Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Autumn Planted Sugarcane under Different Planting Patterns with Lentil Intercropping

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript deals with the agronomic and economic evaluation of sugarcane under different planting patterns with lentil intercropping. The topic is relevant and sugarcane grown with lentil intercropping is highly interesting. However, as a reviewer, I have some concern about this manuscript and the authors may consider these for further improvement. 

The treatments explanation was not clear and difficult to understand. The interpretation of the results does not always support the data presented in the figures and tables. The Discussion part was too general. The Discussion parts mostly based on so many assumptions and contain so many hypothetical statements based on findings from other different experiments, and have lacking depth of scientific evidence.

Line 39: write (80-100 t ha-1) instead of “(80-10 t ha-1)”

Line 78: the word “grown” is more appropriate than “sown”

Line 84-85: Why lentil is the viable option? What is the argument behind this? 

Line 91-92: What is the argument behind your hypothesis that trench planting of sugarcane will improve growth and yield? You have no any argument about trench planting in the introduction section.

Section 2.3: The treatments explanation was not clear and difficult to understand. What do you mean by “60 cm single rows planting”, “90 cm double rows planting”? Does this 60 and 90 cm are row-to-row distance or plant-to-plant distance? Please clarify this. What is pit-to-pit and row-to-row distance in different treatments? Also main plot size, sub plot size, buffer area etc are missing.

Line 128: “triple rowed methods”. In your experimental design, you didn’t mention about “triple rowed methods”.

Line 130: what about 45 cm, 75 cm, 90 cm pit. How you dig it?

Line 132: what about filled back in 45 cm pit?

Line 148: “Irrigation and fertilizer application were restricted only to pits”. Why no irrigation and fertilizer in other treatments? Please clarify this. Is there any control treatment in the experiment?

Line219: where is LSD test results? Figures do not show it. You should lettering the treatment bars in the figures 3, 4,5,6,7 to understand the significant difference.

Line 220: remove one close bracket.

In Table 3 for ratoon crop, among the lettering in the last column “a” letter is missing. Does those letters were intentionally edited?

Line 222-225: this statement is not true in all cases. Carefully see the figures, particularly figure 6.

Line 244-247: this statement is not true in some cases. Please carefully see the Table 2

Table 4： P8 treatment have not mentioned in the section 2.3.

Line 262-264：it actually happened because P7 treatment has higher number of rows than other treatments. For example, P7 treatment has four times more lentil rows compare to P1 treatment. Hence the biological and seed yield mostly effected by number of lentil rows rather than planting pattern of sugarcane. It seems to me not logical to compare between such treatments. This is also applicable for land equivalent ratio in line 270-274.

Line 339-341： did you measure the total amount of sunlight received by different treatments? If not, how you assumed that those treatments received higher sunlight?

Line 372: “mightbe”>>> might be. Add space.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Your Agronomy submission of Agronomic and economic evaluation of autumn planted sugarcane under different planting patterns with lentil intercropping levels which I received for review is interesting scientific material. However, first of all editing errors were not avoided. Here are some examples. I do not mention all because there are too many of tchem.

 

L289: 'planting,:' -> remove coma

L295:  'Table 5' not ' Table.5'

L322: remove dot after patterns

L328: remove one dot

L329: there is double space in the bracket (figure 6.)? Generally, there is a lot of editorial mistakes in the whole paper. It must be improved prior next review.

L366, double space, again

Latin names should be written in italics, e.g. L384-385

 

Generally, there is a lot of editorial mistakes in the whole paper. It must be improved prior next review.

 

The list of literature does not comply with the instructions for the authors. It should be

YEAR, NO. VOL., PAGES.

 

Authors often use a colon.

 

In general, the literature used is quite old and omits the latest world sources. The literature used, and thus the discussion, should be updated.

 

Questions and suggestions

I am not sure what figure 2 does in the paragraph on statistical analysis?

Fig 3-7: I suggest presenting as 1 table and not so many charts. The data presented in this way will be more readable for the recipient.

Tables 2 and 3 move to paragraph 3.2. In my opinion, they are incorrectly found in paragraph 3.3.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

^{The Authors should make these change before submit the final version.}

^{Line 21：the sentence is incomplete. Please complete the sentence.}

^{Line 32： “land equivalent ratio” already mentioned once in the line 29 for same treatment}

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

The Authors should make these change before submit the final version.

Line 21：the sentence is incomplete. Please complete the sentence.

Line 21 Sentence has been completed.

Line 32： “land equivalent ratio” already mentioned once in the line 29 for same treatment.

Correction has been made in line 32.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Corrections and additions improved the quality of the article 

Author Response

Corrections has been made as suggested by reviewer 1 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

Reviewer summary: Authors examine potential for increasing incomes for producers of sugarcane by evaluating combinations of sugarcane planting geometry with intercropping of lentil. They examine in both the initial and second (ratooning) harvests of sugarcane and complete in-depth analysis on yield, harvest index parameters, and economic comparisons. Conclusion is that if intercropping lentil, it is recommended to plant sugarcane in 120 cm trenches and intercrop the lentil between the rows.

Overall comments on methodology and conclusions: Much of the science appears to be sound and designed well. However, I am concerned that there was only a single cycle of the study completed (2013-2016, it appears). While these types of studies are challenging because of the time and space involved, it is difficult to parse out error due to environmental and weather differences if multiple cycles are not considered.

Additionally, while the LER results indicate that including lentil is a more efficient use of farmland, economic returns seem to be maximized for sugarcane planting at 120 cm alone and for 90 cm pits with lentil. Can you please explain these results in greater detail and quantify more clearly why you ultimately suggest the intercropping strategy you have chosen?

Specific Comments:
- Please consult with a proof-reading service. There are significant numbers of grammatical and spelling errors throughout the manuscript. I have not listed them point-by-point because the number is quite high. The quality and rigor of the work will increase through this investment. Also please check spelling and capitalization of authors and author affiliations.
- Some of the grammatical concerns are because the current phrasing impacts the meaning of the sentences. As an example, the sentence on line 276: “Overall more net field benefits were obtained…” implies that there are a greater number of net field benefits, but I think the authors are trying to say that “higher net benefits were obtained…”. Similarly, the use of “more BCR values” in line 286 has significant implications in the readability of the text.
- Authors make the supposition in the Introduction that sugarcane plays a significant role in Pakistan Agriculture [sic]. Would it be possible to provide some information also on the economic value of sugarcane to the economy/farmer incomes?
- Line 213, please cite MSTATC.
- Table 1—why are some values presented in bold? This table could also be formatted to match the formatting of the other tables in the manuscript (i.e. single-spaced).
- Figure 1—this figure may or may not be necessary based on the description of weather conditions in text.
- Carefully monitor placement of figures and tables. Their layout in text right now is not congruent with their mention in text, thus making it difficult for the reader to determine which figure/table is being referenced. For example, Table 4 is begun on line 265 while Table 2 is provided on line 382 and Table 3 is given directly after Table 2. Please either relabel/renumber tables or adjust how they are cited in text.
- Watch the labelling of figures. There are two figures labeled “Figure 2” and neither is well-referenced in the text. The second figure 2, on line 302 shows photos of the experimental design. These photos are very helpful to the reader, but only if placed earlier in the text (i.e. in the Materials and Methods section) and if the panels of the figure are lined up and described in a standalone figure caption. Moreover, it is recommended to simplify the photos and remove the frames, they are cumbersome and not aesthetically pleasing.
- There are a number of tables that would be better presented in another manner. Please find figures or charts to display the information for Tables 4, 5, 6, 2, and 3. These tables are exceptionally large and it is difficult to glean results from the data as presented. Bar or line charts would better allow the reader to determine conclusions for themselves.
- Some of the figures seem superfluous and redundant. Figure 1 is generally showing that harvest trait data collected is well-correlated with dry matter. Overall, this result is not surprising and is little referenced in the text. My recommendation would be to convert this to a correlation table using the R2 values or to put this material in the supplementary file. Similarly, the placement of the first Figure 2 (line 300) seems out of place and these data could also be summarized by their correlation values. Again, it is not surprising that cane yield has a strong relationship with sugar yield and number of millable canes.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper "Agronomic and economic evaluation of autumn planted sugarcane under different planting patterns with lentil intercropping" devoted to important issues for farmers - studied an effect of different planting patterns to sugarcane yield. The authors provide this study in an excellent level and conducted field-base experiment. Meanwhile, the manuscript is overload by tables and graphs, which are only presented statistical data without any trends and patterns. The similar issues may be highlighted also for conclusion part: ints not concrete and not clearly supported by results.