The Integrated Minapadi (Rice-Fish) Farming System: Compost and Local Liquid Organic Fertilizer Based on Multiple Evaluation Criteria
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript mainly addressed the effects of integrated rice-fish farming system, the result will provide some useful information for local integrated rice-fish farming system, however, there are some major problems as below.
1. What is the difference of local biofertilizer and compost fertilizer? If the authors can add some key nutrition information about these two fertilizers , it will be better.
2. Whether the authors have analysed the nutrition concentration in the water from paddy field?
3. Why is it better for 4 ton local fertilizer per ha?
4. The format of the manuscript is not regular.
Hence, it can be accepted after major revision.
Author Response
In general, we so thanks for your comment to improve our article. We have revised it as you suggested. Meanwhile, for English editing, we will use an English editing service from MDPI after our article has been accepted. The list of review comments and our response are shown in below:
Q1 |
What is the difference of local biofertilizer and compost fertilizer? If the authors can add some key nutrition information about these two fertilizers , it will be better. |
A1 |
Thank you for your question. In our study, there were several local biofertilizers and compost fertilizers, namely (1) the local biofertilizer used was in a liquid state and was applied by spray. In contrast, compost in solid form is applied by sprinkling compost on paddy fields according to the treatment (2) local biofertilizer is made privately while compost is purchased at a farmer's shop with specific nutritional provisions, (3) local biofertilizer is focused on adding nutrients through leaves, increasing plant tolerance to pathogens, and induces plant hormones. Meanwhile, compost, besides acting as a nutrient provider, this fertilizer also plays a role in improving soil structure and soil biology. The biological properties of the soil and the nutrient content contained in the compost will also increase microorganisms and plankton, which are suitable for fish growth. The characteristic of local liquid biofertilizer and compost fertilizer has shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. |
Revision |
Table 2 and 3, Lines 207-208 |
Q2 |
Whether the authors have analysed the nutrition concentration in the water from paddy field? |
A2 |
Thank you for your question. We have analyzed the water parameter before and after the treatment application (Table 4). Besides that, we also add the soil status in our study field (Table 1). |
Revision |
Table 1 (line 167) and Table 4 (Line 242) |
Q3 |
Why is it better for 4 ton local fertilizer per ha? |
A3 |
Thank you for your question. Maybe you mean the compost fertilizer. The compost fertilizer has four levels, namely, 0 ton ha-1, 2 ton ha-1, 3 ton ha-1, and 4 ton ha-1. In our study, the compost fertilizer has an excellent linear regression to the rice and fish yield with a high gradient and determination value. Besides that, many studies have reported the effectiveness of high doses of compost on rice yield (Razavipour et al. 2018; Kadoglidou et al. 2019; Litardo et al. 2021; Phares and Akaba 2021; Sultana et al. 2021; Sutardi et al. 2022) and fish yield (Kumar and Godara 2016; Parvez et al. 2019; Jyoti et al. 2020). Therefore, we choose the high compost doses (4 tons ha-1) in this study. |
Revision |
- |
Q4 |
The format of the manuscript is not regular. |
A4 |
Thank you very much for your suggestion. we have revised the manuscript format according to Agronomy guidelines |
Revision |
Almost in revised manuscript |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear colleagues
I read your paper with interest
his topic is quite exotic for me, but the main idea of your research is very interesting and correct considering the need to increase food production.
The paper is therefore prepared on an excellent topic, but it is necessary to "finish" it. A number of technical errors need to be corrected, you will surely have feedback from other reviews. For example, formatting errors point 2.6- wrong format, unit format unification,add information on fertilizers.
The results section and the discussion then look better. The conclusion corresponds to the research. Perhaps the novelty of your ideas could be emphasized in the abstract.
Author Response
Reviewer: 2
In general, we so thanks for your comment to improve our article. We have revised it as you suggested. The list of review comments and our response are shown in below:
Q1 |
A number of technical errors need to be corrected, you will surely have feedback from other reviews. For example, formatting errors point 2.6- wrong format, unit format unification,add information on fertilizers |
A1 |
Thank you for your correction. We have revised the format, added the parameters unit, and added fertilizer information (Table 2 and Table 3). |
Revision |
Table 2 and Table 3 (lines 211-213) and subsection of Parameter Observation and Data Analysis (Lines 257-260) |
Q2 |
The results section and the discussion then look better. The conclusion corresponds to the research. Perhaps the novelty of your ideas could be emphasized in the abstract. |
A2 |
Thank you for your correction. We have added and sharpened our novelty in abstract section. |
Revision |
The compost dosage of 4 tons ha−1 and the local biofertilizer sourced from soaked coconut fiber with cow urine have been recommended as combination treatments to optimize the yield potential of rice and fish. The Minapadi (rice fish) with additional high compost effectively increased the farmer's outcome with a 2-point R/C ratio than without compost. Moreover, the compost dosage in this Minapadi study requires further exploration for better understanding (lines 28-32) |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There are still some mistakes in the manuscript. For example, DO should be dissolved oxygen, K2O should be K2O and so on. Therefore, the authors should be revised carefully at first, the manuscript can be accepted.
Author Response
Reviewer: 1
In general, we so thanks for your comment to improve our article. The list of review comments and our response are shown in below:
Q1 |
There are still some mistakes in the manuscript. For example, DO should be dissolved oxygen, K2O should be K2O and so on. Therefore, the authors should be revised carefully at first, the manuscript can be accepted. |
A1 |
Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestion |
Revision |
Table 2, 3 and 4 |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I agree with repairs
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion in previous revision