Responses to External Examiner Comments

Name: Hayat Ullah

Student ID: 116033

School: School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of

Technology, Thailand

Department: Department of Food, Agriculture and Bioresources

Dissertation Title: Evaluation of Water and Nutrient Management Strategies for Lowland Rice in the
Context of Decreasing Irrigation Water Availability

External Examiner: Dr. Ryoichi Doi

Associate Professor
Faculty of Social-Human Environmentology
Daito Bunka University, Tokyo 175-8571, Japan

Responses to External Examiner Comments:

(1) Method for root analysis: The method for root separation and analysis could be described in more detail
to make the manuscript be well understood and to convince readers. The current version sounds like that
the observed root tissues represent a part of the entire root system. The method will be understood and
justified if the technical details are explained. I found multiple root analytical methods. They reveal different
parts of a single root system. One of the most sophisticated is the following;
http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kufukufu/manual.pdf

The above method was used in multiple articles. The following are two among them.
i. Murakami, T. and Yoneyama, T. 1988. Comparison of root length of two rice (Oryza sativa L.)
varieties by using an image analyzer. Plant and Soil, 105, 287-289.
ii. Murakami, T., Murayama, S., Uchitsu, M. and Yoshida, S. 2002. Root length and distribution of
field-grown buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench). Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 48,
609-613.
However, even the above method has been proven to have limitations according to their articles and the
website. It is very difficult to exactly and precisely determine root biomass, length, and other parameters.
Because of the difficulties, the comparison between the varieties and other experimental factors that result
in differences among what you observe should be the best that you can. Concise and clear explanations of
the most important points will be effective enough to convince readers of the methodological relevance and
reliability of the results.

Response: Thank you for such insightful comments. I would like to clarify that root system study was
mostly related to morphological parameters from greenhouse experiments. Collection of entire root system
is comparatively easy from pots, and we were able to collect the whole root system from the pots as shown
in the figures below:

Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5
After collecting the whole root system, it was gently washed with running tap water to remove the soil and
the data on different parameters were collected. This method was also helpful in collecting accurate data
on root biomass as we had a total of root system for each treatment. To estimate the actual root length, we
used the line intersect method as proposed by Tennant (1975):

 Tennant, D., 1975. A test of a modified line intersect method of estimating root length. Journal of
Ecology, 63, 995-1001.

We would like to highlight that every possible effort was made to collect the most accurate data on different
root system parameters.

2. Are some figures containing multivariate analysis of variance-like information necessary?

Is it better to replace them with tables? How about to prepare a table listing all means ± standard
deviations as those for the dependent variable with all main effects/treatments? This type of table such as
Table 4.1 is more informative than a figure containing results of multivariate analysis of variance, I believe.
For example, you may compare Table 4.1 which looks to be more effective for readers to feel the reality
shown by the values than a corresponding figure which shows results of multivariate analysis of variance.
Figure 4.1 indicates effects of watering regime and cultivation method while readers may feel like to know if
and how variety affected the outcome. How about to replace Figures 4.1 and similar with the tables that list
all means ± standard deviations, the significance of main effects/treatment, and significant differences
among the means?

Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue. The Figures have been replaced with Tables following
Table 4.1 in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.4 of the revised Dissertation as suggested.

Page 3 of 5
3. There are too many abbreviations
How about to limit the number? I found so many abbreviations that I could not remember. If a phrase does
not appear so often, it is reader-friendly not to abbreviate the phrase. In the first page of the Abstract
section, a word of transplanting is abbreviated. Do you seriously need it to abbreviate? To me, it must be
more reader-friendly not to abbreviate the single word which would be easily put in a table or a figure. In
page 19, the first paragraph of 2.5: Concept of… section, you don’t have to abbreviate abscisic acid
because the compound name does not appear many times. Meanwhile, in the second page of the Abstract
section, I found an abbreviation of FYM. I could not figure out what it was abbreviated from. In p 80, I found
it. Please be careful to minimize the use of unnecessary and confusing abbreviations that widely distribute
in the current draft.

Response: The whole Dissertation has been revisited, and the abbreviations not frequently used have
been removed such as Abscisic Acid (ABA), Billion Cubic Meter (BCM), and some others. In the revised
version of the Dissertation, words are abbreviated only when they are used more than five times or if it is a
name of some organizations such as IPCC, FAO, AIT, etc.

4. Consistency of wording
I found some possibly inconsistent use of words. Please go through the entire manuscript by using the find
(and replace) function of your word processor. For example, in the third paragraph of the Abstract section, I
found a phrase of “A pot study”. In the same paragraph, you will see another phrase of “pot experiment”.
Do the phrases differ? In Table 4.13, dry direct seeding and others are shown as “Establishment methods”.
But in Tales 4.1 and others, apparently the same set of practices are shown as “Cultivation methods”. Do
you want to discriminate them in your thesis? In p 8, the Hypothesis section, the different phrases co-exist.
If this is right, then how about to explain differences between them? If not, please find a common phrase
which well fits in the contexts. In Tables 4.11 and 4.12, I found a possibly related word of “Seeding (S)”. Is it
different from the above phrases?

Response: Each chapter of this Dissertation has been submitted to Journals and specific wording was
used as per the Journal requirements. The technical meaning of seeding/cultivation methods/crop
establishment methods is basically the same; however, these words have been interchangeably used to
match with the Journal style and word preference. However, to be consistent, the word ‘seeding’ has been
used in the whole Dissertation. Dry direct seeding used in Table 4.13 is a type of crop establishment.

5. In the Discussion sections, how about to indicate table/figure from which you are extending your
discussion? For example, …compared with RD57, RD41 was a slow grower (Fig. 1). It will enable readers
to confirm the results as the evidences of your discussion.

Response: Thank you for this excellent suggestion. Table/figure number would be indicated from which the
discussion is extended.

Specific comments

p 31. Was the temperature range for the inside of the polyhouse? Was the inside air-conditioned?

Response: This was the outside temperature range. Inside temperature was 2–3 °C higher than outside
temperature. Inside of the polyhouse was not air-conditioned.

Page 4 of 5
p 60. The third paragraph. …an inconsistent response in root number of RD 57 and RD 41 was…
I guess that you are commenting about non-linearity between the K application rate and root number. Does
it mean that there were optimal rates of K application for the rice varieties? The optima could differ among
the varieties in terms of root development. How about to take the non-linearity into consideration? You may
do it in the future as well.

Response: Yes, based on our results we recommended optimum K dose for each variety and seeding
method. Optimum dose was different among varieties and seeding methods.

p 87. Fig. 4.22. I can see the numbers of filled grain per panicle. Does it look nice if you add the information
on filled grain percentage?

Response: Information on filled grain percentage has been included in the revised version of the
Dissertation.

p 88. 4.1.3.3 Discussion Line 3. A decreased R:S ratio for… I didn’t find the data as a figure or a table. Is
there any?

Response: That was a mistake and the required data were presented under Section 4.1.1. Correction has
now been made while revising the Dissertation.

p 98. Table 4.12. Transplanted Pathumthani 1 experienced the poorest filled grain percentage at 160 kg
K/ha treatment while 80 kg K/ha was the best. Can you add an explanation of this to the end of the
discussion section in p 103? This may indicate that the K application rate was too high for the variety. The
variety”s physiological traits may be related to the result. Any information or ideas?

Response: Required explanation has been provided in the revised version of the Dissertation as
suggested by the External Examiner.

P 112. The last line has “(Fig. 4.387c)”. Likely to be “(Fig. 4.37c)”, instead.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this mistake. It has been corrected in the revised version.

P 112-114 (Figures 4.37, 7.38) After taking a time to gaze at the figures, I got and impression that it is
difficult to arrive at relationships between yield and the given factors in the factorial experiment. In the
future, you may try to construct models to describe yield and other responses of the plant used in this
study. The model might contain some non-linear patterns then the patterns may show optimal values of
treatments such as the best K application rate.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The mentioned Figures have been generated to find out the
relationship between shoot dry matter and grain yield for different varieties, cultivation methods and
irrigation management practices (Fig. 4.37) and between harvest index and water productivity (Fig. 4.38)
through regression analysis.

Page 5 of 5