Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The choice of a number of variables is not justified, in particular the gender of the plot manager;

2. According to the results of calculations, distance to input markets has a positive impact on income, which raises doubts and requires justification from an economic point of view.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Vegetable production is vital to smallholder farmers who often struggle to overcome challenges such as pests, diseases and extreme weather. This study explores the factors influencing smallholder farmers’ adoption of selected agroecological cropping systems for vegetable production in Tanzania. The study is interesting, but the current research lacks innovation. The current manuscript still has many problems, such as repeated expression, lack of innovation, rough language and so on, so I propose to reject it.

1. The abstracts in the manuscript need to give quantitative research results rather than generalities, so they need to be further modified and improved.

2. The abstract of the manuscript is too redundant and needs to be further condensed and summarized in order to highlight the innovation of this study.

3. There were many problems with the writing of the manuscript, which was too rough and required language polishing by a native English speaker.

4. In many parts of the manuscript, if you cite existing documents, you need to give specific sources, for example "Despite the significant contributions of vegetable production to the nutrition and food security, and economic development of Tanzania, smallholder farmers struggle to overcome various challenges that limit productivity and profitability.".

5. Most of the introduction in the manuscript is the description of some existing work, which needs to give the current research progress, and the solution path or method of this research based on these research progress.

6. Figure 1 if there is both a warp and weft net and a compass, you only need to choose one.

7. On the whole, the language of the manuscript is too repetitive and redundant, which needs to be further condensed and condensed.

8. How are different groups (e.g., gender differences, age differences) taken into account when conducting questionnaires? What if you could pick a typical population?

9. It is recommended that the results and discussion be written separately.

10. In the results and discussion sections, there are too many paragraphs, so it is suggested to further condense and summarize.

11. The conclusion part of the manuscript has too much content and needs to be further condensed and summarized, rather than a simple repetition of the research results.

12. On the whole, the research method of this manuscript is relatively traditional, and the research results obtained are not innovative enough.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There were many problems with the writing of the manuscript, which was too rough and required language polishing by a native English speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and suggestions to the authors.

Abstract

Suggest to write significant variables/ values in the abstract section such as age of the household head (......), gender of the plot owner (....).

Line 26 what kind of training services are suggested? Please write details in the sections below.

Study area

Highlight/ focus your study area, you can give A and B for maps. I think no need to show lakes or show land use land cover maps with lakes, cropland, forest, etc. If possible, show your study village/site location (by points) in Figure 1. How about the elevation ranges of your study area?

Sampling procedure

How many key informant interviews were taken in your study area?

In the third stage, you have chosen 525 households randomly for the interview, how about the occupation status in those villages? Are all households farmers or also non-farmers?

What is CSPro? Please describe it.

Results and discussion

Line 397: Is Ethiopia a neighboring country or similar topography or similar cropping patterns? Please justify it.

 

What are row intercropping and strip cropping?

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented manuscript is dedicated tothe smallholder farm agriculture  in Tanzania. Small farming is often important for the employment of local population and the development of agricultural sector. The study is relevant, however, it is not original, since the issues of smallholder farm agriculture considering crop rotation, analysis of the age of household heads, distance to the agricultural market, and other factors have been extensively examined in many countries.

It may be assumed, that the topic is new for Tanzania, and the issues of smallholder farm agriculture have not been addressed from this perspective.In this case, the authors should have pointed it out in the study.

It is worth mentioning that the adoption of agroecological cropping systems with factors influencing the vegetable production on small farms   in Tanzania, is relevant.

Literature review complies with the research. Tables and figures are substantiated and comply with the research area.

The study could further benefit, if the authors focused on the peculiarities and conditions like climate, natural environment, andlandscape for different regions of Tanzania, and presented their proposals on smallholder farming considering these peculiarities in the Discussion and Conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In response to my concerns, I would like to thank the author for the large-scale revision and improvement of the whole manuscript, which has greatly improved the quality of the manuscript, but there are still some small problems that need to be improved.

1. I still think that if the results and discussion can be written separately, the innovation of this study may be better highlighted.

2. In the revised draft of this manuscript, there are too many words in the part of "Conclusions and Policy Implications", so it is suggested to further refine and summarize.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx