Strategic, Economic, and Potency Assessment of Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) Development in the Tidal Swamplands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia
, Yanto Surdianto 1, Erythrina Erythrina 1, Andy Bhermana 1, Twenty Liana 1, Syafruddin Syafruddin 1, Arif Anshori 1, Wahyu Adi Nugroho 1, Muhamad Hidayanto 1, Dwi P. Widiastuti 1, Nana Sutrisna 1, Baharudin Baharudin 1, Bambang Susanto 1, Muhamad Sabran 1, Khojin Supriadi 1, Retna Qomariah 2, Yanti Rina Darsani 2, Susi Lesmayati 3 and Eka Nor Taufik 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Your manuscript is very good, very well structured and some ten years ago, I would accept it for publishing without thinking. To be precise, your work is in total collision with the FAO Strategic Goal # 15 and 13. Because, in your manuscript you are planning to overspread the production of great millet on extremely huge area of current swamplands. Namely, in your SWOT analysis you considered only the productional and economic factors, but you completely ignored the protection of biodiversity, the wildlife by protection of swamplands forests. However, you put some relationship between your research and some SDGs, such as zero hunger, in introduction. On the other hand, considering a very wide importance of great millet as, not only food, but industrial crop, such extremely high increasing of the production, might strengthen the pressure on very labile ecosystem of swamplands of Borneo. Moreover, in your SWOT analysis you are talking about flood threats during the rainy season. On the other hand, swamplands have the most important role in accepting waters during the flood season and they “prevent” the flooding of the rural and urban areas. Sooner or later, the economic losses caused by flooding will be much bigger than the benefits of millet growing. Thus, I cannot accept your manuscript. I am sorry because of your efforts. Thus, I cannot accept your manuscript. I am sorry because of your efforts.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer #1 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
yes |
The Introduction was rewritten |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
yes |
Several irrelevant cited references have been deleted |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes |
No revision |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Can be improved |
Revision highlighted in the text. |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
yes |
Revision highlighted in the text |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Must be improved |
Revision highlighted in the text
|
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: Dear Authors,
|
||
|
Response 1: Dear Reviewer, We appreciate your reviews and suggestions regarding our manuscript. We are aware of your concerns regarding the potential environmental damage from the clearing of swamp forests for sorghum farming. We reiterate, however, that we do not plan to clear swamp forests to establish sorghum farms in Central Kalimantan. We only use tidal swamplands that have been cleared and have not been partially utilized by the community. We are pleased to inform you that several tidal land areas have been cleared in the past (28 years ago) and have also been used by the community with various commodities and provide benefits both economically and ecosystem stability. Through the "Food Estate Program" and anticipating food shortages due to Covid 19, the Government of Indonesia has since 2020 reaffirmed to intensify crop production on untapped tidal lands. With the help of our proposal, the Government of Indonesia will obtain information as well as recommendations on the use of tidal swamps for sorghum crops, especially in tidal lands type C and D, which are not affected by sea-tides. In conclusion, this program/research solely recommended utilizing tidal land that has been cleared but is still abandoned, and diversifying crop production in tidal swamps in Central Kalimantan.
|
||
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
|
||
|
Response 1: the English has been edited/revised by professional editors at MDPI
|
||
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article, entitled "Development, Strategic Economic Assessment, and Potency Evaluation of Sorghum in Tidal Swamplands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia," discusses the cultivation of sorghum in tidal swamplands in Indonesia, specifically in Central Kalimantan. The research assesses the suitability of the land, economic performance, and cultivation strategies for sorghum in this region. The study employs various assessment methods, including land suitability evaluation, economic analysis, and competitive analysis. The authors have successfully addressed a critical issue and provided valuable insights that are relevant not only to the region where the study was conducted but also to a broader audience. The topic is highly suitable for publication in an agronomy journal.
After a thorough evaluation of the manuscript, I have concluded that it should be accepted for publication. However, I recommend that the authors consider making certain improvements to enhance the manuscript's quality. The following are specific suggestions:
Line 28: Replace "break-even" with "break-even analysis" to enhance clarity.
Line 34: Revise the sentence regarding sorghum's competitiveness to make it more concise and transparent.
Line 35: Include the word "analysis" after "QSPM" for improved clarity.
Line 45: Replace "no hunger" with "zero hunger" for consistency with the SDG terminology.
Line 59: Rephrase "opened in various provinces" for clarity.
The results are presented clearly, but please add more discussion to justify your findings.
The issue addressed by the researcher is very interesting, but there are a lot of grammatical mistakes. It is suggested that the manuscript needs to be checked by a native speaker.
It is suggested to the authors to cite the following articles that can help strengthen their research and provide a broader context for their work.
1. Allocative efficiency of maize growers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
2. Determinants of farmers’ perception about climate change in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa-Pakistan
3. Technical Efficiency of Maize in District Lakki Marwat of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
The issue addressed by the researcher is very interesting, but there are a lot of grammatical mistakes. It is suggested that the manuscript needs to be checked by a native speaker.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer #2 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
yes |
The Introduction was rewritten |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
yes |
Several irrelevant cited references have been deleted |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes |
No revision |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
yes |
Revision highlighted in the text. |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
yes |
Revision highlighted in the text |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
yes |
Revision highlighted in the text |
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
|
||
|
Comments: After a thorough evaluation of the manuscript, I have concluded that it should be accepted for publication. However, I recommend that the authors consider making certain improvements to enhance the manuscript's quality. The following are specific suggestions: 1. Line 28: Replace "break-even" with "break-even analysis" to enhance clarity. 2. Line 34: Revise the sentence regarding sorghum's competitiveness to make it more concise and transparent. 3. Line 35: Include the word "analysis" after "QSPM" for improved clarity. 4. Line 45: Replace "no hunger" with "zero hunger" for consistency with the SDG terminology. 5. Line 59: Rephrase "opened in various provinces" for clarity. The results are presented clearly, but please add more discussion to justify your findings. The issue addressed by the researcher is very interesting, but there are a lot of grammatical mistakes. It is suggested that the manuscript needs to be checked by a native speaker. It is suggested to the authors to cite the following articles that can help strengthen their research and provide a broader context for their work. 1. Allocative efficiency of maize growers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan 2. Determinants of farmers’ perception about climate change in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa-Pakistan 3. Technical Efficiency of Maize in District Lakki Marwat of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan |
||
|
Response to Reviewer #2 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
yes |
The Introduction was rewritten |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
yes |
Several irrelevant cited references have been deleted |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes |
No revision |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
yes |
Revision highlighted in the text. |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
yes |
Revision highlighted in the text |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
yes |
Revision highlighted in the text |
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
|
||
|
Comments: After a thorough evaluation of the manuscript, I have concluded that it should be accepted for publication. However, I recommend that the authors consider making certain improvements to enhance the manuscript's quality. The following are specific suggestions: 1. Line 28: Replace "break-even" with "break-even analysis" to enhance clarity. 2. Line 34: Revise the sentence regarding sorghum's competitiveness to make it more concise and transparent. 3. Line 35: Include the word "analysis" after "QSPM" for improved clarity. 4. Line 45: Replace "no hunger" with "zero hunger" for consistency with the SDG terminology. 5. Line 59: Rephrase "opened in various provinces" for clarity. The results are presented clearly, but please add more discussion to justify your findings. The issue addressed by the researcher is very interesting, but there are a lot of grammatical mistakes. It is suggested that the manuscript needs to be checked by a native speaker. It is suggested to the authors to cite the following articles that can help strengthen their research and provide a broader context for their work. 1. Allocative efficiency of maize growers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan 2. Determinants of farmers’ perception about climate change in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa-Pakistan 3. Technical Efficiency of Maize in District Lakki Marwat of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan |
||
|
Response 2: Agree. We have therefore revised the text to emphasize this. As foe your suggestion, we have tried to study the articles you suggested, but due to our limitations, we only cite two of the three articles you provide.
|
||
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The study on ``Development strategic, economic, and potency assessment of Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) in Tidal Swamplands of central Kalimantan, Indonesia`` is a interesting topic and properly established the paper however there are some issues need to be solved before the paper accepted for publication.
1.The introduction section in scare and does not include a proper state of the art for the approached subject. The authors should address the literature and highlight the importance, the need and the originality of their study, compared to other similar studies.
Results
2.Be more precise in explaining the practical implications of research results
3.I recommend a better clarity of figure 3
Best regards
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer #3 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Can be improved |
The Introduction was rewritten |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Can be improved |
Several irrelevant cited references have been deleted |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes |
No revision |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes |
Revision highlighted in the text. |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Can be improved |
Revision highlighted in the text |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes |
Revision highlighted in the text |
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Dear authors, The study on ``Development strategic, economic, and potency assessment of Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) in Tidal Swamplands of central Kalimantan, Indonesia`` is a interesting topic and properly established the paper however there are some issues need to be solved before the paper accepted for publication. 1. The introduction section in scare and does not include a proper state of the art for the approached subject. The authors should address the literature and highlight the importance, the need and the originality of their study, compared to other similar studies. Results 2. Be more precise in explaining the practical implications of research results 3. I recommend a better clarity of figure 3 Response 1: the Introduction has been rewritten |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion for the result section, But in our opinion, the result section was already structured and quite clear according to the purpose and method used for this manuscript.
Response 3: Thank you for your recommendation of Figure 3, but we would like to ask about your explanation of “better clarity in Figure 3”. Because we assume the Figure 3 is clear enough as the real field condition.
|
||
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
|
||
|
Response 1: the English has been edited/revised by professional editors at MDPI |
||
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
As I already wrote in my previous report your research is based on incomplete premise. Scientifically speaking, you are very deep in scientific reductionism, but you did not concern the possible overall consequences on environment, respecting biodiversity protection and the importance of meandered areas in flood protection, and not even to mention the importance of rainforests in overall CO2 cycle, including the CO2 emission. Please read the articles under the following links:
1. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1412514112 and
2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227285983_River_restoration_and_flood_protection_Controversy_or_synergism,
and also, one paper in attachment in PDF format.
So, this is why I cannot accept your manuscript for publication. I am sorry, because of your efforts. Thank you.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We agree and thank you for your response and some of the articles you have attached, which we have read carefully. We understand if you assume the Tidal Swamplands that we wrote about as the same and identical to peat land which when used must be by land clearing or peat forest or primary forest. Again not. The land we use is mineral swampland, which has been cleared and used by the community for generations for various traditional agricultural activities and settlements.
To reduce CO2 emissions, the implementation of this research is also very consistent and complies with the rules in our country which have regulated and agreed that Indonesia will reduce carbon emissions by 41% in 2030, in according to Presidential Regulation of Indonesia No. 98/2021. In the policy, it has been mentioned the spatial layout or boundaries of the area where we carry out research and development activities, which are limited to agricultural development areas or production areas.
Likewise, with biodiversity protection and conservation measures, our locations do not coincide with conservation areas, national parks, and protected forests. We ensure that the land we use and the target for development is agricultural land and settlements that have been cleared and are not productive. Concretely, the land we use is land that has been cleared since 28 years ago and is abandoned. In the context of agriculture, we can prove that many agricultural activities of local communities are carried out, including preserving the germplasm of local rice. The positive value that we also raise from this paper is that in addition to carrying out land rehabilitation, we also introduce Sorghum plants which are known as C4 plants, both efficient input and low-emission. As well as encouraging community participation in efforts to reduce emissions through sorghum plants. Economically, it also has the opportunity to be combined with local rice crops and will provide a source of nutrition for farming families and other uses.
Related to water management, we have written in the article that tidal land has several types of water, namely A, B, C, and D. The land we use is tidal land with type C water overflow that is not flooded both during large and small tides. In this case, we deliberately chose Sorghum plants because they are tolerant of dry conditions in accordance with Type C.
