Diversity in the Rice–Wheat System with Genetically Modified Zinc and Iron-Enriched Varieties to Achieve Nutritional Security
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents the findings of a field trial design to test different treatments of fertilisers and compost combinations in a wheat-rice rotation on the yields and Fe and Zn contents in cereals grains. The results of this trial are expected to contribute to food security of a significant part of the world population depending on these staple crops and showing micro-nutrients deficiency.
Despite the important topic, several point needs to be addressed before considering publication:
1) the abstract can be simplified, you do not need for example to repeat each treatment but say for example N0-N3 different NPKFeZn fertilisation levels. Besides, you do not need to quote iodine deficiency in the abstract as it is not the focus of your paper. Same for the name of rice and wheat varieties, no need to specify the variety since you are only using one variety for each crop.
2) which hypothesis you have about the use of the two varieties of rice and wheat? Beside their higher average Zn and Fe content in grains, do you expect a higher ability to use micro-nutrients added with fertilisation/composts compared to traditional or common varieties (which ones)?
3) there is no evidence in the paper that the assumptions of the ANOVA or of the regression are satisfied by your data, e.g. normality or homoscedasticy.
4) in the materials and methods, it is unclear which is the statistical software you have used, nor the statistical analyses you have performed. Can you develop this part?
4) I have not found any ANOVA table of your split-plot experiment experiment, nor the model you have used to analyze the data. It is unclear if the year is also a random factor besides fertilisation and compost combinations.
5) in Figure 8 you presented a correlation and regression. Can you explain what do you mean by "correlation and regression"? How do you explain such an high R2 given your model in the case of Fe/wheat or rice yields?
6) please add all the acronyms in the figure legends, eg. CD, SEm as well as all your treatments.
7) there are really too many tables and figures. I suggest the authors to just add the ANOVA tables and the regression figures and if they need to keep all the other tables, add them in an Appendix.
Author Response
#Reviewer 1
Specific comments:
|
S.N. |
Page No. |
Line |
Comments |
Author response |
|
1 |
1 |
8-44 |
The abstract can be simplified, you do not need for example to repeat each treatment but say for example N0-N3 different NPKFeZn fertilisation levels. Besides, you do not need to quote iodine deficiency in the abstract as it is not the focus of your paper. Same for the name of rice and wheat varieties, no need to specify the variety since you are only using one variety for each crop. |
Improved as per reviewer suggestions |
|
2 |
|
|
Which hypothesis you have about the use of the two varieties of rice and wheat? Beside their higher average Zn and Fe content in grains, do you expect a higher ability to use micro-nutrients added with fertilisation/composts compared to traditional or common varieties (which ones)? |
Hypothesis added in the abstract and introduction. Genetically modified verities have a good capacity to uptake the micro Zn and Fe under the permissible limit. |
|
3 |
6 |
255 |
There is no evidence in the paper that the assumptions of the ANOVA or of the regression are satisfied by your data, e.g. normality or homoscedasticy. |
We analysed data by preparing split plot design as per the standard statistical formula (Microsoft excel 2007) |
|
4 |
6 |
255 |
In the materials and methods, it is unclear which is the statistical software you have used, nor the statistical analyses have you performed. Can you develop this part?
|
It is mentioned at serial no 2.8 with reference no [57] |
|
5 |
6 |
255 |
I have not found any ANOVA table of your split-plot experiment, nor the model you have used to analyze the data. It is unclear if the year is also a random factor besides fertilisation and compost combinations. |
We prepared ANOVA table in excel by using Excel 2007 from Microsoft Office and CD (p=0.5), and SEm± are presented in the tables |
|
6 |
21 |
565 |
In Figure 8 you presented a correlation and regression. Can you explain what do you mean by "correlation and regression"? How do you explain such an high R2 given your model in the case of Fe/wheat or rice yields. |
Explain correlation and regression in the material and methods section. Because Fe and Zn concentration have a link with grain quality and yield. |
|
7 |
|
|
Please add all the acronyms in the figure legends, eg. CD, SEm as well as all your treatments. |
Please see details in material and method section. If all the treatment acronyms will add in the figure then, it will be reduce the good presentation due to jumbling the words. |
|
8 |
|
|
There are really too many tables and figures. I suggest the authors to just add the ANOVA tables and the regression figures and if they need to keep all the other tables, add them in an Appendix.
|
There are too many ANOVA tables during the two years of research. It is a second revision of the MS and in an earlier revision one reviewer already forced to reduce the number of tables. |
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I suggest that the paper be accepted after the addopted suggestion.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
#Reviewer 2
|
S.N. |
Page No. |
Line |
Comments |
Author response |
|
1 |
|
|
The authors need to be cautious when using high nutrient sources that too in biofortified varieties may not lead to heavy metal toxicity in the diet. |
In South Asia food bowel for the rice-wheat cropping system already suffering from the deficiency of the Zn and Fe. As well both verities performing to enhance the uptake. |
|
2 |
|
|
How there can be a linear relationship between rice and wheat yield and micronutrient content. |
Because these two bio-fortified varieties of wheat and rice, and these ae performing according to the individual capacity for micronutrients, We will see it in the next experiment. It is a nice suggestion, thank you. |
|
3 |
|
|
This relationship in graphs 8 a & b and also in 9 need to be reviewed thoroughly. |
Improved |
|
4 |
|
|
The graphs no. 2-5 can be clubbed for suitable presentation. |
Graph is presented in as per comments |
|
5 |
|
|
The nomenclature of the varieties also needs to be rectified, as has been suggested in the track change mode of MS.
|
Added in the M & M. |
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have chosen a very pertinent topic of the research, nutritional security in a developing country is a serious problem and agronomic biofortification in fortified varieties may help in the eradication of micronutrient malnutrition. But the authors need to be cautious when using high nutrient sources that too in biofortified varieties may not lead to heavy metal toxicity in the diet. How there can be a linear relationship between rice and wheat yield and micronutrient content. This relationship in graphs 8 a &b and also in 9 need to be reviewed thoroughly.
Some suggestions have been given in the attached MS. The graphs no. 2-5 can be clubbed for suitable presentation. The nomenclature of the varieties also needs to be rectified, as has been suggested in the trach change mode of MS.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
#Reviewer 3
|
S.N. |
Page |
Line |
Comments |
Author response |
|
1 |
1 |
8-44 |
The abstract is too lengthy, please make it brief, |
Revised |
|
2 |
1 |
8-10 |
I suggest you delete lines 8-10. |
Deleted |
|
3 |
1 |
28 |
Delete the word, Likewise, |
Deleted |
|
4 |
1 |
34 |
Delete the word, Therefore, |
Deleted |
|
5 |
1 |
34 |
Delete the word, while, |
Deleted |
|
6 |
4 |
146 |
I suggest that you list the variants as N1 ... in the material and method you can see which variant it is, so you will reduce the number of words. |
N1 =nutrient source 1 |
|
7 |
9 |
316-321 |
Please check CD value of the interaction table |
Checked |
|
8 |
1 |
8-44 |
Please use some scientific words and also the more in number |
Revised |
|
9 |
2 |
65 |
References delete |
Deleted |
|
10 |
2 |
68 |
References arrange |
Arranged properly |
|
11 |
2 |
87-90 |
You have taken a single variety of each crop, please change the sentences accordingly |
Sentenced changed |
|
12 |
2 |
96-100 |
Its not the heavy metal contamination with industrial wastes, accumulation of heavy metals to a toxic level may not have negative impact on consumers |
The by-product of sugar industry like bagasse and pressmud are plant based by-product and the carpet waste was used before dying, and it is not content any heavy metals. |
|
13 |
3 |
106-110 |
Its not true ? that traditional cv are more nutritious than recently released HYV |
Traditional varieties are more nutritious than HYV, but here the rice and wheat varieties enriched with Fe and Zn, so more nutritious in terms of Fe and Zn content as compared to traditional and HYV. Because bio fortified varieties are enriched with particular nutrient. |
|
14 |
3 |
111 |
Add bio-fortified |
Added |
|
15 |
3 |
124 |
Rice-wheat system ??? |
Here in this experiment after wheat, rice was sown that why wheat-rice production system |
|
16 |
3 |
131 |
Per kg-1 correct |
Corrected |
|
17 |
3 |
134 |
why available K so low in IGP, otherwise the soils in IGP are moderate to rich in K |
Due to fixation of K in micacious minerals. Because mica is found higher in alluvial soil. |
|
18 |
4 |
146 |
Four levels of nutrient sources |
Here four different levels of nutrient applied in main-plot |
|
19 |
4 |
165 |
WB-02 |
Here WB-02 is the name of variety of wheat. Details are presented in the M& M. |
|
20 |
5 |
185 |
DRR Dhan-45 |
Here DRR Dhan-45 is the name of variety of rice. Details are presented in the M& M. |
|
21 |
6 |
264 |
at 5.18, 4.80, and 4.28, 3.89 Mg ha-1 |
Yield in terms of Mega gram per hectare |
|
22 |
7 |
280 |
why the seed yield of rice was low, is this due to poor management or something else, and how do biofortified varieties compensate for the yield gap with HYV. The yield potential of DRR Dhan is 5-6 t/ha |
Because in this experiment rice was grown as suceding crop. |
|
23 |
7 |
279 |
In Table 1,2, 3, Delete Mg ha-1 and Kg/ha write units of measurement in lowercase letters mg ha-1 and kg/ha |
Yield was recorded in terms of Megagram ha-1 (1Mg=1000kg) |
|
24 |
7 |
280-281 |
please use treatment detail in footnotes of every table |
Added |
|
25 |
8 |
318 |
Please check CD value of the interaction table |
Checked |
|
26 |
10 |
373 |
Delete the word however |
Deleted |
|
27 |
10 |
373 |
It is preferable to formulate the sentence like this... Research shows that the treatment B3C1 was observed to have minimum Fe and Zn content of 38.34, 36.43, and 27.53, 29.51 ppm in the straw of wheat in both the years of study. |
Added |
|
28 |
10 |
376 |
The graph can be presented in better way |
Improved |
|
29 |
10 |
376 |
Write Full form ppm |
Written |
|
30 |
11 |
378 |
Please correct the graph, Fe content has not been given in the graph |
Corrected |
|
31 |
13 |
411 |
Please present the data in appropriate figure, its overlapping, not very clear |
Graph presented in different way |
|
32 |
15 |
425,457 |
In line 425 and 457 in Figure 6, 7, 8 and 9 delete Kg/ha and write mg ha-1
|
Deleted |
|
33 |
15 |
452 |
delete Likewise, in succeeding rice, crop the N0 treatment was also observed
|
Deleted |
|
34 |
16 |
474 |
delete However and in all text |
Deleted |
|
35 |
17 |
491 |
The interaction data may be better presented in graphical form, please reduce number of tables and make the manuscript within page limit as prescribed in guidelines |
If we converted into graph then, no of graph will be increased and in the previous revision reviewer suggested that reduced the no of graph in the manuscript |
|
36 |
21 |
556 |
Please make this graph in appropriate way |
Graph presented in different way |
|
37 |
21 |
580 |
Corrections are required in graphical presentation of the data |
In control treatment the value of Fe content in X-axis is 10.42 and in Y-axis grain yield is 2.95 Mg ha-1, so starting of X and Y axis from origin was blank. The graph was formed automatically in excel by putting the value. |
|
38 |
22 |
594 |
Genetically modified replaced with bio-fortified |
Corrected |
|
39 |
22 |
614 |
Genetically modified replaced with bio-fortified |
Corrected |
|
40 |
24 |
706 |
I will recommend that the Authors must incorporate the below Reviews in the present article for more justification, please. |
Added |
|
41 |
24 |
708 |
In line delete 708 change the first sentence to It This helps to alleviate the threat of malnutrition for billions of people in dietary supply.may concluded that with the application of 150 kg N+ 60 kg P+ 60 kg K + 26.31 kg
|
Deleted |
|
42 |
24 |
712 |
Planting or sowing |
Sowing |
|
43 |
28 |
842 |
In line 842 citate 42. change the title of the work to lowercase letters |
Changed |
|
44 |
28 |
868 |
Not quoted in the body of text |
Deleted |
|
45 |
29 |
890 |
Page number |
Added |
|
46 |
31 |
938 |
Page number |
Added |
|
47 |
31 |
942 |
In line 492 delete discussion |
Deleted |
Reviewer 4 Report
The research is well planned and conducted. The research is very interesting and nicely presented. Sufficient amount of data have been collected and analysed. However, write up has several grammatical mistakes. some sentences are not clear also. I have have highlighted correction in trackchange mode (buble/ balloon).
The MS needs to be read by authors very carefully for mistakes. I have pointed out many but there could be many more.
Also, add Two CDs for intercation tables, you have given only.
Interaction effects need to be explained properly, see my comments in text.
Give per cent values or ppm values only upto to 1 digit after decimal.
Overall, the MS reports and excellent work, but write needs to be improved.
All the best to authors
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
#Reviewer 4
|
S.N. |
Page No. |
Line |
Comments |
Author response |
|
1 |
1 |
10 |
Delete comma |
Deleted |
|
2 |
1 |
12 |
Delete micro-nutrient |
Deleted |
|
3 |
1 |
14 |
Delete S |
Deleted |
|
4 |
1 |
15 |
Add hyphen in main plot |
Added |
|
5 |
1 |
13 |
Add space |
Added |
|
6 |
1 |
17 |
Add were |
Added |
|
7 |
1 |
21-23 |
Revise these lines suitably, avoid using main plot here, directly write treatment ..that increased .. |
Revised |
|
8 |
1 |
28 |
Delete with |
Deleted |
|
9 |
1 |
28 |
Add comma |
Added |
|
10 |
1 |
8-44 |
Abstract is very exhaustive and over loaded with data which is already given in Table should be reduce the length. |
Revised |
|
11 |
2 |
49 |
Do feeds |
Added |
|
12 |
2 |
53 |
Add covers |
Added |
|
13 |
2 |
64 |
Do deficiency |
Added |
|
14 |
2 |
84 |
Re-frame this sentence correctly |
Reframed |
|
15 |
2 |
89 |
Delete to |
Deleted |
|
16 |
5 |
176 |
Add hyphen in weed free |
Added |
|
17 |
5 |
179 |
Add S |
Added |
|
18 |
5 |
195 |
Add S |
Added |
|
19 |
5 |
196 |
Add S |
Added |
|
20 |
5 |
197 |
Delete the |
Deleted |
|
21 |
5 |
200 |
delete in, write using |
Deleted |
|
22 |
5 |
201 |
Delete adding --- to the Write ...summing up the grain and straw yields |
Deleted |
|
23 |
5 |
206 |
Re-check this concentration |
Checked |
|
24 |
5 |
213 |
delete grinded, write ground |
Deleted |
|
25 |
5 |
215 |
Do not start sentence with data value |
Modified |
|
26 |
6 |
231 |
Revise these lines |
Revised |
|
27 |
6 |
262 |
delete was significantly from here |
Deleted |
|
28 |
6 |
263 |
Add significantly here |
Added |
|
29 |
7 |
270 |
delete was |
Deleted |
|
30 |
7 |
274 |
Revise suitably |
Revised |
|
31 |
7 |
280-281 |
Define B1 C1... N1, N2 ---- below the table to make the table self explanatory |
Below table complete full form added |
|
32 |
7 |
281 |
delete 'varied in' instead write 'altered' or affected |
Deleted |
|
33 |
7 |
283 |
add 'returned' delete was found |
Added |
|
34 |
7 |
285 |
It means What here, write properly |
Modified |
|
35 |
8 |
301-315 |
Rewrite this section cleraly indicating how levels of one factor behaved at different levels of other factor. Avoid using the word intercation repeatedly |
Re written |
|
36 |
8 |
317-321 |
There should be two CD values for interaction effects for Table 2 and 3 |
CD value added |
|
37 |
8 |
325-326 |
Delete was and as |
Deleted |
|
38 |
10 |
352-363,399, 406-409,713, 715 |
give values upto 1 digit after decimal |
Modified |
|
39 |
18 |
518 |
Add hyphen in main plot |
Added |
|
40 |
22 |
587 |
The results of |
Added |
|
41 |
22 |
592 |
delete was |
Deleted |
|
42 |
24 |
709 |
delete with |
Deleted |
|
43 |
24 |
717 |
which treatment, mention |
Added |
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
The paper reports about fertilization and compost addition impact on wheat and rive yield and Fe/Zn nutrient concentrations. The paper needs a lot of work before acceptance for publication. Some brief comments are:
First Abstract need revision as the concluding sentence is beyond the study objectives.
Secondly, introduction needs improvement as its extensive literature about malnutrition, which is beyond study scope, however more emphasis should be given on earlier studies and how this study is bringing something different and innovative. Study objectives needs to be added at end of the introduction.
Material and methods: Lot of details missing in this section. For instance, rates and nutrient contents of compost, which is a critical component of balance sheet added in R and D section. Which statistical tool was used to analyze data and what are factors considered? More comments have been added to document attached.
Results: Its difficult to understand findings without knowing P-values and inetractions. All Tables have reported main and subplot values for each measuring indices, withbout even referring for interaction, its a split plot design, so data need to be analyzed based upon that. Entire section needs to be rewritten with complete image of data analysis and findings.
Discussion: Very general and some statements were beyond study observations.
Conclusion: Its needs to be rewritten based upon findings.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General:
There are significant issues with English grammar and sentence structure in this paper like the misuse of the tenses, prepositions and punctuation marks. At some places the language is not scientific enough. The manuscript needs proofreading by an expert (this is mandatory).
The title:
Too long, not specific and should not include any abbreviations.
Abstract:
- P1L11: delete “while” and rephrase the sentence.
- P1L14: replace “enrich” by “enriched”.
- P1L15: “two-year” and not “two years”
- P1L16: you didn’t explain in the abstract which treatments were assigned to the main plots and which to the subplots, thus, please avoid relating the results to the main and subplots.
- P1L17-18: what is N3 and B1C3? Please avoid using unexplained abbreviations in the abstract. The abstract should be understandable without having to read the whole paper.
- P1L18: delete “the” years.
- P1L21: delete “the” years.
- P1L22-24: the sentence “It was higher than ------------------, respectively” is not clear and not correct.
- P1L26 and 28: the use of “while” is improper at the beginning of the sentence. Please modify.
- P1L32-35: This is an assumption and the abstract should end with a clear conclusion and recommendation not an assumption.
Introduction:
- P1L39: delete “the stomach of”
- P1L40’ “other world” is poor language
- P1L40: replace “as well as” by “and”
- P1L41: delete “about”
- P2L56-58: “the uses of ------------------------------------ Fe and Zn.” Poor language and inappropriate sentence structure.
- P2L61: replace “about” by “around”
- P2L63: revise the repeated use of “Globally” at the beginning of several sentences.
- P2L66: why “due to”?
- P2L66-92: this part explaining the problem of Fe and Zn deficiency in Asia and worldwide is too long and should be drastically shortened.
- P3L105-107: this sentence of the economic benefit needs a reference.
- The introduction section should end with a clear objective of this specific study and hypothesis. The current introduction lacks both.
Materials and Methods:
- The section “Experimental design and treatment details” suffers from many problems:
- Although the main aim of the study was to investigate the effect of Fe and Zn fertilization, in the fertilization treatments (N0 to N3) you included also different levels of N, P2O5 and K2O, while the Fe and Zn were only incorporated in only N3. Why didn’t you concentrate of testing different levels of Fe and Zn with the recommended levels of N, P2O5 and K2O? This would have been more helpful for uncovering the true variations related to Fe and Zn application.
- In the subplots you evaluated several compost combinations with biofertilizers, while in the introduction you didn’t mention anything related to this studied factor, you only concentrated on the Fe and Zn.
- What was the idea behind using 9 compost combinations?
- You need to add a detailed explanation to the composition of the tested carpet waste, pressmud, pagasse and also you need to explain in details the preparation of the used biofertilizers.
- The fertilization scheme of wheat and rice crops as explained in the section “Crop management” is not inline with the fertilization treatments explained in the previous section.
- How come that wheat was sown on 20 November and rice was sown in last week of June same year, and you mention that wheat was sown before rice?? A better explanation of the sowing dates is required.
- One of the major drawbacks of the manuscript is the inadequate statistical procedure. The Excel is only used to give a preliminary idea about the trends of the data, while to come out with concrete results about the significant effects of the treatments and their interactions, a more sophisticated statistical package specific for the biological experiments should be used.
Results:
- It seems that Table (1) represents main effects of the two studied factors. Was the interaction not significant? Where is the ANOVA table? Before presenting the means, you need to present and explain the ANOVA table with the different error components, this helps the reader to judge the accuracy of the results and, thus, trust the findings.
- In the results section you, generally, need to focus on the unique observations and to try to highlight new meaningful relations between the data that are not simply clear from the tables, while here you were only concerned with repeating in the text the values that are already presented in the tables!
- Too many colors in the figures distract the attention of the reader.
- You represent data about Fe and Zn uptake by wheat and rice, while it is not mentioned how you determined this in the materials and methods section.
- Also, the correlation and regression results, you didn’t mention in the materials and methods section that you have done such an investigation.
Discussion:
The discussion section is very weak. Nothing new!
