System of Crop Intensification was defined in line 68.
Line 393: Please check the spell of [7: 21-24]. Maybe it should be [7, 21-24].
Line 397: 3-S cultivating technique would be better than 3-S in here.
Author Response
Please check it in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please check it in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Mr. Editor,
About manuscript agronomy-2301765 (SRI 2.0 and Beyond: Sequencing the Protean Evolution of the System of Rice Intensification). This is a manuscript that reviews different degrees of development that the System of Rice Intensification could achieve and comments in general terms on its different dimensions.
The current version of the manuscript has different assertions about the SRI, without any citation to support them. It is suggested to increase citations in essential statements.
Secondly, within the framework of the sustainable development objectives or the estimation of environmental footprints, the manuscript deals with these dimensions superficially. An example of this is that it mentions the reduction in the consumption of blue water and the increase in green water. Concepts of the water footprint methodology of A. Hoekstra and collaborators, which after 2014 was standardized by ISO in ISO 14046 where water consumption is evaluated according to more modern criteria such as WSI or AWARE, according to WULCA. It is suggested to update this review in the manuscript. It is not indicated how the SRI adapts to the water consumption of the basin and the environmental impacts of the losses of nutrients and pesticides.
Comments about how the SRI approach is complemented or not with the environmental footprint approaches (carbon footprint, energy efficiency, water footprint, ecolabels) need to be included. Today, the environmental footprints and LCA are standard tools to reveal agricultural production systems' sustainability.
The current manuscript, in some paragraphs, has a social analysis that seems near to a sociology journal.
Finally, the conclusions need to be included.
Author Response
Please check it in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
