Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for this interesting paper. I have some comments though, but I suppose they will be quite easy to answer.

The abstract raises some specific questions:

"... the volatility of approved varieties was significantly stronger than that of adopted varieties" please give it some thought whether you could provide an explanation for this result.
"The disease resistance of the approved varieties failed to show an increasing trend overall." I am not sure whether this observation is supported by the data.

"National crop variety approval policies exert a significant positive impact on approved rice yield traits. . . . .Subsidies for superior seed varieties significantly increase adopted rice quality but decrease yield." This dichotomy requires some explanation in the text. Why are subsidies apparently given for quality rice rather than yield???

"The results suggest that national crop variety approval policies are the gatekeeper of improved rice, so the government could improve the policies to more meet farmers’ and finally consumers’ needs." This is a very important conclusion!!

line 273 – why was the figure 6666.7 ha used, and what does ‘mainly’  mean in this sentence?

298 I don’t understand that anti-counterfeiting systems are poor because the differences among varieties are small. It is possible that such small differences could give rise to counterfeiting when the quality assurance systems do not operate well.

301 approval ? instead of approved

319 non-lodging resistance – or ‘susceptibility to lodging’

334 The authors focus on three agrocomic traits: yield-relevant factors, rice quality and disease resistance. I can understand that resistance is investigated separately because it is quite visible. However, disease resistance can be a major yield-determining and/or quality aspect. Disease resistance is thu snot an independent factor.

 

408 – 414-425 Figures 3, and following: Fig 3 speaks for the red line of ‘approved’ and the other Figures of ‘selected’ varieties. Is that correct?? In the text the word ‘ approved’ is used.

Comment: the volatility of the red lines is not explained. Could it be that the data of approved varieties are based on (limited numbers of) official variety trials and of approved varieties of actual production data?

 

460. Blast resistance shows a clear upward development in the early 2000s, whereas the abstract speaks of no improvement. Pls explain.
461. The effect of the promulgation of the seed law is well described – it affected the official approval criteria (for resistance and head rate specifically). However – it is not clear to it affected the approval criteria so importantly (where there were criteria before as well, I guess).

Further – the discussion does not distinguish between the different types of rice. It would be interesting to know whether the approval and adoption processes have created relative changes in the use of different types (from hybrid to indica) and to what extent that could also explain the observed trends in yield and quality performance.  

513 It would be interesting to know whether the subsidies were given for all rice, or for certain types of rice 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a very illustrative work, it reveals the impact that government policies have on the beneficiaries of these policies, as is the case of farmers who are the components of the first link in the food chain and on whom the burden of producing to feed a population.

 

But it would be convenient to make certain modifications, that are listed below, to improve the article and make it public:

 

Throughout the work, the objectives have been mentioned in five different ways, in lines 78-81; 166-167; 204-206; 304-306 and 312-315. Therefore, I would recommend that you group it together, and if necessary, consider general and specific objectives.

 

This proliferation of work objectives does not make clear what is to be studied and the variables that are to be related, and this confusion increases with figure 2, since it is stated that the selection of varieties due to the requirements of SAV and the seed law depend on the income and of the area of ​​cultivation. That farmers who adopt rice varieties, cultivate them if they receive SSV subsidies or those directly to the grain, not being linked to the seed law or SAV requirements, and this adoption is linked to machinery, natural disasters and diseases and pests, having no relationship with the income or with the cultivated area, a matter very contrary to what is reflected in tables 1 and 2.

The use of machinery and treatments to combat pests generate a series of fixed and variable costs, due to fuel consumption, loss of value of the machinery. The number of treatments that would have to be done to combat pests and the quantities of products necessary to carry out the treatments also generate costs; all of this affects profits and therefore affects their income. Do not is all  this,  an economic factor ?

 

With the analysis of the results, more attention should be paid and be careful with what is deduced, since from table 1 it is stated that the head rice rate is significant and decreases by 16.9%, however, in line 465 it is indicated that it is 0.169%. Regarding the resistance of diseases in table 1, it indicates that the resistance of bacterial blight decreases by 1.5% and that of rice blast increases by 1.2% per year, in the text (lines 464-468) it indicates that the resistance of bacterial blight decreases by 0.2% and increases that of rice blast by 1.5%, these values are changed. This fluctuation in the behavior of both diseases does not support the inference that disease resistance has been improved in general.

 

This reflection, which relates the data contained in tables 1 and 2 and what is indicated in the text, should be reviewed in the paragraphs that contain the following lines:

Lines 478-482

Lines 491-493

Lines  505-507

Line 519

Line 533

Lines 535-536

Lines 545-546

Line 547

Lines 568-571

Finally, I state that the objective was to investigate the changes in the “gap between the new approved and adopted rice varieties”, in the conclusions it is not indicated if this gap has increased or decreased.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx