Weed Management in the Transition to Conservation Agriculture: Farmers’ Response

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I like this paper because it follows CA adoption over time. Since farmers are often reluctant to adopt CA practices, the analysis provided in this paper is important. Discussion of diffusion theory and farming systems research is a glaring omission. Information published before 1970 is relevant and I urge you to consider a wider view of how farmer behavior can be influenced. Overall, I would have liked to have seen more farmer characteristics, such as age, education, crop, etc. included in the survey to help explain farmer behavior before, during and after adoption. 

The tables and figures are the high point of the results and of the paper. They are very dense and a clearly written supporting text is needed.  Unfortunately, the paper is not well written. examples and suggestions include:

Awkward writing

"CA application has been possible in Europe since the 1970s [14] but has met two major obstacles before being adopted: the control of perennial weeds [14] and the lack of equipment adapted for sowing [15]. These obstacles have been partially resolved."

CA principles could be used at any time. These look like challenges, not obstacles. Challenges can be resolved, but obstacles generally involve a workaround.

"Because CA is the result of a farmers’ initiative in France.."

This statement is not really accurate.

"For 29% of the farmers, the changes made when adopting CA were more identified."

More identified???  Try “more apparent” Or “appear to contribute more to an overall strategy.”

Overuse of ( )

"With the exception of chemical weeding, which included four possible responses (pre-emergence only, post-emergence only, pre- and post-emergence applications, no application), the responses for all the other practices were binary (used/not used)."

Give a list of responses. Figure 1 is very informative and easy to understand, as are Tables 1 & 2. A list of what B1-B7, S1-S6 and M1 – M5 would be useful. The text is awkward and has so many ( ) that it is hard to read. If it is important to say, say it in the text. 

Unclear wording

"The Lime Survey tool was used to create the questionnaire."

No references for this tool given for this wonder tool that appears to have created a survey by itself. It looks to me like researchers created a survey.

"(3) status when the system was considered “mastered”, in reference to weed management (named “Mastered CA”). Access to the last part was given by a question."

What does “Access to the last part was given by a question.” mean?

Passive voice

"The interpretations of weed management changes occurring when adopting CA were done by looking at the farmers’ trajectories."

How about “The farmers’ trajectories during the CA adoption process were used to determine what weed management changes occurred.”

The conclusion is very weak. First, the idea that a farmer takes five years to adopt is important. Patience, farmer to farmer mentoring/sharing and other helpful tips can be put forth here. Second, weed management appear to be one that requires most farmer adaption of practices and strategies in order to implement a CA based production system. Addressing the changes as seen across and between the farmers'  trajectories is needed and should be generalized since adoption of CA practices is of concern around the globe. You need to place your contribution into the wider context for it maximize its value. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well-written and the amount of information collected was good. I only have a few suggestions below.

Abstract, introduction & methods:

Line 10 delete “with regard to”

Line 14 and later in the methods, the term “during the first years” is not clear. How many years is it considered to be stating CA and how many years when you consider “Mastered CA”. I am still confused after reading a few times and not clear how you classify the 3 stages. Do you base on the year they started CA (lines 108-109) to make that conclusion?

Line 19 add to: “according to”

Line 23 the word “becoming clearer” is vague.

Line 55 change “has an effect from” to “has an effect on” or “affects”

Line 70 change “achieve by” to “achieve with” or “achieve through”

The authors should not start a sentence with an abbreviation such as line 46, 116. Please check throughout the text.

It will be best if the authors provide a link to the questionnaire line 98.

Results

When numbers go together such as “46% and 22%”, the authors should reduce the unit in each number, instead write “46 and 22%”

Figure 1, please add the abbreviation PR, PO

Lines 185-188 should be moved to line 197. The authors first describe B1&2, then jump to B6&7, and then jump to the middle. I suggest it should be in order to easily follow.

Lines 222-223 should be moved up before line 216. Again S3 should be discussed before S4 and S5. Reverse S4 before S5 in the sentence Lines 219-222.

The same way move M3 (Lines 244-247) before M4&5, line 240.

Missing a period lines 243 and 247.

Conclusion

I am not sure what DSC means. It has never been mentioned in the previous sections. Maybe elaborate some more for "so what".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors:

Thank you very much for the clarity in the presentation of the study and the results.

I would only appreciate three clarifications:

• Lines 51-52: 2009 data is provided with 200,000 hectares in CA; however, Lines 108-109 indicate that half of the CA adoptions took place after 2015. Can you please provide a more recent data since 2009? I understand that the extension of CA will have increased considerably after 2015.
• Also Lines 108-109: Could you please add some lines indicating why just after 2015 the extension occurred in the adoption of CA? Political incentives? Diffusion programs? Other causes?
• Line 366: I would appreciate if you could include some lines explaining why the adoption of CA is due to individual farmer initiatives: no training courses? Are there no institutional campaigns? Are there no financial incentives or subsidies?

Yours sincerely,

The Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx