Preliminary Reports on Comparative Weed Competitiveness of Bangladeshi Monsoon and Winter Rice Varieties under Puddled Transplanted Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The current work, Weed competitiveness of Bangladeshi monsoon and winter rice varieties under puddled transplanted conditions fits within the scope of the journal Sustainability and results can be considered of interest in order to achieve more environmentally friendly farming and reducing the content of pesticides in the environment.

The manuscript is well prepared, nicely organized and written.

I have just a few remarks, which I give under author’s consideration:

1. Introduction: Please, tell more about the potential direct and indirect effects of herbicides on the environment.

2. The quality of Figures 6 and 7 is not good. If it is possible, please change it.

3. Discussion: I would like to invite authors to discuss more eco-physiological aspects about different strategies in crop-weed interactions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We tried to revise the manuscript according to your comments. Please find our response along with your comments:

Comments: The current work, Weed competitiveness of Bangladeshi monsoon and winter rice varieties under puddled transplanted conditions fits within the scope of the journal Sustainability and results can be considered of interest in order to achieve more environmentally friendly farming and reducing the content of pesticides in the environment. The manuscript is well prepared, nicely organized and written.

Our response: Thank you so much for the positive comments.

I have just a few remarks, which I give under author’s consideration:

Comments#1:  Introduction: Please, tell more about the potential direct and indirect effects of herbicides on the environment.

Our response: We have added few examples of the potential direct and indirect effects of herbicides on the environment with appropriate references.

Comments#2: The quality of Figures 6 and 7 is not good. If it is possible, please change it.

Our response:  We revised the mentioned figures as well as other figures for their quality improvement.

Comments#3:  Discussion: I would like to invite authors to discuss more eco-physiological aspects about different strategies in crop-weed interactions.

Our response: We have added some information on eco-physiological aspects of crop weed interactions at the end of the discussion section.

Thank you once again,

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well redacted and I think it has great importance especially for the  area study region. The statistical analysis could be better described and I think that you could take account a multivariate approach to analyze the results. It is evident that it is a first step of more deep research project, and the conclusions say it. You find attached some suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We tried to revise the manuscript according to your comments. Please find our response along with your comments:

Comments: The paper is well redacted and I think it has great importance especially for the area study region. The statistical analysis could be better described and I think that you could take account a multivariate approach to analyze the results. It is evident that it is a first step of more deep research project, and the conclusions say it. You find attached some suggestions.

Key words: “aman” rice and “boro” rice are two important variety of rice but they are not cited in the paper. I could imagine that the varieties used in the experiment are part of these varieties, but this is not so obvious for foreign readers. Is it necessary to insert them among the key words?

Our Response: The keywords have been corrected and revised accordingly.

Comments: Materials and methods: ROW 99. “AEZ 9” or Agro- Ecological Zone “9”. From which Classification method?

Our Response: Bangladesh has been divided into 30 AEZ (FAO-UNDP, 1988) using the information contained (land types and soils, physiography and climate) in the Reconnaissance Soil Survey (RSS) reports, a comprehensive classification of Bangladesh soils.

The reference has been added to the text where appropriate.

Comments: ROW 137. “No fertilizer was applied to the nursery bed.” Please argument this choice. I think it is important.

Our Response: The sentence has been revised with these arguments:

“Nursery bed soil was fertile enough to provide nutritional support to the rice seedlings for the short period. Although no chemical fertilizer was applied, nursery beds were supplied with organic manures during preparation to ease seedling uprooting.’’

Comments:  Statistical analysis: Please describe better the statistical analysis. Which type of test are you used? This part is poor. In these cited papers https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/317/htm (by Ahmed et al., 2021) and https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.0192 (by Zao et al. 2006) the Statistical Analysis is carried out with similar approach you use but better presented. Do you have taken account the possibility to use a multivariate approach to describe the results? Furthermore, I think that at least 2 years experiment could be necessary to has a good result to discuss.

Our Response: We did simply two way or one way ANOVA to evaluate which parameters are influenced by the wedding regimes, cultivar, and their interactions (already mentioned in the data analysis section and the results are presented in Table 4). We didn’t do any mean separation test and instead of this, we presented the data mean values with their standard error value using bar diagrams to identify the best performance variety in terms of yield and weed competitiveness.

Our initial objective from this trial is to sort out the best weed competitive rice varieties among large numbers of varieties in both rice growing seasons in Bangladesh and use them for the future more intensive research purpose on varietal development for superior weed competitiveness.

Comments: Conclusion: I totally agree with the conclusions. Unfortunately, the work is a first step of a more complex research

Our Response: Thank you so much for bringing this issue to the front. Yes, we fully agree with your comments. Actually, in the current study, we evaluated a huge number of rice varieties in Bangladesh which is quite difficult to handle for multilocation trials. It is the first step of the more deep research project. But from the present study, we have identified few potential competitive rice varieties, that will be used in our future research to draw a final conclusion of our study.

However, to address this issue, we have already mentioned this in the last sentence of our conclusion: “As multi-season and/or multi-location trials with the same varieties were not conducted in this research, it is recommended to do these trials before drawing a final recommendation.’’

Thank you so much once again,

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear colleagues,

I have reviewed your manuscript “Weed competitiveness of Bangladeshi monsoon and winter rice varieties under puddled transplanted conditions” submitted for publication on Sustainability. I must admit that I am in a dilemma: the topic of the present study is definitely relevant since competitive ability of crop varieties is a key component of IWM. The experimental design is adequate and extensive, involving many different rice varieties. The statistical procedures are correct and well-explained. The manuscript is on the overall well-written and linear, results are clearly presented. Maybe the Discussion section could be improved and detailed a bit.

However, the real issue is that these experiments have not been repeated. This is a major flaw, repetition in time and space is a crucial point for field experiments. The effect of weed presence of yield on the different rice varieties is definitely influenced by botanical composition and density of weed flora, and environmental conditions. Only repeating the same experimental design in different places or times can provide robust results. It is risky to draw conclusion only on the base of a single experiment because its results are specific for that site and that year. This is unfortunately a crucial flaw and it cannot be solved by changes in data analysis or text modification.

I am honestly suggesting the authors to repeat the two experiments in order to obtain more robust results and draw more reliable conclusions. However, given the amount of information presented in this manuscript, I would suggest the Editor to consider whether it could be “preliminary results” or “short communication”. Anyhow, I will warmly recommend to clearly underline that these results are site- and year-specific and consequently with a limited validity.

I have also pointed out some minor comments in PDF file.

With my best regards   

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We tried to revise the manuscript according to your comments. Please find our response along with your comments:

Comments: I have reviewed your manuscript “Weed competitiveness of Bangladeshi monsoon and winter rice varieties under puddled transplanted conditions” submitted for publication on Sustainability. I must admit that I am in a dilemma: the topic of the present study is definitely relevant since competitive ability of crop varieties is a key component of IWM. The experimental design is adequate and extensive, involving many different rice varieties. The statistical procedures are correct and well-explained. The manuscript is on the overall well-written and linear, results are clearly presented. Maybe the Discussion section could be improved and detailed a bit.

However, the real issue is that these experiments have not been repeated. This is a major flaw, repetition in time and space is a crucial point for field experiments. The effect of weed presence of yield on the different rice varieties is definitely influenced by botanical composition and density of weed flora, and environmental conditions. Only repeating the same experimental design in different places or times can provide robust results. It is risky to draw conclusion only on the base of a single experiment because its results are specific for that site and that year. This is unfortunately a crucial flaw and it cannot be solved by changes in data analysis or text modification.

I am honestly suggesting the authors to repeat the two experiments in order to obtain more robust results and draw more reliable conclusions. However, given the amount of information presented in this manuscript, I would suggest the Editor to consider whether it could be “preliminary results” or “short communication”. Anyhow, I will warmly recommend to clearly underline that these results are site- and year-specific and consequently with a limited validity.

Our response: Thank you so much for bringing this issue in front. Yes, we fully agree with your comments. Actually, in the current study, we evaluated a huge number of rice varieties in Bangladesh which is quite difficult to handle for multilocation trials. It is the first step of the more deep research project. But from the present study, we have identified few potential competitive rice varieties, that will be used in our future research to draw a final conclusion of our study.

However, to address this issue, we have already mentioned this in the last sentence of our conclusion: “As multi-season and/or multi-location trials with the same varieties were not conducted in this research, it is recommended to do these trials before drawing a final recommendation.’’

Comments: I have also pointed out some minor comments in PDF file.

Our response: All the points are corrected & revised as per your suggestions & comments in the PDF file.

Thank you so much once again,

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

You have adequately correct the paper. However, This is a first step of a more complex work.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We tried to revise the manuscript according to your comments. Please find our response along with your comments:

Comments: You have adequately correct the paper. However, This is a first step of a more complex work.  

Our Response: Thank you so much for bringing this issue again to the front. As we explained in our earlier response letter that, we have already mentioned this issue in the last sentence of our conclusion: “As multi-season and/or multi-location trials with the same varieties were not conducted in this research, it is recommended to do these trials before drawing a final recommendation.’’

Furthermore, we have changed our title: ‘’Preliminary reports on comparative weed competitiveness of Bangladeshi monsoon and winter rice varieties under puddled transplanted conditions’’

Thank you so much once again,

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for considering our comments and suggestions at the time of preparing this revised version of your manuscript. As I stated in my first report on this article, my main concern was the lack of repetition in time or space for this experiment, which is usually a basic requirement for publication on scientific journals.

Anyhow, I assume that the Editors of Sustainability have accepted to publish these non-repeated experiments and I am fine with their decision. I only suggest to modify the title to underline that these results are site- and year-specific and consequently with a limited validity. Maybe something as “Preliminary results on weed competitiveness of Bangladeshi monsoon and winter rice varieties under puddled transplanted conditions” could be more appropriate.

I would like also to add a specific comment to the text.

Lines 77-80 “Hodgkin lymphoma disease on humans by glyphosate [21] are very well known. Glyphosate also increases the intensity of several plant diseases, reduces crop resistant capacity to different pathogens, immobilizes soil and plant nutrients, reduces seed quality [22].” The scientific debate about glyphosate toxicity for human and non-target organisms, or about the environmental impact of glyphosate use, is actually far from being concluded. Despite IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) in 2015, public authorities appointed for the evaluation of pesticides safety and risk, such the European Food Safety Authority, have concluded that the existing evidences are not sufficient to consider glyphosate an harmful or hazardous substance for human health or the environment. I believe that this issue should not be simply summarized as in the above-mentioned lines, I therefore suggest to delete them.

With my best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We tried to revise the manuscript according to your comments. Please find our response along with your comments:

Comments: Thank you for considering our comments and suggestions at the time of preparing this revised version of your manuscript. As I stated in my first report on this article, my main concern was the lack of repetition in time or space for this experiment, which is usually a basic requirement for publication on scientific journals.

Anyhow, I assume that the Editors of Sustainability have accepted to publish these non-repeated experiments and I am fine with their decision. I only suggest to modify the title to underline that these results are site- and year-specific and consequently with a limited validity. Maybe something as “Preliminary results on weed competitiveness of Bangladeshi monsoon and winter rice varieties under puddled transplanted conditions” could be more appropriate.

Our response: We have changed the title as: ‘’Preliminary reports on comparative weed competitiveness of Bangladeshi monsoon and winter rice varieties under puddled transplanted conditions’’

Comments: Lines 77-80 “Hodgkin lymphoma disease on humans by glyphosate [21] are very well known. Glyphosate also increases the intensity of several plant diseases, reduces crop resistant capacity to different pathogens, immobilizes soil and plant nutrients, reduces seed quality [22].” The scientific debate about glyphosate toxicity for human and non-target organisms, or about the environmental impact of glyphosate use, is actually far from being concluded. Despite IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) in 2015, public authorities appointed for the evaluation of pesticides safety and risk, such the European Food Safety Authority, have concluded that the existing evidences are not sufficient to consider glyphosate an harmful or hazardous substance for human health or the environment. I believe that this issue should not be simply summarized as in the above-mentioned lines, I therefore suggest to delete them.

Our response: The sentence has been deleted

Thank you so much once again,

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.