Review Reports - Portfolios of Climate Smart Agriculture Practices in Smallholder Rice-Wheat System of Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains—Crop Productivity, Resource Use Efficiency and Environmental Foot Prints

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is a farming-systems based effort to examine the potential benefits from implementation of multiple climate-smart agriculture practices. The authors examine a suite of outcomes for six different farming systems using varying intensities of climate adaptive and efficiency-enhancing technologies and management techniques. It is therefore an important contribution to the ag development and climate smart agriculture knowledge base. The science is for the most part conducted very thoroughly and meticulously. My main critiques lie in the clarity and flow of some of the sections, along with the treatment of the GHG emissions section.

General comments:
GHG emissions intensity methods and results - This could be organized more logically. You mention the calculation of GWP for N2O and CH4 based on IPCC conversion factors, but do not discuss quantification or modeling for CH4. For the results a breakdown of emissions intensity by GHG would be helpful - I would like to know how much CH4 from rice puddling contributes to overall GWP compared to N2O from fertilizer application, for example.

Future perspective section makes some grand claims without supporting them with evidence. I understand this section allows for some speculation, but the wording and presentation of the first paragraph of the section should be adjusted to reflect speculation rather than unfounded claims. We cannot assume that CSAPs are uniformly beneficial and we don't know how stacked CSAPs will interact on multiple outcomes, which is why the suggested future research is important.

Specific comments:
Title - footprints should be one word
L15 - omit "farmer's"
L17 typo "The aim"
L18 and elsewhere - should be farmers' as I assume you are talking about farmers in the plural
L17-19 this sentence is redundant with the previous sentence
L20 - not the correct usage of i.e., better to just omit and replace with a full colon (:)
L20-23 make punctuation use consistant, use either comma (,) or semi-colon (;) but not both.
L23 increased, not increases
L31 adoption, not adaption
L33 - These, not Thus
L38-39 this sentence is not clear - are mitigation and soil health SDGs? Or are they the key to achieving SDGs?
L45 omit "the" before fundamental
L48 space formatting typos, repeated "as"
L50 advances, not advance
L52 lead not leads
L54 "delayed sowing of the following wheat crop"
L56 result not results
L56 subsequent is better than succeeding for clarity
L59 omit "above mentioned"
L60 this is a little out of place with no transition. Either needs to be omitted or the factors contributing to the limited scope for expansion should be explained (e.g., competition with urban land uses, climatic unsuitability..??)
L66 suggest "adoption of superior crop and water management technologies like direct seeded rice..."
L70 ICT abbreviation needs to be defined
L72 suggest "a number" instead of "the number" and suggest "e.g." instead of "i.e."
L73 "In the past"
L83 "with ware of" doesn't make sense and I"m not sure what you mean by "commodity-based approach," may need some more explanation. You refer to a technology-based approach above which makes sense in context, are you referring to the same thing here?
L84 omit the semi-colon
L92-93 why are you hypothesizing about <= 5 years when you are only testing 3 years? Why not just say medium term 3 years?
L88-90 is redundant with your final sentence, I suggest omitting
L109 rainy should not be capitalized
L118 the parentheses should be placed before the period in the previous sentence.
L129 I think this is more commonly known as the "Walkley-Black" method
L147 crop residues, not crops' residues
L148 "was harvested at"
L235 I believe you are referring to matric potential, not metric potential
L260 - not clear what the Model is that is being referred to - this should be stated in the text and not solely in the citation
L296 omit "during but"
L407 are you referring to CO2 or CO2 equivalents? This is important because I would argue that CO2 is not the GHG of most concern for ag systems (except CO2 related to fuel combustion)
L414 not clearly worded. suggest "...fertilizers and puddling in rice consitute the major share of the total..." Also, you mention N2O and CH4 in the parenthesis but also include diesel fuel combustion in your list of major contributors, so where is CO2/CO? Again, it would be nice to see a little breakdown here - what percent did CH4 contribute vs. N2O or CO2?
L437 thus, not hence
L492 I am not familiar with furrow plating, can you elaborate?
L539 - present tense more appropriate here. "enrich" instead of "enriched"
L558 - this is not a very objective statement. Do you have any references?
L561 "heighten farmers' awareness"
L561-563 this is not a complete sentence
L564 - again, a claim like this requires support from the literature

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Sub. : Submission of a Revised Research Article for publication in the Agronomy Journal - reg. (Manuscript ID: agronomy- 928947)

We carefully revised the whole manuscript (Manuscript ID: agronomy-928947) as per the constructive and valuable comments/suggestions of the honorable Editor-in-Chief, Reviewers and Editorial Board. We are now pleased to submit our revised manuscript (Manuscript ID: agronomy-928947) entitled “Portfolios of climate smart agriculture practices in smallholderrice-wheat system of eastern Indo-Gangetic plains: crop productivity,resource use efficiency and environmental foot prints by Deepak Bijarniya et al. for your kind perusal and consideration for publication in the Agronomy Journal. Reviewers and Editorial Board comments are attached in Appendix-I below this cover letter. We have highlighted all the changes point by point with light blur color for Reviewer 1, and cheery red color for Reviewer 2.

We humbly request you to kindly consider the paper for publication in the esteemed Journal.
Thanking you
Yours sincerely
ML Jat

Title - footprints should be one word

Response: Thanks sir, incorporated as suggested and highlighted in light blue colour

L15 - omit "farmer's"

Response: Thanks sir, removed as suggested

L17 typo "The aim"

Response: Thanks sir, incorporated as suggested

L18 and elsewhere - should be farmers' as I assume you are talking about farmers in the plural

Response: Thanks sir, incorporated as suggested

L17-19 this sentence is redundant with the previous sentence

Response: Thanks sir, removed as suggested

L20 - not the correct usage of i.e., better to just omit and replace with a full colon (:)

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L20-23 make punctuation use consistant, use either comma (,) or semi-colon (;) but not both.
L23 increased, not increases

Response: Thanks sir, incorporated as suggested

L31 adoption, not adaption

Response: Thanks sir, incorporated as suggested

L33 - These, not Thus

Response: Thanks sir, incorporated as suggested

L38-39 this sentence is not clear - are mitigation and soil health SDGs? Or are they the key to achieving SDGs?

Response: Thanks sir, the sentence re-written as highlighted

L45 omit "the" before fundamental

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L48 space formatting typos, repeated "as"

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L50 advances, not advance

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L52 lead not leads

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L54 "delayed sowing of the following wheat crop"

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L56 result not results

Response: Thanks sir, incorporated as suggested

L56 subsequent is better than succeeding for clarity
L59 omit "above mentioned"

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L60 this is a little out of place with no transition. Either needs to be omitted or the factors contributing to the limited scope for expansion should be explained (e.g., competition with urban land uses, climatic unsuitability..??)

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L66 suggest "adoption of superior crop and water management technologies like direct seeded rice..."

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L70 ICT abbreviation needs to be defined

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L72 suggest "a number" instead of "the number" and suggest "e.g." instead of "i.e."

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L73 "In the past"

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L83 "with ware of" doesn't make sense and I"m not sure what you mean by "commodity-based approach," may need some more explanation. You refer to a technology-based approach above which makes sense in context, are you referring to the same thing here?

Response: Thanks sir, the sentence re-written as highlighted

L84 omit the semi-colon

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L92-93 why are you hypothesizing about <= 5 years when you are only testing 3 years? Why not just say medium term 3 years?

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L88-90 is redundant with your final sentence, I suggest omitting

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L109 rainy should not be capitalized

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L118 the parentheses should be placed before the period in the previous sentence.

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L129 I think this is more commonly known as the "Walkley-Black" method

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L147 crop residues, not crops' residues

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L148 "was harvested at"

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L235 I believe you are referring to matric potential, not metric potential

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L260 - not clear what the Model is that is being referred to - this should be stated in the text and not solely in the citation

Response: Thanks sir, incorporated as suggested

L296 omit "during but"

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L407 are you referring to CO2 or CO2 equivalents? This is important because I would argue that CO2 is not the GHG of most concern for ag systems (except CO2 related to fuel combustion)
L414 not clearly worded. suggest "...fertilizers and puddling in rice consitute the major share of the total..." Also, you mention N2O and CH4 in the parenthesis but also include diesel fuel combustion in your list of major contributors, so where is CO2/CO? Again, it would be nice to see a little breakdown here - what percent did CH4 contribute vs. N2O or CO2?

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L437 thus, not hence

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L492 I am not familiar with furrow plating, can you elaborate?

Response: Thanks sir, incorporated as suggested

L539 - present tense more appropriate here. "enrich" instead of "enriched"

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L558 - this is not a very objective statement. Do you have any references?

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L561 "heighten farmers' awareness"

Response: Thanks sir, removed and incorporated as suggested

L561-563 this is not a complete sentence

Response: Thanks sir, the sentence re-written as highlighted

L564 - again, a claim like this requires support from the literature
Response: Thanks sir, incorporated as suggested

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have the following specific comments to the paper

Line 30: energy productivity (EP) by 43-54 and 44-61%, respectively compared to than FP.

Comment Unclear

Line 47: alone occupies in about 13.5 Mha area [1].

Comment: Remove “in”

Line 62: also leads to delay sowing

Comment: should be “delayed sowing”

Line 67:These above mentioned factors stagnant the 67 productivity growth of RWCS in eastern IGP [6].

Comment: The word “stagnant” is not appropriate here.

Line 71: agricultural practices (CSAPs) have the coping mechanisms to emerging climate change issues [10].

Comment: This sentence should be rewritten and simplified.

Line 69: for ever increasing human population

Comment: should be for the ever increasing human population

Line 78: like zero tillage and ICTs can able to increase

Comment : should be “are able to”

Line 86: may not able to play their

Comment; should be “may not be able”

Line 90-91: can't be tended to with ware of commodity-based

Comment: Unclear sentence

Line 94:needs to conduct a systematic research

Comment: should be” there is a need to conduct”

Line 121: Rainy season

Comment: Write rainy season

Line 124: while in scenario 2 (S2) and 3 (S3) combination

Comment: should be “ a combination”

Line 131: To find out the current farmers

Comment: Write “To identify the farmers”

Line 131: a 50 farm families

Comment: remove “a”

Line 203. the full dose of P and K were

Comment: replace were with “was” (it is the dose)

Line 206: should be was

Line 226: All types’ weeds

Comment: should be “all types of weeds”

Line 232: The wheat yield converted

Comment : should be “The wheat yield was converted”

Line 251: at the end irrigation

Comment: should be “at the end of the irrigation”

Line 339: tensiometer based irrigation not saved

Comment: should be “did not save”

Line 400. but proper guided for scheduling irrigations.

Comment: rewrite

Line 433: 42-60.7%

Comment: missing decimal after 42

Line 552: Further, the retention of the residue of the 552 surface

Comment: rewrite

Line 604: best management practices over to existing farmers

Commnent: rewrite

Line 616: In aspects of carbon

Comment: write “With regard to”

Line 617: a part of non- renewable energy and then farming will be more dependent on renewable sources

Comment: I suggest: “part of the non-revewable energy in agriculture with renewable sources”

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Sub. : Submission of a Revised Research Article for publication in the Agronomy Journal - reg. (Manuscript ID: agronomy- 928947)

We carefully revised the whole manuscript (Manuscript ID: agronomy-928947) as per the constructive and valuable comments/suggestions of the honorable Editor-in-Chief, Reviewers and Editorial Board. We are now pleased to submit our revised manuscript (Manuscript ID: agronomy-928947) entitled “Portfolios of climate smart agriculture practices in smallholderrice-wheat system of eastern Indo-Gangetic plains: crop productivity,resource use efficiency and environmental footprints by Deepak Bijarniya et al. for your kind perusal and consideration for publication in the Agronomy Journal. Reviewers and Editorial Board comments are attached in Appendix-I below this cover letter. We have highlighted all the changes point by point with light blur color for Reviewer 1, and cheery red color for Reviewer 2.

We humbly request you to kindly consider the paper for publication in the esteemed Journal.
Thanking you
Yours sincerely
ML Jat

Line 30: energy productivity (EP) by 43-54 and 44-61%, respectively compared to than FP.

Comment Unclear

Response: Thanks sir, the sentence re-written as highlighted in cheery colour

Line 47: alone occupies in about 13.5 Mha area [1].

Comment: Remove “in”

Response: Thanks sir, removed as suggested

Line 62: also leads to delay sowing

Comment: should be “delayed sowing”

Response: Thanks sir, incorporated as suggested

Line 67:These above mentioned factors stagnant the 67 productivity growth of RWCS in eastern IGP [6].

Comment: The word “stagnant” is not appropriate here.

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 71: agricultural practices (CSAPs) have the coping mechanisms to emerging climate change issues [10].

Comment: This sentence should be rewritten and simplified.

Thanks, the sentence re-written as suggested- highlighted in cheery colour

Line 69: for ever increasing human population

Comment: should be for the ever increasing human population

Thanks, the word is omitted

Line 78: like zero tillage and ICTs can able to increase

Comment : should be “are able to”

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 86: may not able to play their

Comment; should be “may not be able”

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 90-91: can't be tended to with ware of commodity-based

Comment: Unclear sentence

Thanks, the sentence re-written as suggested- highlighted in cheery colour

Line 94:needs to conduct a systematic research

Comment: should be” there is a need to conduct”

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 121: Rainy season

Comment: Write rainy season

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 124: while in scenario 2 (S2) and 3 (S3) combination

Comment: should be “ a combination”

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 131: To find out the current farmers

Comment: Write “To identify the farmers”

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 131: a 50 farm families

Comment: remove “a”

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 203. the full dose of P and K were

Comment: replace were with “was” (it is the dose)

Line 206: should be was

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 226: All types’ weeds

Comment: should be “all types of weeds”

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 232: The wheat yield converted

Comment : should be “The wheat yield was converted”

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 251: at the end irrigation

Comment: should be “at the end of the irrigation”

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 339: tensiometer based irrigation not saved

Comment: should be “did not save”

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 400. but proper guided for scheduling irrigations.

Comment: rewrite

Thanks, the sentence re-written as suggested- highlighted in cheery colour

Line 433: 42-60.7%

Comment: missing decimal after 42

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 552: Further, the retention of the residue of the 552 surface

Comment: rewrite

Thanks sir, the sentence re-written as suggested- highlighted in cheery colour

Line 604: best management practices over to existing farmers

Commnent: rewrite

Thanks sir, the sentence re-written as suggested- highlighted in cheery colour

Line 616: In aspects of carbon

Comment: write “With regard to”

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Line 617: a part of non- renewable energy and then farming will be more dependent on renewable sources

Comment: I suggest: “part of the non-revewable energy in agriculture with renewable sources”

Response: Thanks, incorporated as suggested

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

line 111: NaHCO3 - put that 3 in subscript

line 190: better erase trade name "(Nominee gold)" from the text, due to advertising issues...

line 247: add the text: "Accordingly, in all tables, results labeled with the same letter are not statistically different."

Lines 531-552: I am not sure why you put this text here, instead in discussion, where it belongs...

Line 566: please, put the text in line

Author Response

Dear Sir,

We carefully revised the whole manuscript (Manuscript ID: agronomy-811279) as per the constructive and valuable comments/suggestions of the honorable Reviewers and Editorial Board. Reviewer’s 1 comments are attached in Appendix-I below this cover letter. We have highlighted all the changes point by point with yellow color in the revised manuscript

Thanking you

Appendix-I

Comments of the Reviewer 1	Authors’ response
Point1:line 111: NaHCO3 - put that 3 in subscript	Suggestion complied in L 145of revised MS with change mark.
Point2:line 190: better erase trade name "(Nominee gold)" from the text, due to advertising issues...	We agreed suggestion complied in L 225 of revised MS with change mark.
Point3:line 247: add the text: "Accordingly, in all tables, results labeled with the same letter are not statistically different."	Suggestion complied in L 301-302 of revised MS with change mark.
Lines 531-552: I am not sure why you put this text here, instead in discussion, where it belongs...	We politely disagree with honorable reviewer as this text is explains the future prospective and adoption strategy of CSAPs only.
Line 566: please, put the text in line	Suggestion complied in L 660 of revised MS with change mark.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well written and interesting paper on different levels of intensification on yield, profitability, water use, energy use and GHG emissions. The paper is general well written, but the paper should go through a language editing.

I have the following specific comments to the paper

The term participatory research trials is used. I see no signs that a participatory approach has been used. It is not explained how farmers were involved in selection of the treatments and in interpreting the result and giving recommendations. I therefore think it is not appropriate to use the term participatory.
The results in the tables are presented for all the three years, but there is no summary across the years. I cannot see why there is a need to present for the individual year. Is the there a year X treatment interations. I propose to only present the summary across years.
In table one there is insurance in relation to S5 and S6. I cannot see how this is relevant in this trial
How was ICT used in planning these treatments. This is not explained
What is the decision criteria on irrigation according to the tensiometer
The treatments are combination of different types of technologies. This makes it difficult to determine which of the technologies are important for determining yield. This need to be discussed more in detail. What is the technology explaining most of the increase in yield.
Is cost of leveling the land and machine cost included in the economic calculation?
I propose that the authors should discuss what it takes for famers to move from S1 to S5 or S6. What kind of equipment is needed and how much training is needed. How can ICT be used? What are the factors that can make such a transition difficult.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir,

We carefully revised the whole manuscript (Manuscript ID: agronomy-811279) as per the constructive and valuable comments/suggestions of the honorable Reviewers and Editorial Board. Reviewer’s 2 comments are attached in Appendix-I below this cover letter. We have highlighted all the changes point by point with turquoise (blue/green) color in the revised manuscript

Thanking you

Appendix-I

Comments of the Reviewer 2

Authors’ response

General comment

Thank you. Suggestion complied in whole revised MS with change mark. As per the suggestion language editing was done by english language expert

Point1: The term participatory research trials is used. I see no signs that a participatory approach has been used. It is not explained how farmers were involved in selection of the treatments and in interpreting the result and giving recommendations. I therefore think it is not appropriate to use the term participatory.

Thanks you, These trials were conducted on farmer fields and farmers were involved in all the activities since initiation of these trails. Therefore, on-farm trials involving the farmers’ participation have been applied in the study and word farmer participatory was used.

Point2: The results in the tables are presented for all the three years, but there is no summary across the years. I cannot see why there is a need to present for the individual year. Is the there a year X treatment interations. I propose to only present the summary across years.

Thank you, In present study, the CSAPs is a package of different technologies. Effect of some technologies may reflect on yield and economic benefits in a single year but others may contribute in succeeding years which can indirectly contributes in yield and farm profit improvement.

Point3: In table one there is insurance in relation to S5 and S6. I cannot see how this is relevant in this trial.

Thank you, Farmers of the region are mall holders and are generally coping with climate change scenarios like uncertain climatic shocks sometimes resulted in total crop failure and economic losses. Therefore, in present study we provided the crop insurance to the farmers to save from economic losses and was included in the treatments as a component of Climate smart agricultural practices.

Point4: How was ICT used in planning these treatments. This is not explained

Suggestion complied in L 128-130 of revised MS with change mark.

Using Information and Communication Technology’s (ICTs) in innovative ways through ICT-enabled services (cellphones) helps in disseminating timely information agricultural advisories like weather forecasting helps in irrigation scheduling, good agronomic management and use of good quality input helps in yield increase. The information on financial services, agricultural marketing and risk transfer to the farmer to improve their capacity and mitigate risks.

Point5: What is the decision criteria on irrigation according to the tensiometer

Suggestion complied in L 263-269 of revised MS with change mark.

The tensiometer is the most common sensor use for measurement of soil matric potential. In S5 and S6, tensiometers in each treatment (LT1 30 cm, Irrometer, CA, USA) were installed (one per experimental unit/replication). The irrigation scheduling was based on the tensiometer reading in kilo Pascal (kPa). The irrigation in rice crop was applied at 20-30 kPa and 40-50 kPa in the case of wheat crop.

Point6: Is cost of leveling the land and machine cost included in the economic calculation?

Thank you, The machine was hired for the operation therefore only the operational cost is included in economic calculation not the machine cost.

Point7: The treatments are combination of different types of technologies. This makes it difficult to determine which of the technologies are important for determining yield. This need to be discussed more in detail. What is the technology explaining most of the increase in yield.

Suggestion complied in discussion section of the revised MS with change mark.

Though most of the earlier studies are revolved around a single cost saving technology like zero tillage in wheat production system and hence the possible paybacks of the combination of technologies based management is needed to improve the crop yield, farm profitability, soil health, and to cope with climate change scenarios in this small holder rain dependent region. This is the main finding of present study and well explained in conclusion as well.

Point8: I propose that the authors should discuss what it takes for famers to move from S1 to S5 or S6. What kind of equipment is needed and how much training is needed. How can ICT be used? What are the factors that can make such a transition difficult.

Suggestion complied in whole revised MS with change mark. Specifically in future prospects section of the MS.

Proper mechanization, capacity building of farmers through training and strong policy support needed for upscaling and adoption of CSAPs (from S1 to S5 or S6). This helps farmers to shift from conventional low profit and environment hazardous practices to beneficial CSAPs. from S1 to S5 or S6)

Reviewer 3 Report

This study takes a systems approach to examining the relationship between adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices and energy use, water use, productivity, climate mitigation, and soil health. It is a valuable contribution to the CSA literature, which often takes a single-intervention approach but needs to be complemented by multi-factor or systems-level approaches as is done here. Only in this way can we detect important tradeoffs or synergies that might result from stacked interventions such as those examined here. High relevance to the readership of Agronomy. I suggest that some improvements to the English are needed, along with more restraint in some of the claims in the conclusion and more detail on some of the methodology.

General comments

More detail required on methodology for calculating several of the indicators - see specific comments below.

More detail required on experimental design and sampling design for soil analyses, see specific comments below.

Some statements in the conclusion seem overblown and non-objective, please limit conclusions to the intervention portfolio examined in the study.

Better treatment of limitations of the chosen analytical approach, particularly the economic analysis, is needed.

I did not see results presented for the soil quality measurements taken, as described in methods section 2.2.

Results of the ANOVA must be presented, i.e. F statistic, p-value, and some estimate of error.

Significant improvement in English grammar and style is required as there are errors and aspects that impede the flow of reading and understanding. Please submit for review and editing by a native speaker before resubmission.

Detailed comments
L26 remove parenthesis before "saved"
L31-33 this line is redundant with previous lines reporting results
L38 - this is kind of overreaching. I'm not sure you can conclude this with such certainty with your results, but the results do provide promising indications.
L56 spatial rather than horizontal
L86 what is meant by "scientific?" need to be more specific here.
L90 parenthesis placement
L107 there is no description of the experimental plots. Most importantly for this section, what is the size of the plots and what are the soil types/main profile characteristics? We have no way of knowing if sampling scheme was adequate without this information. More information needed on number of plots, replicates within each plot, sampling design, etc. Moving section 2.3 before section 2.2 might help with this, but more detail would still be needed.
L125 the methods section would really benefit from a diagram illustrating the layout of the randomized complete block design with the location of the scenario treatments and replicates.
L142, standing rather than "anchored"
L225 I think we could use more detail on this calculation even with the reference. It is important to know the assumptions that these calculations rely on.
L251-252 this is a statement that is more appropriate for the discussion section
L268 p-vales and F statistics should be reported with these results, either in the text or in table format
L287-289 again, speculative statements like this should be reserved for the discussion. Furthermore, you will need to take care with interpreting the effects of individual crop management practices. The design of this experiment only lets you compare at the system level, e.g. you can make distinctions between scenario 1 and scenario 6, but not between CT and ZT.
L300 it seems to me that the up-front capital investments required for the different management systems should be considered as well. For example, implementation of ZT would require the purchase or rental of a seed drill, which can represent a significant obstacle to adoption in this context. The economic analysis as is only takes into account variable costs, which seems a real shortcoming. This does not necessarily invalidate the results, but means that results must be interpreted with care and not too many generalizations should be made.
L325 Be careful with the use of the term "consumed." I don't believe evapotranspiration was measured so you are not really measuring consumptive water use, only applied water. Just some care in terminology required to avoid confusion.
L335 it is not clear what is meant by applying irrigation water in "hair line cracks."
L336 tensiometer spelling
L367 I'm not clear on the difference between EUE and EP. This is why more detail on calculations and assumptions for the energy analysis is required in the methods. I see the units for EUE are MJ/ha, but this doesn't seem to me to be a measure of efficiency. Rather, it is just a measure of energy use per unit area. Efficiency should tell us how much product was obtained per unit input (as with EP). This needs clarification and possibly a modification of your approach.
L384 I do not see any mention of methods for calculating TCE in your methods section. I am not familiar with this metric, so again, need to see equations and assumptions needed to calculate. Is TCE similar to Net Ecosystem Emissions or Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance?
Fig 2 legend is RWRW system a typo? Should be RW system?
Fig 3 A few issues with this figure. First, I'm not in favor of the secondary axis and think the fig would be much cleaner as two separate facets with the same x axis. Second, the x-axis is categorical, not continuous, therefore the GHG intensity should not be plotted as a line. This can be a misleading visualization, so I propose using bars for both GWP and GHG intensity.
L420 - again, you cannot make claims as to causation here. The statistical analysis as performed does not allow you to detect the mechanism of the differences among treatments, only whether there were indeed differences. Speculating as to relationships is acceptable, however, as in line 423.
L443 - problems with English presentation here
L453-454 see above comment on the limited scope of the economic analysis. This at least needs to be addressed in the discussion as a shortcoming of your approach for the economic analysis, and its implications for interpretation of the results should be discussed as well.
L466-468 was IWP mentioned in the methods or results? You should not mention this in the discussion without prior treatment in the methods/results sections.
L480-481 this statement is a bit self-evident. Not worth saying unless you delve a little into the exact energy reductions leading to higher energy outputs in CSAP systems
L494 Omit "because of"
L508 I don't think "exhaustive" is the right term here. Were you going for "intensive?"
L511-513 Agreed, this is the primary value of your study design! Single-intervention experiments need to be balanced with system-level investigations to examine potential tradeoffs or unexpected synergies among practices.
L523 "environmentally safe" is a very vague term and I'm not sure you adequately considered this in your study to be able to make that claim here. Restrict your conclusions to the things acutally examined in the study. Same for ensuring food security - you did not look at food security at all in this study, only productivity. Productivity does not necessarily equal food security.
L527-528 again, this consulsion is neither supported nor contradicted by your results. You made no investigation into pivots towards renewables with adoption of CSAPs. In fact, I can think of some counter examples such as how adoption of ZT might lead to heavier reliance on petroleum-based synthetic inputs such as herbicides.
L532 Always??? I doubt this statement very much. Refrain from over-enthusiastic, non-objective statements.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

We carefully revised the whole manuscript (Manuscript ID: agronomy-811279) as per the constructive and valuable comments/suggestions of the honorable Reviewers and Editorial Board. Reviewer’s 3 comments are attached in Appendix-I below this cover letter. We have highlighted all the changes point by point with green color in the revised manuscript

Thanking you

Appendix-I

Comments of the Reviewer 3
This study takes a systems approach to examining the relationship between adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices and energy use, water use, productivity, climate mitigation, and soil health. It is a valuable contribution to the CSA literature, which often takes a single-intervention approach but needs to be complemented by multi-factor or systems-level approaches as is done here. Only in this way can we detect important tradeoffs or synergies that might result from stacked interventions such as those examined here. High relevance to the readership of Agronomy. I suggest that some improvements to the English are needed, along with more restraint in some of the claims in the conclusion and more detail on some of the methodology.	Thank you. Suggestion complied in whole revised MS with change mark highlighted with green color. As per the suggestion language editing was done by an English language expert
General comments More detail required on methodology for calculating several of the indicators - see specific comments below. More detail required on experimental design and sampling design for soil analyses, see specific comments below. Some statements in the conclusion seem overblown and non-objective, please limit conclusions to the intervention portfolio examined in the study. Better treatment of limitations of the chosen analytical approach, particularly the economic analysis, is needed. I did not see results presented for the soil quality measurements taken, as described in methods section 2.2. Results of the ANOVA must be presented, i.e. F statistic, p-value, and some estimate of error. Significant improvement in English grammar and style is required as there are errors and aspects that impede the flow of reading and understanding. Please submit for review and editing by a native speaker before resubmission.	Suggestion complied in materials and methods and conclusion sections of revised MS with change mark highlighted with green color. Results of the ANOVA are presented as p-value in all tables. The estimated error also presented in Fig.3.
Detailed comments L26 remove parenthesis before "saved" Reply- Removed	Suggestion complied in L26 revised MS with change mark.
L31-33 this line is redundant with previous lines reporting results	Suggestion complied in L31-33 revised MS with change mark.
L38 - this is kind of overreaching. I'm not sure you can conclude this with such certainty with your results, but the results do provide promising indications.	Suggestion complied in L38revised MS with change mark.
L56 spatial rather than horizontal	Suggestion complied in L59-60 revised MS with change mark.
L86 what is meant by "scientific?" need to be more specific here.	Suggestion complied in L94 revised MS with change mark.
L90 parenthesis placement	Suggestion complied in L99 revised MS with change mark.
L107 there is no description of the experimental plots. Most importantly for this section, what is the size of the plots and what are the soil types/main profile characteristics? We have no way of knowing if sampling scheme was adequate without this information. More information needed on number of plots, replicates within each plot, sampling design, etc. Moving section 2.3 before section 2.2 might help with this, but more detail would still be needed.	Suggestion complied in L112 revised MS with change mark.
L125 the methods section would really benefit from a diagram illustrating the layout of the randomized complete block design with the location of the scenario treatments and replicates.	Suggestion complied in L 116 revised MS with change mark.
L142, standing rather than "anchored"	Suggestion complied in L176 revised MS with change mark.
L225 I think we could use more detail on this calculation even with the reference. It is important to know the assumptions that these calculations rely on.	Suggestion complied in L251 revised MS with change mark.
L251-252 this is a statement that is more appropriate for the discussion section	Suggestion complied in L306 revised MS with change mark.
L268 p-vales and F statistics should be reported with these results, either in the text or in table format	Suggestion complied in L350, 413 and 443 revised MS with change mark.
L287-289 again, speculative statements like this should be reserved for the discussion. Furthermore, you will need to take care with interpreting the effects of individual crop management practices. The design of this experiment only lets you compare at the system level, e.g. you can make distinctions between scenario 1 and scenario 6, but not between CT and ZT.	Suggestion complied in L343 – 347 revised MS with change mark.
L300 it seems to me that the up-front capital investments required for the different management systems should be considered as well. For example, implementation of ZT would require the purchase or rental of a seed drill, which can represent a significant obstacle to adoption in this context. The economic analysis as is only takes into account variable costs, which seems a real shortcoming. This does not necessarily invalidate the results, but means that results must be interpreted with care and not too many generalizations should be made.	Suggestion complied in L359-361 revised MS with change mark.
L325 Be careful with the use of the term "consumed." I don't believe evapotranspiration was measured so you are not really measuring consumptive water use, only applied water. Just some care in terminology required to avoid confusion.	Suggestion complied in L387 revised MS with change mark.
L335 it is not clear what is meant by applying irrigation water in "hair line cracks."	Applying irrigation water when soil shows small cracks lines (as hair size), based on the soil cracks in field irrigation scheduling was decided for the crops. (Suggestion complied in L397 revised MS with change mark.)
L336 tensiometer spelling	Suggestion complied in L398 revised MS with change mark.
L367 I'm not clear on the difference between EUE and EP. This is why more detail on calculations and assumptions for the energy analysis is required in the methods. I see the units for EUE are MJ/ha, but this doesn't seem to me to be a measure of efficiency. Rather, it is just a measure of energy use per unit area. Efficiency should tell us how much product was obtained per unit input (as with EP). This needs clarification and possibly a modification of your approach.	Suggestion complied in L275-278 revised MS with change mark.
L384 I do not see any mention of methods for calculating TCE in your methods section. I am not familiar with this metric, so again, need to see equations and assumptions needed to calculate. Is TCE similar to Net Ecosystem Emissions or Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance? Fig 2 legend is RWRW system a typo? Should be RW system? Fig 3 A few issues with this figure. First, I'm not in favor of the secondary axis and think the fig would be much cleaner as two separate facets with the same x axis. Second, the x-axis is categorical, not continuous, therefore the GHG intensity should not be plotted as a line. This can be a misleading visualization, so I propose using bars for both GWP and GHG intensity.	Suggestion complied in L449 revised MS with change mark. Fig 2. Corrected Fig 3. As per your suggestion, we have modified fig 3 (L-475 of revised MS)
L420 - again, you cannot make claims as to causation here. The statistical analysis as performed does not allow you to detect the mechanism of the differences among treatments, only whether there were indeed differences. Speculating as to relationships is acceptable, however, as in line 423.	Suggestion complied in L492 revised MS with change mark.
L443 - problems with English presentation here	Suggestion complied in L517 revised MS with change mark.
L453-454 see above comment on the limited scope of the economic analysis. This at least needs to be addressed in the discussion as a shortcoming of your approach for the economic analysis, and its implications for interpretation of the results should be discussed as well.	Suggestion complied in L528 revised MS with change mark.
L466-468 was IWP mentioned in the methods or results? You should not mention this in the discussion without prior treatment in the methods/results sections.	Suggestion complied in L550 revised MS with change mark.
L480-481 this statement is a bit self-evident. Not worth saying unless you delve a little into the exact energy reductions leading to higher energy outputs in CSAP systems	Suggestion complied in L563 revised MS with change mark.
L494 Omit "because of"	Omitted. (L-579 of revised MS)
L508 I don't think "exhaustive" is the right term here. Were you going for "intensive?"	The term exhaustive replaced with intensive. (L-593 of revised MS)
L511-513 Agreed, this is the primary value of your study design! Single-intervention experiments need to be balanced with system-level investigations to examine potential tradeoffs or unexpected synergies among practices.	Thanks.
L523 "environmentally safe" is a very vague term and I'm not sure you adequately considered this in your study to be able to make that claim here. Restrict your conclusions to the things acutally examined in the study. Same for ensuring food security - you did not look at food security at all in this study, only productivity. Productivity does not necessarily equal food security.	These broad term has replaced (L-608 of revised MS)
L527-528 again, this consulsion is neither supported nor contradicted by your results. You made no investigation into pivots towards renewables with adoption of CSAPs. In fact, I can think of some counter examples such as how adoption of ZT might lead to heavier reliance on petroleum-based synthetic inputs such as herbicides.	Suggestion complied in the conclusion section of revised MS with change mark.
L532 Always??? I doubt this statement very much. Refrain from over-enthusiastic, non-objective statements.	Suggestion complied in L621 revised MS with change mark.