Zero Tillage, Residue Retention and System-Intensification with Legumes for Enhanced Pearl Millet Productivity and Mineral Biofortification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of the research is clear and pertinent and it clearly focuses on sustainable agriculture. It was studied the important topic of zero tillage in a case of a semi-arid climate and the awareness of farmers or dissemination of knowledge was evaluated. The aim was tested in the field aiming to compare the performance of pearl millet under ZT and conventional tillage (CT) in pearl millet-based cropping systems which were intensified with other crops. 

The title of the paper is too long. Short titles are more attractive and those papers are cited more often. For that reason, I propose to cut the words: and mineral biofortification in the semi-arid North Indian plains: Technology development and dissemination. 

The study area and the methodology were described in detail. The results are clearly presented and adequate statistics were performed. 

In Figures 6 and 7 it is not clear what are the letters A,B,C inside the graphs. It is necessary to have a note as in Figure 4. 

The size of the letters in y-axis of Figure 5 should be more visible.

In Table 6 it is not clear if there are statistically significant differences. If there were no differences in greenhouse gases between systems and technologies then this should be mentioned in the conclusions and not the words "slightly lower". The same correction should be done also in the Abstract (line 32) because even if it was the highest for ZTR, if the variability is high and there were no statistically significant differences then the abstract should mention that there were no differences in greenhouse gas emissions. 

Chapter 3.6. Greenhouse gas emissions should have more discussion of the results with comparison to other similar studies internationally. Maybe, the research could benefit if it was measured carbon sequestration instead of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Please delete the words "in the semi-arid North Indian plains" from the last line of the Abstract and add a line about how this research is important internationally in similar semiarid areas. 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have revised the manuscript as per your suggestions.

Yours sincerely,

RS Bana

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Zero tillage, residue retention and system-intensification with legumes for enhanced pearl millet productivity and mineral biofortification in the semi-arid North Indian plains: Technology development and dissemination” This work is merit for publication at Sustainability after some major modification. So I have some points that may help to improve the work as follows:

1-Abstract is good but need more explain about the main aim of work

2- The introduction should be extended to discuss the hypothesis and research questions in details. Additionally, the introduction should cover the recent literature related to this subject.

3- Material and methods

The methodologies should be explained in details so that the results are reproducible.
 
4-Results

The results are clear and important.

5-Discussion
The discussion section still needs improvement, and should be linked to the findings of the previous reports on this topic.

5- The conclusion

A section for conclusions need more explain and should include the most significant findings and future works only.

6- English writing should be checked by a native English speaking expert.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have revised the manuscript as per your suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Yours sincerely,

RS Bana

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Three years of data are required.
2. References more than 50 percent older than 5 years.
3. It is necessary to abbreviate the title.
4. Keywords should not be used in the title.
5. The aim is not specified.
6. The references of literature are not presented appropriately in the text. For example, is provided [43] but should be [27].
7. Literature sources should be more in the discussion.
8. Fig. 1 is unnecessary.
9. Technological operations are not clear. How were plant residues removed? The authors publish that plant residues have been removed before conventional tillage. It is not clear why? As the plant residues do not interfere with the operation of the plow. Table 2. Is not clear why were carried out no-tillage operations when were using the ZT. No tillage operations are not necessary for zero tillage because is only direct sowing.
10. Statistical analysis. The authors state that was calculated LSD but HSD showed in the figures.
11. Fig. 3; 4; 6; 7. HSD has not been evaluated between CT, ZT, and ZTR so different letters should be used for different technologies.

 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have revised the manuscript as per your suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Yours sincerely,

RS Bana

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have considered all the suggestions and the manuscript has been
sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached herewith the pointwise reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Table 2. "Previous crop residues removed".  How the crop residues were removed? Please provide the manufacturer and model of all used equipment.
2. Authors write: "Least significant difference (LSD) values at P = 0.05 were used to determine the significance of difference between treatment means. In addition, Tukey’s HSD test was performed." It is not correct. In the chapter of results and discussion is presented only HSD.
3.  "...across each graph values with the same uppercase letter are not significantly different at (P < 0.05)." Is not correct. Please rewrite the sentence.
4. Too much self-citations.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached herewith the pointwise reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Why was used the different methods (LSD and HSD) set a threshold for the substantial difference? Why isn’t one more accurate method used throughout the work?
2. Results and Discussion chapter. If CD means LSD, why is it presented differently in the paper? Why it is not explained that a CD is LSD? When reading the manuscript, it is not clear what a CD is.
3. Results and Discussion chapter. Please remove the statement "Values with the same uppercase letter...." below the figures because it raises more questions and ambiguity.
4. References. 23 articles are cited, of which at least one author is also the author of this article.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached herewith the response to esteemed reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf