PONE-D-23-16309Climate Change in Bangladesh: Temperature and Rainfall Climatology of Bangladesh for 1949–2013 and its implication on rice yieldPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alam,

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 Aug 19 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,

Md. Naimur Rahman

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. 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.

3. We note that Figures 1-3 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1-3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments:

Major revision requested:

#Reviewer 1

General comments

The study focuses on temperature and rainfall climatology and implication on rice yield. Though the objective of the study is to determine temperature and rainfall climatology implication on rice yield for time series for longer period. The author tried to make the paper comprehensive, but it still requires some major tasks to be completed for improvement of its various sections.

Abstract

1. The abstract is informative up to the mark. It describes fully to reflect the whole study.

Introduction

1. The introduction seems over explanatory; it should be more concise.

2. Line 63: Citation of IPCC 2001 should be updated. I believe IPCC published more exclusive reports regarding the issue after 2001 (ex. Line 65).

3. What is the evidence of this statement in Line 141?

Methodology

1. Overall, analytical techniques are well described in a scientific way and well fitted to the study.

2. Why the data duration is from 1949-2013? The decadal temperature change in results and discussion section. So, did not temperature change in between 2013 to 2023? It is not enough to describe as limitation of this study. It could add more value to this study and most importantly the results could be different. Because, rice yield area (Table-2 of https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261128), production (Table-3 of https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261128) has been changed between 2008-2020.

3. It is advised to add data from 2013- till the available date (2023 or 2022) in this study and analyze again to get more specific results.

Results

1. The presentation of results is well organized.

2. According to methodology, results are well described.

3. After adding data from 2013-2023 (2022), please write results accordingly.

Discussion

1. The discussion is also well described.

2. Line 561: Please mention some recent major studies with example. If the studies did not use longer time series data, please show the comparison of the data periods. From line 533-560 author showed comparison of results with other studies, not data sets.

3. After adding data from 2013-20233 (2022), please write discussion accordingly.

Conclusion

1. The revised conclusion should be based on the revised methodology.

Decision

I recommend “Major revision”.

#Reviewer 2

The manuscript has some shortcomings which need to be improved prior to its publication. My recommendation is that the article needs Major Revisions before it can be considered for publication.

1. Abstract: The abstract is a bit generic. Please add some more information regarding your results. It should be improved in a quantitative way.

2. Author should specify the key objectives of this research work in last paragraph of introduction section.

3. Introduction is generalized. I would recommend following recent research articles to reconstruct this section with extensive literature

“Profitable agricultural land use planning in a red and lateritic soil of subtropical environment using field-based index of crop suitability (ICS”

“Field based index of land suitability (ILS): a new approach for rainfed paddy crop production in groundwater scarce region”

4. Methodology section is weakly written. So, my suggestion is to reconstruct it. Author need to review more about RS-GIS environment and current techniques.

“Characterization of groundwater potential zones in water-scarce hardrock regions using data driven model”

“Hydrogeochemical Evaluation of Groundwater Aquifers and Associated Health Hazard Risk Mapping Using Ensemble Data Driven Model in a Water Scares Plateau Region of Eastern India”

“Hydrogeochemical evaluation and corresponding health risk from elevated arsenic and fluoride contamination in recurrent coastal multi-aquifers of eastern India”

“Application of novel data-mining technique based nitrate concentration susceptibility prediction approach for coastal aquifers in India”

“Hydro-chemical assessment of groundwater pollutant and corresponding health risk in the Ganges delta, Indo-Bangladesh region”

Hydrogeochemical characterization based water resources vulnerability assessment in India's first Ramsar site of Chilka lake

5. Discussion section should be written by comparing with already published articles in this concept.

6. In conclusion section, you have to mention the implications of your research and how it makes a footprint in scientific research. Try to incorporate your work to global interest how this research has worldwide importance. It will be interesting for the readers.

7. Reference: Re-check the whole reference just to make sure you have added all the references that you cited in your manuscript.

8. Apart from this the quality of the overall paper is very good. I prefer this article with acceptable with major modifications.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: General comments

The study focuses on temperature and rainfall climatology and implication on rice yield. Though the objective of the study is to determine temperature and rainfall climatology implication on rice yield for time series for longer period. The author tried to make the paper comprehensive, but it still requires some major tasks to be completed for improvement of its various sections.

Abstract

1. The abstract is informative up to the mark. It describes fully to reflect the whole study.

Introduction

1. The introduction seems over explanatory; it should be more concise.

2. Line 63: Citation of IPCC 2001 should be updated. I believe IPCC published more exclusive reports regarding the issue after 2001 (ex. Line 65).

3. What is the evidence of this statement in Line 141?

Methodology

1. Overall, analytical techniques are well described in a scientific way and well fitted to the study.

2. Why the data duration is from 1949-2013? The decadal temperature change in results and discussion section. So, did not temperature change in between 2013 to 2023? It is not enough to describe as limitation of this study. It could add more value to this study and most importantly the results could be different. Because, rice yield area (Table-2 of https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261128), production (Table-3 of https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261128) has been changed between 2008-2020.

3. It is advised to add data from 2013- till the available date (2023 or 2022) in this study and analyze again to get more specific results.

Results

1. The presentation of results is well organized.

2. According to methodology, results are well described.

3. After adding data from 2013-20233 (2022), please write results accordingly.

Discussion

1. The discussion is also well described.

2. Line 561: Please mention some recent major studies with example. If the studies did not use longer time series data, please show the comparison of the data periods. From line 533-560 author showed comparison of results with other studies, not data sets.

3. After adding data from 2013-20233 (2022), please write discussion accordingly.

Conclusion

1. The revised conclusion should be based on the revised methodology.

Decision

I recommend “Major revision”.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript Ref No.: PONE-D-23-16309

The manuscript has some shortcomings which need to be improved prior to its publication. My recommendation is that the article needs Major Revisions before it can be considered for publication.

1. Abstract: The abstract is a bit generic. Please add some more information regarding your results. It should be improved in a quantitative way.

2. Author should specify the key objectives of this research work in last paragraph of introduction section.

3. Introduction is generalized. I would recommend following recent research articles to reconstruct this section with extensive literature

“Profitable agricultural land use planning in a red and lateritic soil of subtropical environment using field-based index of crop suitability (ICS”

“Field based index of land suitability (ILS): a new approach for rainfed paddy crop production in groundwater scarce region”

4. Methodology section is weakly written. So, my suggestion is to reconstruct it. Author need to review more about RS-GIS environment and current techniques.

“Characterization of groundwater potential zones in water-scarce hardrock regions using data driven model”

“Hydrogeochemical Evaluation of Groundwater Aquifers and Associated Health Hazard Risk Mapping Using Ensemble Data Driven Model in a Water Scares Plateau Region of Eastern India”

“Hydrogeochemical evaluation and corresponding health risk from elevated arsenic and fluoride contamination in recurrent coastal multi-aquifers of eastern India”

“Application of novel data-mining technique based nitrate concentration susceptibility prediction approach for coastal aquifers in India”

“Hydro-chemical assessment of groundwater pollutant and corresponding health risk in the Ganges delta, Indo-Bangladesh region”

Hydrogeochemical characterization based water resources vulnerability assessment in India's first Ramsar site of Chilka lake

5. Discussion section should be written by comparing with already published articles in this concept.

6. In conclusion section, you have to mention the implications of your research and how it makes a footprint in scientific research. Try to incorporate your work to global interest how this research has worldwide importance. It will be interesting for the readers.

7. Reference: Re-check the whole reference just to make sure you have added all the references that you cited in your manuscript.

8. Apart from this the quality of the overall paper is very good. I prefer this article with acceptable with major modifications.

**********

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.

Climate Change in Bangladesh: Temperature and Rainfall Climatology of Bangladesh for 1949–2013 and its implication on rice yield

PONE-D-23-16309R1

Dear Dr. Alam,

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,

Md. Naimur Rahman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I am happy to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication in 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

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: Authors addressed all the comments and after review response of the manuscript from authors is up to the mark now to go for printing.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all the review comments accordingly. This manuscript can be accepted in its present form.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

**********