Economic Assessment of Herbicide Use in Rice Under Different Establishment Methods in Northwest India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are some suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Tukey’s t-test should be replaced with Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test.

Table 3. Toxicity rating of herbicides used in surveyed fields. The references provided for this table need to be verified. Those do not seem appropriate.

The cost of weed control in DSR-PSI (INR 4658) and PTR (INR 3627) is claimed to be "statistically similar" despite a p-value of 0.04 (indicating significant difference at α=0.05). This contradicts standard statistical interpretation. The authors should clarify whether the difference is agronomically negligible, but statistically, they are distinct.

And better to change INR to US$.

The conclusion advocates DSR-PSI for environmental safety based solely on reduced herbicide use. However, the study does not measure environmental impacts (herbicide residues, groundwater contamination, or non-target effects). Such claims require direct ecological data.

The suppression of weeds in DSR-PSI via "dry soil mulch" is mentioned but not explained. The mechanism (physical barrier, moisture limitation) requires elaboration or citations to support the claim.

Author Response

Tukey’s t-test should be replaced with Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test.

Response: Thank you for your time and critical review. Yes, it was HSD as post-hoc test. We have replaced it.

 

Table 3. Toxicity rating of herbicides used in surveyed fields. The references provided for this table need to be verified. Those do not seem appropriate.

Response: Yes, it is verified and we have retained three references, and added online address.

 

The cost of weed control in DSR-PSI (INR 4658) and PTR (INR 3627) is claimed to be "statistically similar" despite a p-value of 0.04 (indicating significant difference at α=0.05). This contradicts standard statistical interpretation. The authors should clarify whether the difference is agronomically negligible, but statistically, they are distinct.

Response: Yes, the p value denotes the significance of rice establishment methods on cost of weed control. The post-hoc test was employed at alpha level of 0.05 and cost of weed control was compared among the DSR-PSI (INR 4658), PTR (INR 3627) and DSR-IAS (INR 7512). The cost of weed control in DSR-PSI (INR 4658) and PTR (INR 3627) is statistically similar and lower than DSR-IAS (INR 7512).

 

And better to change INR to US$.

Response: We have changed INR to US$.

 

The conclusion advocates DSR-PSI for environmental safety based solely on reduced herbicide use. However, the study does not measure environmental impacts (herbicide residues, groundwater contamination, or non-target effects). Such claims require direct ecological data.

Response: We agree. We have revised the conclusions (lines 287-292). This was preliminary study done at farmers’ fields to find out and compare the herbicide use pattern among three methods of rice establishment, and to work out the method with minimum herbicide use. We have pointed out that we may include herbicide residues, groundwater contamination, or non-target effects for further study.

 

The suppression of weeds in DSR-PSI via "dry soil mulch" is mentioned but not explained. The mechanism (physical barrier, moisture limitation) requires elaboration or citations to support the claim.

Response: We have added the explanation in lines 230-235.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Overview and Significance: This manuscript presents a valuable field-based evaluation of herbicide use patterns and associated economic implications under three rice establishment methods: Puddled Transplanted Rice (PTR), Dry Direct Seeded Rice with Irrigation After Sowing (DSR-IAS), and Dry Direct Seeded Rice with Pre-Sowing Irrigation (DSR-PSI) in Punjab, India. The study is well aligned with current efforts to promote sustainable and resource-efficient rice production practices, particularly in regions grappling with depleting water resources and rising agrochemical dependency.

The most notable contribution of this work lies in its assessment of DSR-PSI (popularly known as the tar-wattar method), a relatively underexplored yet promising alternative to traditional systems. By highlighting how this method can substantially reduce herbicide usage and weed control costs while maintaining environmental safety, the study provides critical insights that could shape future agronomic advisories, policy interventions, and farmer awareness programs.

The manuscript's integration of economic analysis, field survey data, and practical weed management outcomes gives it both scientific and real-world relevance. It successfully bridges the gap between experimental research and on-ground practices by documenting actual farmer behavior, herbicide choices, and weed flora prevalence. The results underscore the potential of DSR-PSI to serve as a scalable, low-input, and environmentally friendlier alternative to conventional rice cultivation methods.

Overall, this study adds significant value to the discourse on climate-resilient agriculture and agrochemical risk mitigation. Its findings can inform both policy-makers and extension professionals working toward sustainable rice production in India and similar agroecological zones globally.

Response: Thank you very much for appreciating the work and your critical review.

 

Title and Abstract: The title is concise and reflects the manuscript’s focus accurately. The abstract summarizes the key findings and conclusions effectively.

Recommendations:

• L20: remove parenthesis as “Punjab, India”
• L26-27: Rephrase

Response:  Parenthesis removed and sentence is rephrased.

 

Introduction: Introduction provides adequate background on rice cultivation practices, environmental issues, and the importance of weed management. It justifies the need for comparing different rice establishment methods.

Recommendations:

• Cite more (3-6) recent (2020-2025) references regarding rice cultivation methods, herbicide use and impacts, if possible.
• It is suggested to explain the rationale for selecting DSR-PSI and DSR-IAS for comparison.

Response: The recent references available on this topic is added in manuscript (reference no. 23) and rationale for selecting two methods, DSR-PSI and DSR-IAS for comparison is defined in the introduction (lines 85-90, 97-103).

 

Materials and Methods: The study area is well described, with relevant agronomic and soil details. The data collection process and analytical approach are sound.

Recommendations:

• Mention the sample size (number of farmers or fields surveyed) to strengthen transparency.
• Elaborate on how herbicide application data were verified (e.g., farmer interviews, receipts, or field inspections).
• Statistical methods are mentioned briefly, consider describing the assumptions behind using ANOVA and Tukey's test.

Response: Thank you for your insightful remarks. Sample size and herbicide application data verification is mentioned in the revised manuscript (lines 142-145). We have added assumptions of using tukey’s test in lines 148-153.

 

Results: The manuscript provides detailed data on weed flora, herbicide usage patterns, and associated costs. Use of tables and figures is commendable and enhances clarity. Cost comparisons across methods are statistically supported.

Recommendations:

• When referring to figures, explicitly state key observations (e.g., which herbicide was dominant under which method).
• A discussion of variability (e.g., standard deviation or range) in herbicide costs would be valuable.

Response: Information regarding dominant herbicide added in results (lines 193-196).

The discussion on variability in herbicide costs is added in lines 198-205 and 278-283.

 

Discussion: The discussion thoughtfully interprets the results and connects them with previous studies. The explanation of soil moisture's role in weed suppression in DSR-PSI is insightful.

Recommendations:

• Avoid redundancy in some points (e.g., pre-sowing irrigation and soil mulch formation) that are repeated.
• Expand the discussion to include ecological and socio-economic impacts of herbicide reduction.
• Consider discussing the potential for integrated weed management practices (e.g., cover crops, crop rotation) beyond chemical control.

Response: We have tried to remove the redundancy. The ecological and socio-economic impact of herbicide reduction has been included in discussion (210-214, 267-269). We have added the possibilities of IWM approaches lines 267-273.

 

Conclusion: Conclusions are supported by the data.

Recommendations:

• Include stronger policy implications and next steps, such as:
• Training programs for DSR-PSI adoption
• Government incentives to reduce herbicide usage
• Need for long-term monitoring of herbicide residues

Response: Thank you very much for your kind suggestions. We have included these in conclusions.

 

Tables and Figures: Informative, well-labeled, and easy to interpret. Figures summarizing herbicide application patterns are particularly helpful.

Suggestions:

• Consider combining some figures for brevity.
• Include standard deviations or error bars where applicable.

Response: Seven graphs were consolidated in three figures i.e. Figure 1. Area under different methods of rice establishment, Figure 2. Pre-emergence herbicide used under different methods of rice establishment, Figure 3. Post-emergence herbicide used different methods of rice establishment. We have prepared Pie chart figures depicting % area or use, therefore we were not able to provide SD or SEM.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an important topic derived from real-world agricultural practice. The environmental impacts of rice cultivation are highly relevant for the sustainability of agriculture, with herbicide use being among the key stressors associated with rice farming. However, the manuscript requires several significant improvements, particularly in the Materials and Methods section and in the presentation of results. There are noticeable inconsistencies between the described methodology and the reported results. It would be advisable to incorporate all tables and figures directly into the main body of the text for better coherence. Furthermore, the conclusions are overly brief and fail to clearly demonstrate the novel contributions of the study.

Specific Comments:

Abstract:

• Please avoid using abbreviations such as (DSR-PSI) and (DSR-IAS) without prior explanation.

1. Introduction:

• Kindly elaborate on the motivational background that led to the development of this research. What was the rationale for undertaking this study?

2. Materials and Methods:

• Add information regarding the climatic and meteorological conditions during the study period.
• Describe the method used to collect information from farmers.
• Provide a detailed description of the methodology used for weed assessment.
• Clarify which data were analyzed using "Statistics 22" software and Tukey’s t-test.

3. Results:

• Tables and figures should be integrated into the text to improve readability and clarity.

3.2 Herbicide Use Pattern:

• The doses of applied herbicides are missing; please provide this information.

3.3 Economics of Weed Control:

• The evaluation focuses solely on the costs of weed control; please adjust the text to accurately reflect this scope.

4. Discussion:

• The manuscript does not adequately discuss why farmers prefer certain weed management strategies.
• As the data were collected from only one growing season, please discuss how this limitation might affect the reliability and generalizability of the results.
• Discuss the role of labor costs in weed management decisions.
• Lines 233–241: These statements should be moved to the Conclusions section.

5. Conclusions:

• The conclusions are very brief and only marginally inform the reader about new findings.
• Considering that the study is based on real-world data, there is significant potential to emphasize its practical relevance and applications.

Figures 1–7:

• It is unclear whether the figures present the area share or the quantity share of applied herbicides; please clarify this.
• It is recommended to consolidate all graphs into a single figure to allow for a direct comparison between different management variants.

Author Response

The article addresses an important topic derived from real-world agricultural practice. The environmental impacts of rice cultivation are highly relevant for the sustainability of agriculture, with herbicide use being among the key stressors associated with rice farming. However, the manuscript requires several significant improvements, particularly in the Materials and Methods section and in the presentation of results. There are noticeable inconsistencies between the described methodology and the reported results.

Response: Thank you for your insightful remarks. The manuscript has been revised as per suggestions

 

It would be advisable to incorporate all tables and figures directly into the main body of the text for better coherence.

Response: Yes, that will be better for understanding and coherence. But you will agree with me that it is the general trend to add Tables and Figures at the end during the submission. If you or Editor want us to include Figures and Tables in the body, then we will do that.

 

Furthermore, the conclusions are overly brief and fail to clearly demonstrate the novel contributions of the study.

Response: We have revised the conclusion (lines 294-299).

 

Abstract: Please avoid using abbreviations such as (DSR-PSI) and (DSR-IAS) without prior explanation.

Response: We are sorry for inconvenience caused; we have added explanation.

 

1. Introduction: Kindly elaborate on the motivational background that led to the development of this research. What was the rationale for undertaking this study?

Response: Elaborated

 

2. Materials and Methods: Add information regarding the climatic and meteorological conditions during the study period. Describe the method used to collect information from farmers. Provide a detailed description of the methodology used for weed assessment. Clarify which data were analyzed using "Statistics 22" software and Tukey’s t-test.

Response: Climate data is added (highlighted yellow, lines 120-125).  The methodology used for weed assessment is added in lines 142-145. SPSS 22 software and Tukey’s test was used to compare the cost of cultivation under different methods of rice establishment. We have highlighted that in lines 148-153.

 

3. Results: Tables and figures should be integrated into the text to improve readability and clarity.

Response: Yes, that will be better for understanding and coherence. But you will agree with me that it is the general trend to add Tables and Figures at the end during the submission. If you or Editor want us to include Figures and Tables in the body, then we will do that.

 

• Herbicide Use Pattern: The doses of applied herbicides are missing; please provide this information.

Response: We are thankful for your insightful reading. Dose of applied herbicides is mentioned in Table 4

 

• Economics of Weed Control: The evaluation focuses solely on the costs of weed control; please adjust the text to accurately reflect this scope.

Response: Description is added in introduction (lines 97-106).

 

4. Discussion: The manuscript does not adequately discuss why farmers prefer certain weed management strategies. As the data were collected from only one growing season, please discuss how this limitation might affect the reliability and generalizability of the results. Discuss the role of labor costs in weed management decisions.

Response:  Explanation added in discussion

 

• Lines 233–241: These statements should be moved to the Conclusions section.

Response: We have revised the discussion and conclusion sections (see highlighted parts).

 

5. Conclusions: The conclusions are very brief and only marginally inform the reader about new findings. Considering that the study is based on real-world data, there is significant potential to emphasize its practical relevance and applications.

Response: Conclusion section is revised

 

Figures 1–7: It is unclear whether the figures present the area share or the quantity share of applied herbicides; please clarify this.

Response:  We missed that earlier. The figures present the area share (mentioned in title of figures).

 

• It is recommended to consolidate all graphs into a single figure to allow for a direct comparison between different management variants.

Response: Seven graphs were consolidated in three figures i.e. Figure 1. Area under different methods of rice establishment, Figure 2. Pre-emergence herbicide used under different methods of rice establishment, Figure 3. Post-emergence herbicide used different methods of rice establishment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Improved as per suggestions

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It's good to see that you appreciate all the comments.

Comments have been carefully addressed.