Does the Availability of Specific Agri-Equipment Influence Cropping System Design? A Case Study of Pulses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Overall, the work is technically correct, and the topic is of interest and fits into the scope of the journal. Some minor comments are provided below to further improve the manuscript.

 

Abstract:

Please re-write the abstract including quantitative data. 

L21-24, Emphasize the novel aspects of your work.

 

Materials and methods:

Please clarify the process of the survey questionnaire and how many valid questionnaires are in the end.

Can it be demonstrated that the current results are robust?

 

 

Results:
The tables are not concise; they are convoluted, repetitive, and contain a lot of redundancy. Please display the results more precisely and consider putting some parts in the supplementary materials. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We thank the reviewer for the relevant remarks and suggestions for improvement. Here below the answers to each point that was raised.

 Point 1: Please re-write the abstract including quantitative data & L21-L24 emphasize the novel aspects of your work  

Response 1: In the abstract, we have added quantitative data and emphasized novel aspects of our work.

Point 2: Please clarify the process of the survey questionnaire and how many valid questionnaires are in the end

Response 2: We improved English so that the process of survey is clarier. L284 explains the final number of valid questionnaires.

Point 3:  Can it be demonstrated that the current results are robust?

Response 3: We strengthened the discussion by comparison with further references, which appear to confirm our findings. To be noticed, the key informant approach is adapted and chosen, to provide an overview in the early stages of a study, when few information is available about the study topic, especially from a system perspective. As such, the robustness of its results can be proved by the comparison with existing, partial, knowledge and by the design of targeted surveys to address the remaining uncertainties. In our case, individually available market analyses and sector reports confirm the major trends that we observed at our level. Furthermore, the results helped to identify possible issues to be considered in future surveys, such as the selection of terms and concepts to avoid misunderstandings. In this regard, we illustrated the example of agroecology.

Point 4: The table is not concise; they are convoluted, repetitive, and contain a lot of redundancy. Please display the results more precisely and consider putting some parts in the supplementary materials.

Response 4: Some of the redundancy was addressed by deleting repeated content highlighted by another reviewer. For the rest, we opted to keep only relevant excerpts that were presented as concisely as possible.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This manuscript presents an approach that falls within the scope of the section in which it was submitted for analysis (Agricultural Biosystem and Biological Engineering). However, some details must be reviewed.

In the introduction, elements more closely related to the scientific hypotheses of the work should be introduced, clearly highlighting them. Additionally, there is a need to review some excerpts of the material item and methods, especially with regard to the style presented. In the format presented, some excerpts can be confused as a literature review and description of concepts, not being the most appropriate for the topic in question. Such information can be presented in the 'Introduction' topic. Therefore, I recommend that the authors review the topic 'Materials and methods', in order to directly describe the methods, tools and procedures used to obtain the data and results.

The descriptive analysis of the topics used in the interviews as applied by the researchers is a valid alternative. However, regarding the data and information obtained, it is suggested that the authors approach an analytical metric that allows comparisons and applications in a broader point of view, which goes beyond the currencies of the Study Region, allowing the enrichment of the discussion in a more comprehensive way.

The presentation of the results obtained could be adapted to a more dynamic format (from the point of view of the presentation format). In this way, the application and construction of a 'word cloud' becomes an interesting recommendation.

Additionally, a methodological adaptation is suggested to enable the measurement of qualitative responses (perhaps adopting terms or keywords as templates). Alternatively, a correlation analysis could be applied between the interviewee's profile and the respective answers, enabling a broader exploratory analysis, in the search to interpret a possible pattern and/or influencing factors.

I recommend checking the standardization of references at the end of the text.

I am available for future collaborations!

Greetings!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

We thank the reviewer for the relevant remarks and suggestions for improvement. Here below the answers to each point that was raised.  

 Point 1: In the introduction, elements more closely related to the scientific hypotheses of the work should be introduced, clearly highlighting them. Additionally, there is a need to review some excerpts of the material item and methods, especially with regard to the style presented. In the format presented, some excerpts can be confused as a literature review and description of concepts, not being the most appropriate for the topic in question. Such information can be presented in the 'Introduction' topic. Therefore, I recommend that the authors review the topic 'Materials and methods', in order to directly describe the methods, tools, and procedures used to obtain the data and results.

Response 1: We have enriched the introduction with elements related to the research hypothesis. The theoretical text was moved to a specific section after the introduction and before the material and methods. This should help to clearly distinguish the concepts of the study and the methodology.

Point 2: The descriptive analysis of the topics used in the interviews as applied by the researchers is a valid alternative. However, regarding the data and information obtained, it is suggested that the authors approach an analytical metric that allows comparisons and applications in a broader point of view, which goes beyond the currencies of the Study Region, allowing the enrichment of the discussion in a more comprehensive way. Additionally, a methodological adaptation is suggested to enable the measurement of qualitative responses (perhaps adopting terms or keywords as templates). Alternatively, a correlation analysis could be applied between the interviewee's profile and the respective answers, enabling a broader exploratory analysis, in the search to interpret a possible pattern and/or influencing factors

Response 2: The key informant interviews are part of an early stage of the study and targeted at a rapid appraisal of trends and issues of the sector from a system perspective. As such, the number of interviewees was kept at a minimum to correctly cover the main viewpoints. Coherently, we opted for a qualitative analysis of the results intended as a complement to the literature review. In this application, the method and the number of interviews do not support quantitative analyses, for which the risk would be overinterpreting the results. The apparent and possible correlations will be addressed in future surveys.

Point 3: The presentation of the results obtained could be adapted to a more dynamic format (from the point of view of the presentation format). In this way, the application and construction of a 'word cloud' becomes an interesting recommendation.

Response 3: The word cloud is a very interesting idea that we considered. Although it is more visual, the tabular format allows for greater transparency and reproducibility of the analyses.

Point 5: I recommend checking the standardization of references at the end of the text.

Response 5: We have checked the standardization of references

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The article reveals some interesting opinions from experts about the impact of agri-equipment to the adoption of agroecological practices and how technology governs sustainability. There are few relative works focusing on that topic and conclusions such that blockages are related to availability of equipment for conservation agriculture practices are informative for guiding the decisions of agri-equipment  manufacturers, policy makers and other stakeholders in the wider agrifood sector. .

I encourage the authors to continue their work by focusing on specific blockages in the adoption of conservation agriculture (availability of specific equipment, cover crops, weed management practices etc).

Congratulations for the excellent work. I have noticed only some few points that need minor corrections:    

-      -   Line 277: Correct “Non-test files..” to “Non-text files”

 -        Table 2 and Table 3 are the same. I think Table 3 should be removed and Table 4 and so on should go -1 at numbering.

-         Table 7. I think there are two identitive phrases ‘The aim of this strategy is to reduce France’s dependence on plant protein imports by reduce our dependence on plant protein imports,…”

 -        Lines 476-480. The phrase is double replicated

 -        Line 592 please correct the word “reuntroduction”

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

We thank the reviewer for the relevant remarks and suggestions for improvement. Here below the answers to each point that was raised.   

 Point 1: Line 277: Correct “Non-test files..” to “Non-text files”. Lines 476-480. The phrase is double replicated. Line 592 Please correct the word “reintroduction”

Response 1: We went through an English review which allowed us to correct all the errors and improve the quality of English in the manuscript and in general, including your relevant and precise remarks.

 Point 2: Table 2 and Table 3 are the same. I think Table 3 should be removed and Table 4 and so on should go -1 at numbering.

Response 2: We removed the repeated table and corrected the numbering of the remaining tables.

 Point 3:  Table 7. I think there are two identified phrases ‘The aim of this strategy is to reduce France’s dependence on plant protein imports by reducing our dependence on plant protein imports,…”

Response 3: We corrected the mistake.

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

 

In the manuscript “Does the availability of specific agri-equipment influence cropping system design? Shifting the focus from crop to soil”, the authors seek to understand recent historical and current links between pulses and equipment. To this, they use a key informant approach by identifying and interviewing 21 actors in different sectors in France (including sectors not directly linked to farming as economy or politic sectors). The topic is relevant as there is not recent scientific literature about the agronomic evaluation of agri-equipment sustainability, and this work may be representative of northern Europe agricultural systems committed to the transition toward sustainable agroecological practices. This work can provide interesting information on the insights of actors from different sectors that can serve to guide policies for the adoption and extension of agricultural practices that can improve the sustainability of systems.

The authors have addressed all the suggested changes and comments from the previous review. Therefore, the quality of the manuscript has increased.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, I have made many comments in the attached annotated PDF file of the manuscript. Again, I cannot recommend publication because there are too many inconsistencies and missing elements to consider this work as a scientific article. Even after thorough restructuring, these results and the conclusions drawn from them at best could justify the article type "Communication" - but by no means "Full Research Article".

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf