PWAT-D-22-00035

Impacts of different water management technologies on water productivity, partial nutrient balance, and yield of bread wheat at Koga irrigation scheme

PLOS Water

Dear Dr. Tiruye,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Water. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Water'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 03 2022 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 water@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pwat/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Theivasigamani Parthasarathi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Water

Journal Requirements:

1. We have amended your Competing Interest and Financial Disclosure statement to comply with journal style. We kindly ask that you double check the statement and let us know if anything is incorrect. 

2. Please ensure that the Title in your manuscript file and the Title provided in your online submission form are the same.

3. Figure 1: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map used and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions.

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov)

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl)

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

4. "Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format and removed from the manuscript file.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/water/s/figures  

https://journals.plos.org/water/s/figures#loc-file-requirements 

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that "The data is available on my hand, I can provide if you request.". All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I can now let you know that the manuscript has been reviewed by the Editorial Board. You are advised to carefully edit the manuscript before considering it for publication after making minor changes.

When revising the manuscript, the reviewers' suggestions listed below should be taken into consideration. Please have a native speaker proofread the manuscript. You must submit a covering letter with your revised manuscript that details all the edits you made as well as your responses to all the comments made by the editor and the reviewer(s). Please provide an explanation if you disagree with any comment(s). Authors need to submit the changes made in the manuscript as well as point by point reply to the reviewers . Please use "track changes" or color-code your changes in the revised manuscript so that editors and reviewers can easily spot them.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Water’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Water 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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:

Abstract:

Some confusing words and sentences need to rewrite them. Such as, in Line 9, does the development of irrigation means developing irrigation technologies？in Line 14，What is the difference between the irrigation technologies and irrigation water management technologies？

Materials and methods:

The methods were not written clearly. Such as, in line 86 to line 92, WFD and Chameleon sensor, the PR2 profile probe were placed at different depth of soil, why using three kinds of sensors? What is the purpose of this work?In line 107, The amount of irrigation water applied for each experimental plot was determined by crop water requirement? if not, please explain the reason in details!

Results and discussions:

In section 3.6, about the analysis of Partial nutrient balance, there are three factors , nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, each factor will affect the yield of wheat differently, how did you evaluate each nutrient balance!

Reviewer #2: General Remarks

The topic treated in the manuscript is suitable for the journal. However, introduction section lacks clear the novelty of study. Materials and methods section is not in detail. Moreover, experimental design is controversial. In Results and discussions sections explanation of results are missing. It is recommended that the English, throughout the entire manuscript, be revised by an experienced scientific editor or by a colleague with appreciable experience of publishing scientific articles in English. Therefore, in this current format I would recommend the manuscript to be rejected.

Comments in details are following:

Introduction:

• The existing researches on the impact of different water management technologies on water productivity, nutrient balance, and yield of bread wheat, including controversial conclusions, research gaps or problems. Also, the innovation and significance of this study should be highlighted.

• Update all the references in the Introduction.

• What hypothesis could be drawn from the reviewing previous studies?

• the paper lacks a clear explanation of its novelty

Material and Methods

• The material and methods are very straightforward and do not include innovative parts.

• Year and study duration is missing in the MS.

• The experimental design is controversial and not cleared. In line 80-81 mentioned there were two factors i.e., treatment and irrigation block. But in actual there is only one factor that is irrigation treatments.

• Missing the explanation of what are WFD, CHS, and FP techniques.

• In section 2.3 data collection lacks the details.

• In line 110-111 reference is missing.

• In section 2.5 Data analysis line 129-130 showed that two-way ANOVA was held. But in Results and discussion section there is no such analysis presented.

Results and discussions

• In line 146 replace PH by pH

• Line 156 according to whom? Similarly in Line 259 and Line 274 reported by whom?

• Section 3.5 should be placed before section 3.4

• The discussions sections lacks the explanations of results. The Discussion should be rewritten as well.

• In table 7 ± represents what value?

• In line 302 replace statically with statistically

• What represents OUT2 and OUT1 in line 263-264?

Conclusions and recommendations

• Line 309-313 is not a conclusion.

• This section should be rewritten as well.

Reviewer #3: Overall manuscript has merit to publish. However there are some errors indicated below needs to be corrected. Overall proof reading should be done.

1. Several words are joined together, please have a look and correct them, it may happen due to software versions or during pdf building.

2. In Line 146, 148 and 151 Table 3 is wrongly mentioned, as per text description it should be table 2 ).

3. In the table 2 expanded forms of EC, OM, FC, PWP should be mentioned either in the legends or below the table. pH should be written as pH instead of PH throughout manuscript.

4. Author studied partial nutrient balance of potassium, however there in no information about native level of potassium concentration the soil, authors have checked phosphorous and nitrogen only.

5. Figure numbering is wrong. Box plot figure is given no.2 it should be Figure No.3 and should be cited as figure3 in the manuscript.

6. Line 188, for reference no. 14 writes only Schmitter (14) not Schmitter, Haileslassie (14).

7. Line 215, 216 Table 11 was written but there is no such table11 is provided in the manuscript.

8. Table 7, 8, 9 and 10 are given but not cited anywhere in the manuscript.

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Xuebin Qi

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr Bal Krishna, Jain R&D, Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. India

**********

[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: Comments for PLOS water manuscript.docx

Yield, Water Productivity and Nutrient Balances under Different Water Management Technologies of Irrigated Wheat in Ethiopia

PWAT-D-22-00035R1

Dear Mr Tiruye,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Yield, Water Productivity and Nutrient Balances under Different Water Management Technologies of Irrigated Wheat in Ethiopia' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Water.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 water@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Water.

Best regards,

Theivasigamani Parthasarathi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Water

***********************************************************

I can now inform you that the Editorial Board has examined the manuscript. The authors addressed every reviewer's comment and made the necessary modifications. Please see the comments from the three reviewers; the manuscript is accepted as is.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Water’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Water 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

Reviewer #3: 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 comments

Reviewer #2: The revised version of the MS is improved overall. After following minor revision, I would recommend the manuscript to be accepted.

Minor remarks

• Move lines 164-170 below lines 144.

• Cite the references No. 12, 19, 20, 22, and 24 in the text as Author [year] format.

• Statistically analysis is missing in table 7.

References

Reference 1, 6, 7, 14, 19, 20, 24 missing the details of reference type, page no, volume (issue no), and page no.

Reviewer #3: Authors has addressed all the questions

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Faisal Mehmood

Reviewer #3: Yes: Bal Krishna

**********