Rice Production in Farmer Fields in Soil Salinity Classified Areas in Khon Kaen, Northeast Thailand
, Koshi Yoshida 5, Kazuo Oki 6,7 and Koki Homma 1,*
Evelyne Téoulé
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submitted article “Rice production in farmer fields in soil salinity classified areas in Khon Kaen, Northeast Thailand “deals with the problem of soil salinity impacting the yield of rice in Northeast Thailand. An agronomic approach is described. The authors present a set of results collected along 3 three years and the principle of the article is to search for correlation(s) between data on salinity of soil and rice yield.
The reader understands, in the introduction, that the salinity of soil is not a fixed parameter and the authors test an interesting approach to evaluate the dynamic of the salinity depending on basic salinity, rainfall, and fluctuating seasons from one year to another.
The experimental plan and the study area are detailed in material and methods and fig1 but the legend of fig1 is not detailed enough: in particular, it is not clear why measurement points and yield measurements are scattered and non-covering. If there is a practical reason for this it has to be explained. This part has to be improved because it is an important basis of the study.
Then the paragraph 2.2.1 is not understandable and must be rewritten.
In the results section, the authors comment their figures by speaking from significant or non -significant differences but the statistics are not described in the section Material and Methods and visible on figures (especially 8 and 9).
At last, in discussion, irrigation of cultures to limit salt damages is proposed but the ecological aspect is not even mentioned. The action of farmers is also proposed as “control of rice growth is also recommended” but nothing is said about how do that.
To conclude, the subject is interesting but the article can be greatly improved by the modifications suggested above.
Author Response
The submitted article “Rice production in farmer fields in soil salinity classified areas in Khon Kaen, Northeast Thailand “deals with the problem of soil salinity impacting the yield of rice in Northeast Thailand. An agronomic approach is described. The authors present a set of results collected along 3 three years and the principle of the article is to search for correlation(s) between data on salinity of soil and rice yield.
The reader understands, in the introduction, that the salinity of soil is not a fixed parameter and the authors test an interesting approach to evaluate the dynamic of the salinity depending on basic salinity, rainfall, and fluctuating seasons from one year to another.
Thank you very much for your comments and understanding.
The experimental plan and the study area are detailed in material and methods and fig1 but the legend of fig1 is not detailed enough: in particular, it is not clear why measurement points and yield measurements are scattered and non-covering. If there is a practical reason for this it has to be explained. This part has to be improved because it is an important basis of the study.
We revised fig 1 more clearly and add some explanation (L75-76).
Then the paragraph 2.2.1 is not understandable and must be rewritten.
The paragraph 2.2.1 was fully revised (L86-91).
In the results section, the authors comment their figures by speaking from significant or non -significant differences but the statistics are not described in the section Material and Methods and visible on figures (especially 8 and 9).
We added significant difference label on fig 8 and fig 5 and analysis of covariance as table 1.
At last, in discussion, irrigation of cultures to limit salt damages is proposed but the ecological aspect is not even mentioned. The action of farmers is also proposed as “control of rice growth is also recommended” but nothing is said about how do that.
We added discussions for rice growth control (L175-L178) and also for ecological management (L184-L186).
To conclude, the subject is interesting but the article can be greatly improved by the modifications suggested above.
Thank you very much. We believe your comments improved our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is sound and well designed. The manuscript can be accepted for publication after incorporating the following suggestions.
1. Abstract should be reframed it should be crisp and clear with a full reflection of the study. Add one concluding line in the last para of the abstract.
2. Introduction must be problem-oriented. kindly clarify the aim of the study.
3. Methodology is fairly good check the spelling of all the chemicals used in the study.
4. Results and discussion are ok, add some recently published reports in the discussion part.
5. Conclusion must be reader oriented.
6. Check the references carefully and match them with the text and vice-versa.
7. Correct the language of the article carefully to avoid grammatical and technical errors.
Author Response
The article is sound and well designed. The manuscript can be accepted for publication after incorporating the following suggestions.
- Abstract should be reframed it should be crisp and clear with a full reflection of the study. Add one concluding line in the last para of the abstract.
We fully revised the abstract. One sentence was added as a conclusion and the last sentence was revised.
- Introduction must be problem-oriented. kindly clarify the aim of the study.
We clarified the aim of the study (L47-51).
- Methodology is fairly good check the spelling of all the chemicals used in the study.
We checked Methodology but didn’t find any problems.
- Results and discussion are ok, add some recently published reports in the discussion part.
We added 4 recently published papers to emphasize our discussion as reference 23, 28 29 and 30.
- Conclusion must be reader oriented.
We revised the conclusion (L195-196).
- Check the references carefully and match them with the text and vice-versa.
We checked the references carefully and corrected them．
- Correct the language of the article carefully to avoid grammatical and technical errors.
We fully checked the manuscript to avoid grammatical and technical errors.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Revision has been efficiently done. The article could be published now.
Author Response
Thank you for your agreement for the publication.
