Towards Sustainable Vegetable Farming: Exploring Agroecological Alternatives to Chemical Products in the Fez-Meknes Region of Morocco

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

After this major corrections I believe that this manuscript can be published in journal.

Author Response

See the annex

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The Sustainability Journal is a very high-level journal.
It is impossible to publish with just a simple survey.
The survey value of this study is highly valued.
However, there is no evaluation of chemicals according to the customary agricultural method.
For example, pollutants, non-point contamination, soil residual chemicals, etc. - an investigation into whether Figure 6 is true, etc
Sorry for the late screening.
But my opinion recommends restatement.
I hope it develops into a good paper

Author Response

See the annex

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript neeeds to improved in terms of the discussion and objetives that are particularly poor and insuficiently described. As it is, seems more like a technical report of the farmers approaches. Also the graphs presented have a low quality. Some questions to consider: What is the relevance of your findings for a international reader? What is the scientific advance of your work? What is the impact and how much it crosses the several aspects focused? 

Author Response

See the annex

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

To author.

Results 3.2 to 3.15
Add at least 3 references to every chapter
Explain the meaning of all analysis results with reference

The significance of this study is recognized only when this is done

Author Response

See Appendix.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Suggest additional modifications.
I hope this paper gets better.

My last comment has not been corrected.
My opinion is the addition of a reference for the result part.

3.2. Vegetable Crops and Agricultural Practices Adopted by Farmers
- Interpret the meaning of these results using references (2 to 3 or more).

3.4. Pesticides Use and Sources of Agrochemical Information
- Interpret the meaning of these results using references (2 to 3 or more).

3.5. Rotation of Active Materials and Calendar of Treatments
- Interpret the meaning of these results using references (2 to 3 or more).

*****

Add 2 to 3 new references in all result paragraphs.
Find the meaning of your findings.

Author Response

See appendix

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

It's good that there are many improvements.

I want you to modify the journal's request form more.

Yes> [44, 45, 46] -> [44-46]

Figure 3 is rough. Need to be refined.

Thank you for your hard work.

Author Response

To see appendix.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript deals with the topic of agroecological transition of farming system. In particular, the main objective is to analyse the practices, behaviours and knowledge of farmers in Fez-Meknes region (Morocco).

The research is based on cross-sectional surveys with a sample of 603 farmers. The theoretical background on which the survey was built is completely missing. The analysis of data is performed using basic statistics (descriptive statistics) and Multiple Correspondence Analysis.

Overall, the research theme is quite relevant for scholars and policy makers. However, the description of the theoretical and methodological framework is weak. In addition, I have some major concerns about the presentation of results, discussion and the conclusions. The quality of English must be deeply improved.

In details, the following major concerns should be addressed:

-- p. 2, 2^nd paragraph: “In this regard, agroecology is a way of sustainable agriculture without chemical inputs, with low water and energy consumption.” Indeed, the agroecology is much more than this (please see for example: Bezner Kerr, R., Madsen, S., Stüber, M., Liebert, J., Enloe, S., Borghino, N., . . . Wezel, A. (2021). Can agroecology improve food security and nutrition? A review. Global Food Security, 29).

-- p. 2, last paragraph: the procedure for sample selection should be clarified. What do the Authors mean for “randomly selected”? Did you perform a probability sampling?

-- p. 3 first paragraph: the description of the region of Fez-Meknes should be improved (data and terminology used are not so much clear: e.g. what do you mean for useful agricultural area?)

-- p. 3 Sampling method: “The databases…” what kind of databases have you considered? How many farms are in these databases?

-- The theoretical framework is missing. What is the theory adopted to develop the questionnaire? There are several theoretical and methodological approaches that have been developed to analyse agroecological transition and sustainability performance of farming systems (please see for example: Mottet A, Bicksler A, Lucantoni D, De Rosa F, Scherf B, Scopel E, López-Ridaura S, Gemmil-Herren B, Bezner Kerr R, Sourisseau J-M, Petersen P, Chotte J-L, Loconto A and Tittonell P (2020) Assessing Transitions to Sustainable Agricultural and Food Systems: A Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE). Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4:579154).

-- Results: the description of results needs to be improved. The text is very hard to read and full of numbers and percentages. Also, the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) is not well described (e.g. did you use all surveyed variables? What is the rationale behind this analysis?) and results are not easy to read. The MCA results seem not so useful to explain data and to understand the relations between variables.

-- Discussion is quite poor. According to the Authors the main barriers to agroecological transition are that many farms (45% that is not the majority) do not rely on soil analysis and the educational level of farmers as well as the adoption rate of drip irrigation practice are low.

-- Conclusions are quite generic and do not seem strictly thigh to results.

 Other minor concerns:

-- p. 2: the endosulfane was banned by the Stockholm Convention in 2011. Please check the text and clarify this point.

-- There are several words in the whole manuscript that seem to be not appropriate: e.g. nuisances, useful agricultural area, gardening sector, ingredients.

Reviewer 2 Report

Although it is a quite interesting paper, in my opinion it is not suitable for publication in this kind and level of the journal.

Namely, the research is based exclusively on interviews with farmers, which represents more subjective approach. There is a lack of objective analyzes of soil and plant material for biogenic elements, heavy metals, pesticide residues...

Reviewer 3 Report

This is research for sustainable agriculture.
This area of research is clearly necessary.
Low use of chemicals is also needed.
I agree with the necessity of your paper.
However, there is something to be desired.
This is simply a survey of farmers.
In fact, it is necessary to investigate whether traditional agriculture has a positive effect on the environment.
What positive effects are there on soil, water quality, plants, insects, etc.?
This needs to be investigated.
It is to confirm that it is valuable as a paper.
MDPI Sustainability is a highly rated journal.
It is impossible to publish a paper in this journal with only a simple survey.
I propose to publish this paper in another low-grade journal.
Unfortunately, this paper is a necessary study.
I look forward to the results of your actual study of the effects of traditional farming methods.
I look forward to good results.