Open Questions and Research Needs in the Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in the Mediterranean Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Structure of the paper is inconsistent with common standard for review or research papers. In most sections of the paper, it felt like a progress report rather than a piece of research work that was undertaken for publication in an academic journal. A classic example of this can be found in section 8 (Dissemination and training), authors explain how they plan to communicate their findings to several audience, and one wonders why this is relevant to the title or aim of the paper. Authors have referenced several figures and not one figure is included in the article. Similarly, only one table is included in the paper, tables 2- 4 are missing.

In terms of the key principles of conservation agriculture (CA), the authors have presented their approach as a one-size-fits-all. Considering that the Mediterranean Area covers a large geographical area and consists of countries with considerable different socio-economic status for smallholders, one begins to wonder whether the research needs for the adoption of CA should be better targeted (if not categorised) by sub-regions. At present, there is nothing to suggest that this is the case.  

L21 – 24 This phrase reads very awkward …”and a participatory approach in the field implementation are faced by an on-going international project of research and innovation action “CAMA” that aims to removal of barriers to CA diffusion in the Mediterranean Countries”.

L26 – 27 Another very awkward reading phrase “…of the reasons that obstacle the CA diffusion..”

L45 – 46 How could CA mitigate against negative feedbacks from future climate change? I think an example at the end of the sentence will be helpful to readers of Agronomy.

L53 delete “and” before stakeholders. Also, delete “and with”

L54 replace “with a” with “and”.

L64 One would expect that the reason why smallholders find the implementation of crop rotation and residue retention on farmlands is given here.

L100 – 101 I think this sentence needs more clarification because of the statement on line 99. Authors were making a case for lower farm nutrient input with CA and are now suggesting that wheat under a range of fertiliser application has higher yields. What are you comparing this increased under CA management to?

L151 – 166 I think this is an indicator that at least crop residue retention is not a viable management strategy in Mediterranean cropping systems. A classic example of local factors inhibiting uptake of a globally efficient practices.

L205 Where are figures 1 and 2?

L206 Where is table 2?

L219 where is figure 3?

L267 Where is figure 4

L312 Where is figure 5?

L319 Where is figure 6?

L357 assess?

L371 CHN and STICS have been used for the first time, therefore, the full names should be provided.

L378 Where is table 3?

L392 Where is figure 7?

L428 – 438 This type of information is not needed in an academic journal?

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer #1 

 

Structure of the paper is inconsistent with common standard for review or research papers. In most sections of the paper, it felt like a progress report rather than a piece of research work that was undertaken for publication in an academic journal. A classic example of this can be found in section 8 (Dissemination and training), authors explain how they plan to communicate their findings to several audience, and one wonders why this is relevant to the title or aim of the paper. Authors have referenced several figures and not one figure is included in the article. Similarly, only one table is included in the paper, tables 2- 4 are missing.

I categorized the submitted paper as “Type of manuscript: Project Report” and I am aware that it is not a research paper.

The pdf I created during the submission contained all the tables and figures. I’m sorry for the inconvenient. All tables and figures are now included in the revised version.

I also reduced the section 8, according to your last suggestion.

 

In terms of the key principles of conservation agriculture (CA), the authors have presented their approach as a one-size-fits-all. Considering that the Mediterranean Area covers a large geographical area and consists of countries with considerable different socio-economic status for smallholders, one begins to wonder whether the research needs for the adoption of CA should be better targeted (if not categorised) by sub-regions. At present, there is nothing to suggest that this is the case.  

A phrase about the area characterization and the specific research needs has been added in Section 5 with a new Table 3. (Lines 235-238 of PDF file),

 

L21 – 24 This phrase reads very awkward …”and a participatory approach in the field implementation are faced by an on-going international project of research and innovation action “CAMA” that aims to removal of barriers to CA diffusion in the Mediterranean Countries”.

The phrase has been rewritten.

 

L26 – 27 Another very awkward reading phrase “…of the reasons that obstacle the CA diffusion..”

The phrase has been rewritten.

 

L45 – 46 How could CA mitigate against negative feedbacks from future climate change? I think an example at the end of the sentence will be helpful to readers of Agronomy.

A new paragraph has been added (Lines 49-54 of PDF file), with some examples about the CA effects on climate change mitigation and a new reference citation.

 

L53 delete “and” before stakeholders. Also, delete “and with”

OK

L54 replace “with a” with “and”.

OK

 

L64 One would expect that the reason why smallholders find the implementation of crop rotation and residue retention on farmlands is given here.

A phrase explaining the reasons of low adoption of CA by smallholders has been added.

 

L100 – 101 I think this sentence needs more clarification because of the statement on line 99. Authors were making a case for lower farm nutrient input with CA and are now suggesting that wheat under a range of fertiliser application has higher yields. What are you comparing this increased under CA management to?

I rephrased it to make the concept clearer: the effect of CA on soil fertility improvement is represented by a greater N uptake. If you want to maintain the same crop yield level, with CA you con reduce N chemical application. (Lines 111-114 of PDF file),

 

L151 – 166 I think this is an indicator that at least crop residue retention is not a viable management strategy in Mediterranean cropping systems. A classic example of local factors inhibiting uptake of a globally efficient practices.

Thanks for the comment; we suggest in the conclusions, the inclusion of legume crops in cropping systems to reduce the need of animal feeding with forage or legume grain. (Lines 528-532 of PDF file),

 

L205 Where are figures 1 and 2?

L206 Where is table 2?

L219 where is figure 3?

L267 Where is figure 4

L312 Where is figure 5?

L319 Where is figure 6?

All Tables and Figures have been added in the revised version

 

L357 assess?

OK

 

L371 CHN and STICS have been used for the first time, therefore, the full names should be provided.

OK

 

L378 Where is table 3?

L392 Where is figure 7?

All Tables and Figures have been added in the revised version

 

L428 – 438 This type of information is not needed in an academic journal?

This part has been strongly reduced.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is introduction and explanation of to the project CAMA, Conservation Agriculture in the Mediterranean Area (an explanation of this abbreviation is missing in the text). The study touches on conservation biological regulation. Conservation biological regulation is also called environmental and habitat management to protect and support natural enemies and this aspect is missing in the manuscript and should be added.

There are no clear data about project beginning and some data about project feasibility are not clearly shown...

The main strengths are that the proposed work is of good scientific quality; the research includes multidisciplinary aspects. Manuscript recognizes the relevant stakeholders and intends to have a pro-active attitude to maximize the impact of the action.

There is a good idea to include stakeholders and farmers organizations for the partnership to disseminate results of research for the widest audience even if the plan to involve stakeholders (meetings, workshops) is bit unclear/vaguely described.

I have some other comments/notes

Abstract:

- add one or two sentences, at the beginning of the abstract, to provide a basic introduction to the field (conservation agriculture), comprehensible to a scientist in any discipline

- also, at the end of the abstract provide broader perspective (one sentence)

Text:

- there are references to tables and figures in the text, but except for table 1 they are missing in the text, it must be supplemented

• Clearly explain, e.g., in the introduction, research hypothesis that was/will be tested

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer #2 

The manuscript is introduction and explanation of to the project CAMA, Conservation Agriculture in the Mediterranean Area (an explanation of this abbreviation is missing in the text).

The acronym “CAMA” explanation has been added in the Abstract and in the Introduction sections. (Lines 23-24 and 57-58 of PDF file),

 

The study touches on conservation biological regulation. Conservation biological regulation is also called environmental and habitat management to protect and support natural enemies and this aspect is missing in the manuscript and should be added.

The Conservation Agriculture is focused mainly on soil fertility conservation and only secondly on biological biodiversity.

 

There are no clear data about project beginning and some data about project feasibility are not clearly shown...

Period of project duration has been added. (Lines 58-59 of PDF file),

 

The main strengths are that the proposed work is of good scientific quality; the research includes multidisciplinary aspects. Manuscript recognizes the relevant stakeholders and intends to have a pro-active attitude to maximize the impact of the action.

Many thanks for the positive comment.

 

There is a good idea to include stakeholders and farmers organizations for the partnership to disseminate results of research for the widest audience even if the plan to involve stakeholders (meetings, workshops) is bit unclear/vaguely described.

Some details about stakeholders’ involvement have been reported ((Lines 264-266 and Lines 426-430 of PDF file).

 

I have some other comments/notes

Abstract:

- add one or two sentences, at the beginning of the abstract, to provide a basic introduction to the field (conservation agriculture), comprehensible to a scientist in any discipline

OK

- also, at the end of the abstract provide broader perspective (one sentence)

OK

Text:

- there are references to tables and figures in the text, but except for table 1 they are missing in the text, it must be supplemented

• Clearly explain, e.g., in the introduction, research hypothesis that was/will be tested

The paper I submitted has been categorized by myself as “Type of manuscript: Project Report” and I am aware that it is not a research paper. There is not a clear hypothesis to test, but a reconnaissance of obstacles and research needs to CA diffusion.