Complexity, Crash and Collapse of Chaos: Clues for Designing Sustainable Systems, with Focus on Grassland-Based Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

This manuscript offers a deeply conceptual and thought-provoking enumeration of pastoralism. I have seen two figures numbered ‘4’ in lines 1448 and 1467. Some clarifications are needed there.

Overall, an excellent paper that will offer us a sound way of thinking in relation to pastoralism and designs. 

Author Response

To the editor and the reviewers.

 First of all thanks and so much for the deadline be extended considerably. We did want to address ALL and in detail – comments and suggestions of the reviewers and editor, which we did, acknowledging those suggestions and comments not only enrich this work, but also add clarity to the message that our work attempts to convey.

Answers to comments are presented below in CAPS

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I agreed to revise this article on the basis of the title and the summary which were very promising and brought a series of new approaches, to study pastoral systems and in general livestock and agricultural systems. In my career I have used chaotic approaches and the use of fractals for the study of the dynamics of wild species, such as black grouse, showing the collapse of chaos and fractal dimensions, as introduced by the article, at the same time I worked on pastoral systems that have very specific dynamics such as the livestock management of the Bedouins in the Sinai Desert and now the Alpine livestock systems that suffer the action of climate change, economic policies and now the action of carnivores, to whom the article gives an important reading. I read and use in my lectures the texts of Leopold, Rapoport, Mandelbrot, Prigogine.... and find them in this text is very fascinating, stimulating and pertinent. That said, the work has kept expectations but it is very difficult to read and formally has aspects that must be addressed and improved. It is true that the authors say that the work can be read and understood only by those who know some aspects and theories but this is a limit to the enhancement of the article itself and its paradigm and the philosophy behind it. I suggest making it more understandable with concrete examples of different pastoral systems, also using tables and graphs that explain in a synthetic way what is described and proposed as new paradigms; The article has many graphs, figures and tables but lacks an effort of synthesis. From the formal point of view, the form of the bibliography, in the text, must respect the provisions of the journal and must faithfully allow the reader to find the bibliographical source on all citations. Even the list of references is not formally correct. In my opinion, it is not acceptable to refer in a generic way to the Internet to deepen some central themes, there must be one or more bibliographic citations; when you cite a sentence of an author faithfully reported you must use the quotation mark or italics. There is great clutter in the order of the figures and tables in the text with page jumps, after the text. Some figures are unreadable or the drawings should be clearer and the formatting and style should be the same for all figures and tables, apart from the "artistic" ones. In parts of the text or in the table sometimes the reference is missing (for example, row 142, ministry of which country?; or table 3, row 1422, which country ?) I would like to review the article after these improvements to make a further assessment, of very interesting work, but not easy to read.

Author Response

To the editor and the reviewers.

 First of all thanks and so much for the deadline be extended considerably. We did want to address ALL and in detail – comments and suggestions of the reviewers and editor, which we did, acknowledging those suggestions and comments not only enrich this work, but also add clarity to the message that our work attempts to convey.

Answers to comments are presented below in CAPS

I agreed to revise this article on the basis of the title and the summary which were very promising and brought a series of new approaches, to study pastoral systems and in general livestock and agricultural systems. In my career I have used chaotic approaches and the use of fractals for the study of the dynamics of wild species, such as black grouse, showing the collapse of chaos and fractal dimensions, as introduced by the article, at the same time I worked on pastoral systems that have very specific dynamics such as the livestock management of the Bedouins in the Sinai Desert and now the Alpine livestock systems that suffer the action of climate change, economic policies and now the action of carnivores, to whom the article gives an important reading. I read and use in my lectures the texts of Leopold, Rapoport, Mandelbrot, Prigogine.... and find them in this text is very fascinating, stimulating and pertinent. THESE COMMENTS PLEASE US

That said, the work has kept expectations but it is very difficult to read and formally has aspects that must be addressed and improved. POINT IS VALID AND WE HAVE WORKED ON THAT

It is true that the authors say that the work can be read and understood only by those who know some aspects and theories but this is a limit to the enhancement of the article itself and its paradigm and the philosophy behind it. SORRY TO HAVE IMPLIED THAT THE TEXT CAN BE READ ‘ONLY’ BY THOSE WHO KNOW (ETC). WE CERTAINLY ALSO HOPE TO REACH ‘UNITITIATED’ READERS AND TO RAISE THEIR INTEREST, WITHOUT PERHAPS GRASPING EVERYTHING AFTER ONE READING.

I suggest making it more understandable with concrete examples of different pastoral systems, also using tables and graphs that explain in a synthetic way what is described and proposed as new paradigms; The article has many graphs, figures and tables but lacks an effort of synthesis. POINT IS TAKEN AND WE SHARE THIS CONCERN. OUR STRUGGLE WAS (AND IS) TO GIVE A GOOD OVERVIEW MAKING ISSUES AND METHODOLOGIES ACCESSIBLE TO A CURIOUS AUDIENCE. HOWEVER, THE FORMAT IS THAT OF AN ARTICLE AND NOT IN OF A BOOK. OUR GOAL IS ACHIEVED WHEN READERS GET TRIGGERED INTO FURTHER STUDY. WE DID, HOWEVER, ADD PRACTICAL CASES AND REFERENCE TO PRACTICE. PERHAPS THAT IS SOMEHWAT CLEARER AFTER THE RE-EDIT AN ADDING MORE WOULD BLOAT THE MS EVEN MORE.
THE OTHER POINT THAT WE AGREE TO IS THAT THE PAPER IS ‘HARD TO READ’. WE A WENT THROUGH THE TEXT AGAIN, MAKING IT CRISPER WHERE WE COULD, AND ADDING EVEN ANOTHER EDITING ROUND BY A NATIVE SPEAKER. TO BE FRANK, WE ARE HAPPY ABOUT THE ‘TECHNICAL PART’ BUT WE STILL STRUGGLE WITH THE ISSUE OF LANGUAGE AND LAY OUT

From the formal point of view, the form of the bibliography, in the text, must respect the provisions of the journal and must faithfully allow the reader to find the bibliographical source on all citations. WE HAVE WORKED ON THAT AND WE HOPE THAT PROBEM IS NOW SOLVED.

Even the list of references is not formally correct. THIS POINT COULD BE TRUE BUT WE WONDER ABOUT ‘FORMALLY CORRECT’. IS IT JUST THAT REFERENCES ARE MISSING OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE

In my opinion, it is not acceptable to refer in a generic way to the Internet to deepen some central themes, there must be one or more bibliographic citations; when you cite a sentence of an author faithfully reported you must use the quotation mark or italics. THAT HAS NOW BEEN ADDRESSED

There is great clutter in the order of the figures and tables in the text with page jumps, after the text. WE HOPE TO HAVE CORRECTED THOSE CONCERNS AND ‘FALLACIES’

Some figures are unreadable or the drawings should be clearer and the formatting and style should be the same for all figures and tables, apart from the "artistic" ones. BY ALL MEANS, IF THAT IS A SERIOUS ISSUE WE WILL TAKE TIME TO REDESIGN THE TABLES AND FIGURES BUT IT COULD NOT BE DONE WITHIN THE PRESENT DEADLINE AND OUR WORKLOADS (WE DO NOT BLAME THE REFEREE OR EDITORS FOR THE DEADLINE)

In parts of the text or in the table sometimes the reference is missing (for example, row 142, ministry of which country? THAT WAS THE NETHERLANDS; or table 3, row 1422 THAT WAS THE US, which country ?)

I would like to review the article after these improvements to make a further assessment, of very interesting work, but not easy to read. WE ARE HAPPY WITH THESE COMMENTS AND WE DO TAKE THE POINTS. WE ALSO DO CONTINUE TO THINK THAT IT IS AN INTERESTING PIECE OF WORK.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript (MS) entitled "Complexity, crash and collapse of chaos in pastoralism: clues for designing sustainable systems" (authors Hans Schiere and Pablo Gregorini) considers issues of complexity, chaos, paradigms highly important for the understanding and development of sustainable systems.

 

This manuscript is a brilliant implementation of a systemic approach and a high level of conceptualization in relation to the issues under consideration.

 

To a certain extent, this manuscript could even be considered as a model of how to write high quality articles.

 

Although, of course, certain places in the manuscript could cause objections and critical disputes, nevertheless, this may not be so significant, and mainly due to the fact that the authors of the manuscript have the right to a point of view substantiated by them, giving the appropriate argument.

 

And even if something could be considered in the context of a slight “provocative stimulus” in order to hook the reader and initiate a discussion, then this can be considered as a situation with a positive and constructive accent.

 

In general, this manuscript has excellent potential to be published in the journal Sustainability.

 

At the same time, it is certain that there is considerable potential for improvement and optimization in this manuscript.

 

Comments on the manuscript during the first round of peer review:

 

1. It may be worth noting that the manuscript deals with a wider range of issues in an appropriate context than is stated in the title of the manuscript.

In this regard, the title of the manuscript could be optimized?

Or to ensure greater concentration on the main subject of consideration there.

 

2. The Abstract is excellent, in general.

Although, perhaps, after reviewing and re-editing the text of the manuscript, this could be optimized.

Still, it would be better if the research results were presented there more specifically.

 

3. Concerning the Introduction section:

 

It is seen that the implementation of the manuscript concept is in the right direction, but the level of conceptualization there is somewhat insufficient for a work of this importance and value.

Certainly, it is desirable to implement a more certain, specific and focused approach in the manuscript.

The approach of great assurance presented in the Abstract should be further strengthened in it, and even more strongly expressed and implemented in the main text of the manuscript.

In this regard, and in general, it is necessary to give clear definitions and interpretations of the considered and used terms, methodologies and paradigms in the Introduction, including consideration and discussion of alternative approaches and explain in more detail what is what there.

 

The reference at the end of the sentence (about the purpose of the manuscript) to Gregorini and Maxwell (2020) would be better removed and this reference is better to use before or after the formulation of the MS goal.

 

Regarding the approach in line 92 with only “major references on specific issues” - for this manuscript it would be better to discuss and explain some places there in more detail.

If you have already taken up such a topic, then you should not avoid detailing where necessary!

 

4. Moving further along the text: the material presented in the manuscript makes it possible to form an original conceptual platform within the scope of this research, and this must be done in full!

It is desirable to more clearly implement the concept of a connecting thread in the reasoning between the beginning and end of the manuscript.

 

5. About linearity and non-linearity, about complexity

Are the authors ready to admit or deny unambiguously that the main achievements in the sciences and the corresponding implementation in practice are made on the basis of linear concepts? – It is necessary to provide more justification and argumentation, and especially in relation to the specific research issues in this manuscript.

Do non-linear approaches have reasonable achievements that are equivalent and/or superior to linear ones?

Is it possible to provide more justification in this context?

It is necessary to integrate the discussion of the concept of complexity and related aspects in more detail to solve the problems of the manuscript.

 

6. Despite the fact that the manuscript still looks like a more theoretical study, nevertheless, it is necessary to extract something from it in the context of practical significance and place a certain emphasis on the applicability of the results of the work done.

 

7. In recent years, there is definitely a negative trend when the term "paradigm" in various fields is used inappropriately, in the sense that it is used in a meaning of a lower level than this term is.

In this regard, it is desirable to provide in the manuscript a more detailed explanation of the term "paradigm", how it is interpreted and what the authors put into it - with relevant examples, including those applicable to the tasks of the current study.

 

According to the authors of the manuscript (page 3, footnote 4): “Difference (divergence) between terms used across disciplines can hide similarity of concepts. For example, differences between the terms approach, worldview and paradigm are small enough to permit their cross use".

This needs to be developed and discussed in more detail.

 

8. It is desirable to shed more light on the issues of reductionism vs/and holism in the context of the issues and tasks considered in the manuscript.

 

9. It is also desirable to implement a higher level of conceptualization and generalization in general based on the reasoning and analysis given in the manuscript.

 

10. The authors actively refer to philosophers in the manuscript.

In connection with this and the context of the manuscript under review, I would like to draw the attention of the authors of the manuscript to the following.

There are such works by A.I. Herzen (philosopher, publicist, writer) and N.G. Chernyshevsky (philosopher, publicist, writer, critic), respectively as "Who is to blame?" and "What to do?".

Of course, in the manuscript under review, the first part of this (“who is to blame?”) is definitely better implemented in the context of clarifying the essence of the phenomena under consideration.

But it would be great if the authors did more work in the context of a greater generalization of the revealed facts and patterns and the formulation of specific conclusions and specific proposals in the aspect of “what to do?” !!!

 

11. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to make some relations with the previous works of the authors, if there is a possibility for such papers.

Author Response

To the editor and the reviewers.

 First of all thanks and so much for the deadline be extended considerably. We did want to address ALL and in detail – comments and suggestions of the reviewers and editor, which we did, acknowledging those suggestions and comments not only enrich this work, but also add clarity to the message that our work attempts to convey.

Answers to comments are presented below in CAPS

The manuscript (MS) entitled "Complexity, crash and collapse of chaos in pastoralism: clues for designing sustainable systems" (authors Hans Schiere and Pablo Gregorini) considers issues of complexity, chaos, paradigms highly important for the understanding and development of sustainable systems.

This manuscript is a brilliant implementation of a systemic approach and a high level of conceptualization in relation to the issues under consideration. MAKES US TIMID

To a certain extent, this manuscript could even be considered as a model of how to write high quality articles. MAKES US EVEN MORE TIMID

Although, of course, certain places in the manuscript could cause objections and critical disputes, nevertheless, this may not be so significant, and mainly due to the fact that the authors of the manuscript have the right to a point of view substantiated by them, giving the appropriate argument. THANK YOU

And even if something could be considered in the context of a slight “provocative stimulus” in order to hook the reader and initiate a discussion, then this can be considered as a situation with a positive and constructive accent. POINT TAKEN AND AGREED

WE AGREE WITH THESE COMMENTS

In general, this manuscript has excellent potential to be published in the journal Sustainability.

At the same time, it is certain that there is considerable potential for improvement and optimization in this manuscript. WE DO HOPE THAT THE EXTRA EDITING INCLUDING THE HELP OF A NATIVE SPEAKER HAS ACHIEVED TO IMPROVE AND OPTIMIZE, APART YET FROM ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTIONS

Comments on the manuscript during the first round of peer review:

1. It may be worth noting that the manuscript deals with a wider range of issues in an appropriate context than is stated in the title of the manuscript. WE AGREE AND WE HAVE ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE BY STRESSING THE POINT A BIT MORE HERE AND THERE IN THE TEXT. WE ALSO HAVE REPHRASED THE TITLE INTO: Complexity, crash and collapse of chaos: clues for designing sustainable and ethical systems with application to work in Grassland Based systems.

In this regard, the title of the manuscript could be optimized? SEE POINT ABOVE, REGARDING THE CHANGE OF TITLE WITH ‘WITH APPLICATION TO WORK IN GRASSLAND BASED SYSTEMS

Or to ensure greater concentration on the main subject of consideration there. WE HAVE OPTED INDEED TO ADAPT THE TITLE AS THE REFEREE SUGGESTED

2. The Abstract is excellent, in general.

Although, perhaps, after reviewing and re-editing the text of the manuscript, this could be optimized. Still, it would be better if the research results were presented there more specifically. WE SEE THE POINT AND WE HOPE IT HAS IMPROVED NOW

3. Concerning the Introduction section:

It is seen that the implementation of the manuscript concept is in the right direction, but the level of conceptualization there is somewhat insufficient for a work of this importance and value. Certainly, it is desirable to implement a more certain, specific and focused approach in the manuscript. WE HOPE TO HAVE IMPROVED THINGS SUFFICIENTLY

The approach of great assurance presented in the Abstract should be further strengthened in it, and even more strongly expressed and implemented in the main text of the manuscript. SAME AS ABOVE: WE HOPE TO HAVE IMPROVED THINGS SUFFICIENTLY

In this regard, and in general, it is necessary to give clear definitions and interpretations of the considered and used terms, methodologies and paradigms in the Introduction, including consideration and discussion of alternative approaches and explain in more detail what is what there. ESPECIALLY THIS POINT GOT OUR ATTENTION AND THINGS MUST LOOK BRIGTHER THERE

The reference at the end of the sentence (about the purpose of the manuscript) to Gregorini and Maxwell (2020) would be better removed and this reference is better to use before or after the formulation of the MS goal. AMENDED

Regarding the approach in line 92 with only “major references on specific issues” - for this manuscript it would be better to discuss and explain some places there in more detail. WE DID REPHRASE AND ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. HOPEFULLY THAT IS ENOUGH

4. Moving further along the text: the material presented in the manuscript makes it possible to form an original conceptual platform within the scope of this research, and this must be done in full! WHILE RE-DITING AND RE-WORKING THE PAPER I STARTED TO SEE MORE AND MORE WHAT THE REFEREE MEANS. WE LIKE THE GENERAL APPROACH IN WHICH WE MOVE FROM AN INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND METHODS, VIA HANG-UPS AND BEHAVIOURS TOWARDS CHOICES. STRESSING AND RE-WORDING THAT SEQUENCE MIGHT ADDRESS THE REFEREE’S SUGGESTION
5. About linearity and non-linearity, about complexity

Are the authors ready to admit or deny unambiguously that the main achievements in the sciences and the corresponding implementation in practice are made on the basis of linear concepts? WE HAVE ELABORATED ON THE ‘DEFINITION’ OF LINEARITY AND NON LINEARITY AS WELL AS REDUCTIONIST AND HOLISTIC APPROACHES. BY DOING SO WE REFRAINED FROM ‘UNAMBIGIOUSLY’ PREFERRING ONE APPROACH OVER THE OTHER. THAT IS NOT FOR FEAR BUT FROM PRINCIPLE. IN COMPLEXITY ‘NOTHING’ IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE AND WE STATE / THINK THAT NEW COMBINATIONS OF THE TWO APPROACHES ARE TO BE FOUND WITHOUT THROWING ONE OVER THE FENCE. WE DO THINK ALSO THAT LINEAR APPROACHES FIT BETTER THE SHORT-TERM DEFAULT PROBLEMS AND NON-LINEAR METHODS SHOULD BETTER FIT THE COMPLEX DESIGN ISSUES OF THE LONG TERM

It is necessary to provide more justification and argumentation, and especially in relation to the specific research issues in this manuscript. HOPE WE HAVE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE ABOVE, AS WELL AS IN THE TEXT BY CHANGING EMPHASIS HERE AND THERE

Do non-linear approaches have reasonable achievements that are equivalent and/or superior to linear ones? WE HAVE MENTIONED EXAMPLES THROUGHOUT THE TEXT, HOPING IT IS SUFFICIENT. WE HAVE RESTRAINED OURSELVES NOT FOR LACK OF MORE EXAMPLES

Is it possible to provide more justification in this context? SEE COMMENT IN PREVIOUS SENTENCE

6. Despite the fact that the manuscript still looks like a more theoretical study, nevertheless, it is necessary to extract something from it in the context of practical significance and place a certain emphasis on the applicability of the results of the work done. WE DO THINK THAT HAS BEEN DONE AT SEVERAL PLACES
7. In recent years, there is definitely a negative trend when the term "paradigm" in various fields is used inappropriately, in the sense that it is used in a meaning of a lower level than this term is. In this regard, it is desirable to provide in the manuscript a more detailed explanation of the term "paradigm", how it is interpreted and what the authors put into it - with relevant examples, including those applicable to the tasks of the current study. THAT IS AN INTERESTING ISSUE. FROM OR WORK WITH SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THIS FIELD (AND WITH PEOPLE FROM PRACTICE) WE BECAME ACCUSTOMED TO USE PARADIGM / WORLDVIEW / MINDSET / KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS AND THE LIKE WITHOUT DISTINGUISHING (PERHAPS MOST DEPENDING ON THE VOCABULARY OF THE AUDIENCES IN FREQUENT WORKSHOPS, FIELDWORK, COURSES AND SO ON). IN THE NEW TEXT WE HAVE REPLIED THE QUESTION BY STATING (AND WE BELIEVE THAT IS A GOOD ARGUMENT) THAT PARADIGM (SHIFTS) CCCUR AT DIFFERENT ‘FRACTAL LEVELS (I.E. ACROSS THE DIFFERENT SYSTEM LEVELS). WE ADHERE TO THAT ARGUMENT UNLESS CHALLENGED AGAIN.

According to the authors of the manuscript (page 3, footnote 4): “Difference (divergence) between terms used across disciplines can hide similarity of concepts. THAT POINT IS BETTER ADDRESSED, ALSO SHIFTING INTO WHAT THIS REFEREE CALLS THE GENERALITY OF OUR PAPER. IN OUR INTERDISCIPLINARY WORK WE HAVE STRUGGLED OFTEN WITH THESE CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES, EVEN IF THEIR RESULTING MISUNDERSTANDINGS CAN BE SOLVED ONCE ONE STARTS TO RECOGNIZE THEM. BY REFERRING TO EXAMPLES FROM ANIMAL AND PLANT TAXONOMY WE HOPE TO HAVE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE SUFFICIENTLY WITHOUT CMPKLICATING IT FURTHER

For example, differences between the terms approach, worldview and paradigm are small enough to permit their cross use". This needs to be developed and discussed in more detail. SEE THE COMMENTS IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPH(S).

8. It is desirable to shed more light on the issues of reductionism vs/and holism in the context of the issues and tasks considered in the manuscript. WE HAVE DONE SO UNDER TERMS AND TERMINOLOGIES, ATTEMPTING TO BE BRIEF ON THIS ISSUE THAT DESERVES BOOKS
9. It is also desirable to implement a higher level of conceptualization and generalization in general based on the reasoning and analysis given in the manuscript. WE FIRST FAILED TO SEE THIS POINT, BUT EVENTUALLY WE TOOK IT AS A MESSAGE TO BE CLEARER ON THE GENERAL VALIDITY OF THE CONCEPTS. IF THAT WAS THE INTENTION WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE BY STRESSING MORE THAT THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES ARE GENERAL, BY REVERTING THE TITLE FROM SPECIFIC à GENERAL INTO GENERAL à SPECIFIC (GRASSLAND BASED SYSTEMS)
10. The authors actively refer to philosophers in the manuscript. In connection with this and the context of the manuscript under review, I would like to draw the attention of the authors of the manuscript to the following. EXTREMELY INTERESTING APPROACH, ALREADY IMPLICIT IN OUR USE OF ‘HOLY TEXTS’, METAPHORS AND SO ON, ALSO IN OUR USE (AT THE END) OF ‘LAY’-PEOPLE AND AUTHORS LIKE A RABBI, PLATO AND OTHER AUTHORS ON UTOPIA, ON OMAR KHAYYAM. WE THANK THE REFEREE FOR THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTIONS ON HERZEN AND CHERNYSHEVSKY. WE DID MANAGE TO FIND THOSE BOOKS AND IT REMINDED ONE OF US OF TOLSTOY’S ‘HOW MUCH LAND DOES A MAN NEED, AS WELL AS GRABRIEL GRAZIA MARQUES AND STEINBECK. REFEREE WILL FIND THOSE INCORPORATED EXCEPT THE HERZEN AND CHERNYSHEVSKY.

There are such works by A.I. Herzen (philosopher, publicist, writer) and N.G. Chernyshevsky (philosopher, publicist, writer, critic), respectively as "Who is to blame?" and "What to do?". WE ARE DELIGHTED WITH THIS POINT OF VIEW

Of course, in the manuscript under review, the first part of this (“who is to blame?”) is definitely better implemented in the context of clarifying the essence of the phenomena under consideration. But it would be great if the authors did more work in the context of a greater generalization of the revealed facts and patterns and the formulation of specific conclusions and specific proposals in the aspect of “what to do?” !!! SEE THE COMMENTS UNDER THE PREVIOUS POINT ..

11. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to make some relations with the previous works of the authors, if there is a possibility for such papers. WE HAVE DONE SO A BIT MORE BUT WE HESITATE TO MAKE THIS A REVIEW OF OUR OWN WORK WITH OUR NAMES TOO OFTEN IN THE LIST OF REFERENCES

WE THANK BOTH REFEREES FOR THEIR ENCORAGING AND CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS, WE APOLOGIZE IF WE STILL HAVE INSUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED THEIR POINTS AND WE WOULD (TO SOME EXTENT, SPEAKING NON-LINEARLY) GLADLY UNDERTAKE A FINAL EFFORT AT EDITING,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The work is improved in terms of understanding and gives an important and innovative contribution to the management and understanding of grassland-based systems, but many formal aspects remain to be changed

The positions of the different figures tables in the text must be checked
The references are incomplete mainly in terms of number of pages related to books and in general not harmonized

Citations in the text are in some cases missing and often with punctuations and the use of improper brackets

There are repetitions in the notes and therefore they must be renumbered

Row 64 check punctuation in the references

Note 2 check punctuation in the references

Row 175-178 to be introduced a reference year

Note 9 check the order and position of the year in the citation

Row 232-233 I do not understand the choice of specifying pastoral vs rangeland

Row 241 Add before the term carbohydrates the term "structural"

Row 256 I don’t understand where box 1 is inserted in the text

Row 274 check brackets if needed

Row 304 I suggest adding a citation

Line 319 I don’t understand the sentence and in particular the mathematical relation between the square root of 4 and the values of -1 and 1

Riga 329 I suggest putting the whole "second world war" and then the initials and then using only the acronym

Note 12 Check the term Moslem

Row 371 Check the punctuation of citations

Note 13 Reference year missing

line 443 because "what is new? " is in brackets and not after a semicolon?

note 17 check the syntax of note 17

line 547 the acronym JBS, has ever been described before? as well as the acronym PG (line 584)?

Row 596 missing the citation

Line 611 I don’t understand the sentence in brackets and missing citation

Note 20 check the note

Row  647 better describes ISSS.org

Row 659 Introduce the year or citation

Row 729 Introduce the year and/or citation

Row 745 Introduce the year and/or citation

Row  778-782 reformulate the sentence

Row 818 explain the abbreviations GNP and ISEW

Row 1004 why do you introduce the term "see" in the quote?

Row 1059 check brackets if needed

Row  1081-1082 the sentence is not understandable

Notes 45 and 46 are equal

Notes 49 and 50 are the same

Line 1176-1178 the sentence should be reformulated

Note 51  check note

Line 1198-1200 the sentence is to be reformulated

Note 55 A more precise reference period is to be introduced

Row 1489 is to be introduced a reference period, (ie birth and death) of Chief Seattle

Row 1510 check the references carefully

Row 1742 improve table caption

Row 1753 check caption and punctuation

 

Row 1759 Introduce the reference year

Row 1773 , figure 2 , improve image quality

 

Row 1795 box 1, check references and syntax, and punctuation

 

Row 1875 Figure 8, check punctuation and brackets in quotations

Row 1893 Table 3, was already shown before

Row 1922 I suggest explaining the values on the axes

 

Author Response

Overall:
-‘LEGO-BLOCKS' HAVE BECOME ‘JIGSAW PIECES’
- ACRONYMS JBS AND PG BETTER EXPLAINED, REQUIRING MODIFIED (BUT MORE OFFICIAL / CORRECT) NAME OF THE ‘SENIOR AUTHOR’
- SUGGESTION TO RE-SUBMIT WITH TRACK CHANGES IS FOLLOWED WITH THE COMMENT THAT WE ARE HAPPY TO SEND THE VERSION WITH ’TRACK CHANGES’ IF SO REQUESTED. WE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SUGGESTIONS (ADDRESSED) IN THE MANUSCRIPT.

 

Reviewer 2: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is improved in terms of understanding and gives an important and innovative contribution to the management and understanding of grassland-based systems, but many formal aspects remain to be changed. HAPPY TO SEE THAT IMPROVEMENST WERE NOTED. AND APOLOGIES FOR SOME IMPERFECTIONS THAT WE FAILED TO HAVE CORRECT IN THE FIRST VERSION (REFERENCES, PUNCTUATIONS, ETC.)

The positions of the different figures tables in the text must be checked. NOW TAKEN CARE OF
The references are incomplete mainly in terms of number of pages related to books and in general not harmonized NOW TAKEN CARE OF.

Citations in the text are in some cases missing and often with punctuations and the use of improper brackets NOW TAKEN CARE OF. ONCE AGAIN, WE APOLOGIZE FOR SLOPPINESS IN THE EARLIER VERSION.

There are repetitions in the notes and therefore they must be renumbered WE HOPE THAT IS SOLVED NOW. BUT UNFORTUNATELY THERE WAS A MESS UP IN THE LINE NUMBERING BUT WE THINK THAT WE DID WHAT WE COULD AND MOST CONCERNS COULD BE IDENTIFIED INCLUDING THE ISSUES OF PUNCTUATION, ABBREVIATIONS FIRST IN FULL AND THEN ABBREVIATED, FOOTNOTES CORRECTED IN A FEW CASES

Row 64 check punctuation in the references

Note 2 check punctuation in the references

Row 175-178 to be introduced a reference year

Note 9 check the order and position of the year in the citation

Row 232-233 I do not understand the choice of specifying pastoral vs rangeland

Row 241 Add before the term carbohydrates the term "structural"

Row 256 I don’t understand where box 1 is inserted in the text

Row 274 check brackets if needed

Row 304 I suggest adding a citation

Line 319 I don’t understand the sentence and in particular the mathematical relation between the square root of 4 and the values of -1 and 1

Riga 329 I suggest putting the whole "second world war", then the initials and then only the acronym

Note 12 Check the term Moslem

Row 371 Check the punctuation of citations

Note 13 Reference year missing

line 443 because "what is new? " is in brackets and not after a semicolon?

note 17 check the syntax of note 17

line 547 the acronym JBS, has ever been described before? as well as the acronym PG (line 584)?

Row 596 missing the citation

Line 611 I don’t understand the sentence in brackets and missing citation

Note 20 check the note

Row 647 better describes ISSS.org

Row 659 Introduce the year or citation

Row 729 Introduce the year and/or citation

Row 745 Introduce the year and/or citation

Row 778-782 reformulate the sentence

Row 818 explain the abbreviations GNP and ISEW

Row 1004 why do you introduce the term "see" in the quote?

Row 1059 check brackets if needed

Row1081-1082 the sentence is not understandable HOPE TO HAVE SOLVED IT

Notes 45 and 46 are equal NOW SOLVED

Notes 49 and 50 are the same NOW TAKEN CARE OF

Line 1176-1178 the sentence should be reformulated

Note 51 check not.. NOW DELETED EVEN IF THE POINT REMAINS VALID

Line 1198-1200 the sentence is to be reformulated

Note 55 A more precise reference period is to be introduced TAKEN CARE OF

Row 1489 is to be introduced a reference period, (ie birth and death) of Chief Seattle. QUOTE DELETED

Row 1510 check the references carefully

Row 1742 improve table caption

Row 1753 check caption and punctuation

Row 1759 Introduce the reference year

Row 1773 , figure 2 , improve image quality HAPPY TO COMPLY (ALSO WITH OTHER FUIGURES) IF TIME PERMITS

Row 1795 box 1, check references and syntax, and punctuation

Row 1875 Figure 8, check punctuation and brackets in quotations

Row 1893 Table 3, was already shown before

Row 1922 I suggest explaining the values on the axes

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Although I once again recommended the 'Reconsider after major revision' option - this only means providing an opportunity for authors to take another fresh look at this manuscript in an effort to find places there that could be improved both in accordance with previously made comments and in accordance with possible new ideas of the authors as a result of processing the material.

Although a number of points in the manuscript can still be subjected to critical discussion, but this will already go beyond the goals and objectives of the article, as well as authors concept - perhaps even requiring discussion on the scale of an international thematic conference.

In general, the authors elegantly tried to solve both the tasks they set and in the context of the remarks made, and there can be many interpretations.

And although I usually try to provide 3 - 4 rounds of peer review - in this situation it is definitely not the case.

Probably the best option now is to publish this manuscript as soon as possible to provide readers a quick view possibility of this brilliant work and provide feedback to its authors.

Therefore, in conclusion - the authors still need to carefully look at everything with a fresh look, and the editors of the journal - to publish it soon!

I would be extremely happy to read the final version of this manuscript in the pages of the Sustainability MDPI journal.

To be concrete, then 2 more points only:

1. Although I recommended optimizing the title, the result is somewhat confusing compared to the original.

Therefore, either leave the original version, or try to find something that would be better.

2. The epigraph, which was removed by the authors, is actually quite intriguing and corresponds to this manuscript concept.

Therefore, I recommend returning it and leaving it there.

Author Response

Overall:
-‘LEGO-BLOCKS' HAVE BECOME ‘JIGSAW PIECES’
- ACRONYMS JBS AND PG BETTER EXPLAINED, REQUIRING MODIFIED (BUT MORE OFFICIAL / CORRECT) NAME OF THE ‘SENIOR AUTHOR’
- SUGGESTION TO RE-SUBMIT WITH TRACK CHANGES IS FOLLOWED WITH THE COMMENT THAT WE ARE HAPPY TO SEND THE VERSION WITH ’TRACK CHANGES’ IF SO REQUESTED. WE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SUGGESTIONS (ADDRESSED) IN THE MANUSCRIPT.

 

Reviewer 3: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although I once again recommended the 'Reconsider after major revision' option - this only means providing an opportunity for authors to take another fresh look at this manuscript in an effort to find places there that could be improved both in accordance with previously made comments and in accordance with possible new ideas of the authors as a result of processing the material.

Although a number of points in the manuscript can still be subjected to critical discussion, but this will already go beyond the goals and objectives of the article, as well as authors concept - perhaps even requiring discussion on the scale of an international thematic conference.

In general, the authors elegantly tried to solve both the tasks they set and in the context of the remarks made, and there can be many interpretations.

And although I usually try to provide 3 - 4 rounds of peer review - in this situation it is definitely not the case.

Probably the best option now is to publish this manuscript as soon as possible to provide readers a quick view possibility of this brilliant work and provide feedback to its authors.

Therefore, in conclusion - the authors still need to carefully look at everything with a fresh look, and the editors of the journal - to publish it soon!

I would be extremely happy to read the final version of this manuscript in the pages of the Sustainability MDPI journal.

To be concrete, then 2 more points only:

1. Although I recommended optimizing the title, the result is somewhat confusing compared to the original. Therefore, either leave the original version, or try to find something that would be better. TAKEN CARE OF
2. The epigraph, which was removed by the authors, is actually quite intriguing and corresponds to this manuscript concept. TAKEN CARE OF

Therefore, I recommend returning it and leaving it there.

LET US MAKE VERY CLEAR THAT WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR FOLLOW UP, AND THAT WE THANK THE REFEREES FOR TAKING SO MUCH TIME

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf