Enhancing the land use efficiency of low-land rice (Oryza sativa L.)—Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) additive series relay intercropping in North-Western Ethiopia: A farmer’s indigenous knowledge

Endeshew Assefa; Yayeh Bitew

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0281410

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 22, 2023
25 May 2023 Decision Letter - Rupesh Kailasrao Deshmukh, Editor PONE-D-23-01912Enhancing additive series relay intercropping of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) with low land rice (Oryza sativa L.) in North-Western Ethiopia: A farmer’s indigenous knowledgePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bitew, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 09 2023 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: https://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, Rupesh Kailasrao Deshmukh, 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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00103624.2022.2043349?journalCode=lcss20 https://file.scirp.org/Html/19-2601113_44714.htm https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258338423_Yield_and_Competition_Indices_of_Intercropping_Cotton_Gossypium_hirsutum_L_Using_Different_Planting_Patterns In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. 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. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors 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. 5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: he entitled manuscript “Enhancing additive series relay intercropping of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) with low land rice (Oryza sativa L.) in North-Western Ethiopia: A farmer’s indigenous knowledge”. The submitted manuscript emphasised that seed proportion of grass pea and spatial arrangement had no significant effect on rice crop in additive series relay intercropping of grass pea with low land rice. However, the present study trial has also been conducted in one season in single location in Ethiopia, Therefore, the reliability of the results is doubtful and cannot make conclusion on the basis of it. Therefore, it is suggested that at least Two year and multi-location data should be included in the present submitted manuscript. Apart from this, the present manuscript need to rectify the grammatical as well as typological mistakes. Observations: 1. Please check the sentence “Banik et al. [53], who observed that the chick pea yield in wheat-check pea mixture significantly lower than sole cropped check pea.” 2. Please correct the words Results “Results revealed that the CR of rice was greater” 3. Too lengthy sentences and not clear “Results revealed that partial land equivalent ratio (PLER) of rice and grass pea in all cropping systems were greater than 0.5 (Figure 4 ) indicating that there was null or very low growth resource competition between the component crops during their co-growing period which supports the CR values. Reviewer #2: The article needs to be modified according to the comments ( Please find the attachment ) The introduction and discussion part need to be improvised with the adsition of related articles and findings. ****** 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 Reviewer #2: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer Commen-WPS Office.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281410.r001
Revision 1
30 May 2023 Author Response 1) Grammetical errors need to be corrected. Response: fully checked ad corrected y grammar checker 2) Introduction part needs to be improvised accrording to the title of the research paper. Response: Updated Based on the comment 3) The different planting methods and patterns can be displayed in a table form in the materials and methods. Response: Clearly descried IN the document Table 2. Treatment combination used in additive series relay intercropping of grass pea with rice Trt No. SPGP (%) SA (R: GP) TCS 1 25 1:1 Row intercropping 2 25 2:1 Row intercropping 3 25 3:1 Row intercropping 4 25 MRI Mixed intercropping 5 50 1:1 Row intercropping 6 50 2:1 Row intercropping 7 50 3:1 Row intercropping 8 50 MRI Mixed intercropping 9 75 1:1 Row intercropping 10 75 2:1 Row intercropping 11 75 3:1 Row intercropping 12 75 MRI Mixed intercropping 13 100 1:1 Row intercropping 14 100 2:1 Row intercropping 15 100 3:1 Row intercropping 16 100 MRI Mixed intercropping 17 Sole rice - Row planting 18 Sole grass pea - Broadcasting Trt No., treatment number; SPGP (%), seed proportion of grass pea; SA, spatial arrangement; TCS, type of cropping system; GP, Grass pea; R, rice; R: GP, rice to grass pea seed proportions; MRI, mixed relay intercropping. 4) Results are highlighted only for some parameters. May explained in detail. Response: Yes, because the main objectives of this work is to evaluate the lad use efficiency usig different competition indices 5) Discussion part need to be modified more precisely. 6) Conclusion doesn't highlight the whole research. It need to be revised. Response: The study confirmed that seed proportion of grass pea and spatial arrangement in additive series relay intercropping of grass pea with low-land rice had no significant effect on rice. The highest grain yield of grass pea was obtained when 25% SPGP was relay intercropped with rice in 1:3 SA. The LER and ATER values of all intercropping systems were sufficiently greater than one, indicating that growing the component crops in an intercropping was advantageous than growing the component crops individually. The rice equivalent yield for different rice-grass pea relay intercropping systems was higher when 25% of SPGP was relay intercropped with rice in 1:3. Although, the monetary advantage index was higher in rice-grass pea relay intercropping when 75% of SPGP was relay intercropped with 1:3 SA, the monetary advantage index (MAI) values were positive in all intercropping systems. The highest net benefit was recorded when 50% SPGP was relay intercropped with rice in 1:3 SA. In conclusion, maximum production efficiency in terms of TLOY and land use efficiency, NB, MRR, and positive MAI with lower CR was obtained when 50% SPGP was intercropped with the full seed rate of rice in 1:3 SA, indicating that this cropping system is a far better production system as compared to what farmers currently use (mixed intercropping system). Thus, this mixture seems to contribute to the development of sustainable crop production systems with limited external inputs. The following research gaps were suggested for further research: (i) the experiment needs to be repeated across locations and years as the experiment was conducted in a specific area and in one growing season; (ii) the effect of grass pea on soil fertility needs to be investigated as rice (the main crop) and grass pea (a supplementary crop) relay intercropping is the dominant cropping system in the study area; (iii) rice intercropping with other staple legume crops needs to be tested to intensify the production efficiency and profitability of the cropping system. 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Response: ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: No Reviewer #2: No Response: updated ________________________________________ 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: he entitled manuscript “Enhancing additive series relay intercropping of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) with low land rice (Oryza sativa L.) in North-Western Ethiopia: A farmer’s indigenous knowledge”. The submitted manuscript emphasised that seed proportion of grass pea and spatial arrangement had no significant effect on rice crop in additive series relay intercropping of grass pea with low land rice. However, the present study trial has also been conducted in one season in single location in Ethiopia, Therefore, the reliability of the results is doubtful and cannot make conclusion on the basis of it. Therefore, it is suggested that at least Two year and multi-location data should be included in the present submitted manuscript. Apart from this, the present manuscript need to rectify the grammatical as well as typological mistakes. Response: further research is suggested ad the manuscript was updated grammatical Observations: 1. Please check the sentence “Banik et al. [53], who observed that the chick pea yield in wheat-check pea mixture significantly lower than sole cropped check pea.” Response: This result contradicted the results of Banik et al. [53], who observed that the chickpea yield in a wheat-chickpea mixture was significantly lower than that of a solely cropped chickpea. 2. Please correct the words Results “Results revealed that the CR of rice was greater” 3. Too lengthy sentences and not clear “Results revealed that partial land equivalent ratio (PLER) of rice and grass pea in all cropping systems were greater than 0.5 (Figure 4 ) indicating that there was null or very low growth resource competition between the component crops during their co-growing period which supports the CR values. Response: corrected based on the comment Reviewer #2: The article needs to be modified according to the comments ( Please find the attachment ) The introduction and discussion part need to be improvised with the adsition of related articles and findings. Response: corrected based on the comment ________________________________________ Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281410.r002
22 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Rupesh Kailasrao Deshmukh, Editor Enhancing the land use efficiency of low-land rice ( Oryza sativa L.) - grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) additive series relay intercropping in North-Western Ethiopia: A farmer’s indigenous knowledge PONE-D-23-01912R1 Dear Dr. Bitew, 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, Rupesh Kailasrao Deshmukh, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: Yes: Surendra Barpete Reviewer #2: Yes: Dharini Chittaragi ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281410.r003
Formally Accepted
27 Jun 2023 Acceptance Letter - Rupesh Kailasrao Deshmukh, Editor PONE-D-23-01912R1 Enhancing the land use efficiency of low-land rice (Oryza sativa L.) - grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) additive series relay intercropping in North-Western Ethiopia: A farmer’s indigenous knowledge Dear Dr. Bitew: 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. Rupesh Kailasrao Deshmukh Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281410.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 .