Assessment of crop damage by rodent pests from experimental barley crop fields in Farta District, South Gondar, Ethiopia

Bewketu Takele Wondifraw; Mesele Yihune Tamene; Afework Bekele Simegn

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255372

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 11, 2021
21 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor PONE-D-21-08035 Assessment of crop damage by rodent pests from experimental barley crop fields in Farta District, South Gondar, Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tamene, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We were really in difficult to find proper reviewers for this manuscript and please recommend several reviewers after your revisions. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 05 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Bi-Song Yue, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 'We would like to thank Addis Ababa University for financial support.' We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 'The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.' Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This study selected four independent barley crop fields (40 x 40 m each) as random sample plot to identify rodent pest species and estimate damage caused on barley crops in Farta district, south Gondar from 2019 to 2020 cropping years. This study had important guiding significance for assessing agricultural losses caused by rodent pests. There were several questions that need to be answered by the authors: 1. Apart from rodents, will there be other species that have caused damage to the crops in this area? Such as birds, insects, etc.? If insects can also cause damage to crops, is the control area enclosed by barbed wire not rigorous? 2. The author compared the crop damage caused by rodents in 2019 and 2020, but in fact, climatic conditions may also cause damage to crop harvests.Has the author considered the impact of climatic conditions on crop harvests during the past two years of starvation? Also, is there a difference in climate in areas far away from forests and near forests? 3. The author selected 2 areas (close to the forest and far from the forest), a total of 4 plots were selected for research. The overall study area is very large,so I think the selected sample plot(40�40m) a little small, and the authors selected 2 sample plot for each area (close to the forest and far from the forest), is the number of the sample plot for each area a little less? 4. Figures in the manuscript are not numbered ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255372.r001
Revision 1
28 Jun 2021 Author Response Responses to reviewers • Page 4, 2nd paragraph, last line- the sentence “Permit for this work was obtained from south Gondar Zone Environmental Protection and Land Administration Bureau” added. • Acknowledgment –the sentence –“ We would like to thank Addis Ababa University for financial support” deleted • Please keep the sentence “‘the author(s) received no specific funding for this work.” As it is under Funding Statement • Manuscript has been amended according to Plos One writing style requirement. Q1. Apart from rodents, will there be other species that have caused damage to the crops in this area? Such as birds, insects, etc.? If insects can also cause damage to crops, is the control area enclosed by barbed wire not rigorous? Answer: Yes, animals other than rodents like birds and insects can damage the crops. Birds during sowing (before ploughing) can pick the seeds and cause damages during maturation stage. But the sample plots were kept from birds by the researcher and field assistant farmers as it is explained in the methodology part of the manuscript (see methodology part marked in red (page 5 para 1, last three lines)). Moreover, birds do not damage seedling and boosting stages of the barley crops. So the researchers have considered the effects of birds on the experimental barley crop field during sowing and maturation periods. Insects can also take the barley seeds during sowing (before ploughing). This taking of seeds takes place in both treatment and control unites as the control unites were excluded from rodents by fine wire mesh after ploughing. So there is no any effect on the result. However, after ploughing, the damage is negligible as insects do not dig and pick the barley seeds before germination as rodents do. But during sowing stage (before ploughing) the damage by insects was for both control and treatment units because the plots were excluded by fine wire mesh after ploughing. In addition, to increase its reliability, the researchers took 5 samples by considering the different parts (edge and middle) of each selected 40 by 40 m sample farmlands. Q2. The author compared the crop damage caused by rodents in 2019 and 2020, but in fact, climatic conditions may also cause damage to crop harvests. Has the author considered the impact of climatic conditions on crop harvests during the past two years of harvest? Also, is there a difference in climate in areas far away from forests and near forests? Answer: Yes, the climate condition may not be the same for the two cropping years (2019 and 2020). But, the intention of the experiment was to see the amount of yield variations between 2 by 2 m control and treatment plots. So the environment may equally affect both the treatment and control units equally unlike rodents damage. That means, the comparison of the yield was not simply taken as the yield variation between the two cropping years of the same plots. In addition, the experiment was taken on the same place and crop for two cropping years. So the climate variation may not have effect on the overall result. In addition to this, The distance between farmland near the forest and away from the forest is less than 500 m, may not have climatic variation. The aim of comparison of crop damage by rodents near the forest and away from the forest was to show the effect of the forest on the surrounding farmland crops hence the forest serves as a shelter for rodents. We conclude this fact from our finding. Q3. The author selected 2 areas (close to the forest and far from the forest), a total of 4 plots were selected for research. The overall study area is very large, so I think the selected sample plot (40�40m) a little small, and the authors selected 2 sample plot for each area (close to the forest and far from the forest), is the number of the sample plot for each area a little less? Answer: Yes, the researchers selected two 40 X 40 m plots of lands near the forest and the other two far from the forest. For each 40 X 40 m plots of lands, we sampled four 2 X 2 m control plots, 8 near the forest and the other 8 away from the forest (16 in total) for the experiment. In addition, for direct observation (in seed, seedling boosting and maturation stage damage assessments), five (5) 1 X 1 m samples for each 40 by 40 m plots of lands (20 in total) were taken. This helped the researcher to manage all samples efficiently for two successive cropping years. There is also homogeneity of sample areas in terms of crop grown and topography of the land, in this regard the sample size is enough for the study. Q4. Figures in the manuscript are not numbered Answer: There are two figures in the manuscript and indicated in the text as Fig 1 (page 4, paragraph 1, line 3 and Fig 2 page 5 2nd paragraph, line 7). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255372.r002
15 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor Assessment of crop damage by rodent pests from experimental barley crop fields in Farta District, South Gondar, Ethiopia PONE-D-21-08035R1 Dear Dr. Tamene, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Bi-Song Yue, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The autheors responded to all of my coments completely. All the suggested points are cleared. Therfore, this manuscript is acceptable. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255372.r003
Formally Accepted
26 Jul 2021 Acceptance Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor PONE-D-21-08035R1 Assessment of crop damage by rodent pests from experimental barley crop fields in Farta District, South Gondar, Ethiopia Dear Dr. Tamene: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Bi-Song Yue Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255372.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .