Cattle Grazing Moderates Greenhouse Gas and Particulate Matter Emissions from California Grassland Wildfires

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript No. sustainability-2566796
titled: “Cattle Grazing Moderates Greenhouse Gas and Particulate Matter Emissions from California Grassland Wildfires”
The authors study the mitigation of GHG and PM emissions from wildfires by the action of cattle grazing. The study is justified for the best knowledge of the effect of this activity on these emissions and the reduction of its environmental damage.
The research work follows the standard scientific procedures. Conclusions are adequately based on the results. But there are different aspects that need to be clarified and corrected before this publication.
- I consider that the most important contribution of this work is the development of the model that allows knowing the effect of cattle grazing on GHG and PM emissions. But this model is not sufficiently justified in the manuscript. The needs of using the MC model in this research must be clearly presented in the “Introduction” section. The advantage of this probabilistic method over estimates using mean or typical values had to be explained.
- Also references to other works or papers that used this methodology for similar studies is necessary in the “Introduction” section.
- Due to the importance of the model in the work, I consider that the MC model should be introduced in detail in the "Material and Method" section. It's too important to be just supplementary material. In the current version, the main text looks like just a presentation of results and discussion.
- Some information is needed on the importance of grassland wildfires in total GHG and PM emissions for the state of California. Then the relevance of this research would be clearer.
- Finally, a discussion on predicting the increase in wildfires for future years and its correlation with climate change could also be introduced into the manuscript. The mitigation of emissions by cattle grazing could be estimated for these years, considering that the scrub and grass will also be affected by this climate change.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General remarks

The manuscript deals with a very hot and interesting topic, besides perfectly fits to the scope of Sustainability. Results and conclusions are remarkable, based on enough and relevant literatures and well-supported methodology therefore they can contribute to the development of assessing the environmental effects of livestocks, However, it contains some open questions, as well as few formal and structural inaccuracies. I hope that my comments may help for the authors to make the manuscript better and suitable for publication.

 Detailed comments

 1.     Keywords should not be the same as the words in the title. Differential expressions may result more shots via search engines and make the future citations easier.

2.     References are up-to-date and above average, however I am of the opinion that considering the following basic book must be useful between the sources and perhaps in the Discussions section, too: Henning Steinfeld, Pierre Gerber, Tom Wassenaar, Vincent Castel, Mauricio Rosles, Cees de Haan (2006): Livestock's Long Shadow. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ISBN 92-5-105571-8. https://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e.pdf

3.     I also missed some up-to-date global data from the literature section about livestock’s GHG emission, importance in climate change and change in ploughlands and forest areas in the long run. They could highlight the importance of the reseaerch topic.

4.     If some comparision between intensive (maize-based feedstock) and extensive (grazing) cattle production would be introduced in the literature, it must be supported a conclusion, which is the best way to produce beef meat.

5.     I accept all the assumptions regarding calculations of time period, emission factors, emission equivalents and shrub/grass analysis, they are logical and practical. However, handling the wide range of forage consumption by cattles and burned areas in differential regions should be strengthened, or more explained.

6.     The data sources are missing in near all figures and tables (excl. Fig. 1). If they are own collection, it should also be indicated, if statistical booklets, then even more.

7.     Fig. 2: What about the tendency of grassland burned in wildfires? The peak (2020) might become typical in the future (because of climate change), or much less areas are expectable?

In a nutshell, the topic is very interesting, well-supported and has great potential for the readers, but the elaboration of the manuscript must be improved based on the recommendations so that it may reach the level of publishing in the Sustainability. Congratulations for the authors and good work!

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the manuscript has been adequately improved. All my recommendations have been satisfactorily responded to. The current version is more precise and understandable. 

I want to thank the authors for their efforts in this correction.