Effects of Multifunctional Margins Implementation on Biodiversity in Annual Crops

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

This is a very worthwhile study of biodiversity benefits of multifunctional margins (MFM) in agricultural landscapes. In this respect the paper provides a useful contribution to improving the sustainability of agricultural management.

The experimental design appears sound; however, parts of the methodology are unclear and require further explanation.

The results are generally well presented; however, a table presenting the outputs of statistical analyses (Table 7) has been omitted. The conclusions are supported by the results, although, as noted the omission of statistical outputs needs to be corrected.

There are grammatical errors throughout the manuscript so it is recommended that the authors seek assistance with English language editing when drafting revisions.

Detailed comments

Line 22: “Has been determined a big capacity…”. This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Line 34: Replace “The human being has been…” with ‘Humans have been…’

Lines 36 – 37: “Above all, related to the exponential growth of the human population, which has been requiring greater sources of food”. This sentence is grammatically correct and should be revised.

Lines 59 – 60: “wants agriculture to revert to nature… the subtracted elements in recent decades”. This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Lines 93 – 94: “Currently, significant decrease in pollinator populations and the increase in the cultivated areas in recent decades”. This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Line 104: Replace ‘repetitions’ with ‘replicates’

Line 123 – 128: This paragraph is very confusing. It is not clear what the authors are trying to convey.

Line 130: Replace ‘experience’ with ‘experiment’.

Lines 144 – 144: “The MAKED mixture responds to its own proposal…”. This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Lines 151 – 152: “And also…” This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Line 156: By “launched” do you mean thrown?

Line 164: Please explain how you observed which species were most suitable.

Line 169: “allows to model”. This is grammatically incorrect. Please revise.

Lines 179 – 180: Explain why a correlation value of >0.7 was chosen and which variable were omitted using this criterion.

Line 211: define what is meant by “effective species”.

Lines 219 – 221: Explain why sampling was only conducted within the crop in May. Could this difference in sampling effort between crop s and MFMs have an effect on the results i.e. seasonal influences?

Figures 2, 4, 5 & 6: Statistical outputs of the ANOVA (F and P values) are required to justify the results presented. It is stated later in the manuscript that these are presented in table 7, however, this table is missing.

Table 1: Replace ‘specie’ with ‘species’.

Table 4: Statistical outputs of the ANOVA (F and P values) are required to justify the results presented. It is stated later in the manuscript that these are presented in table 7, however, this table is missing.

Table 5: Replace ‘specie’ with ‘species’.

Lines 385 – 386: Table 7 is missing, hence it is not possible to assess the validity of the results and conclusions.

Lines 411 – 412: This sentence is unclear. Please revise.

Lines 477 – 478: What do you mean by “best data”?

Line 486: “The study about soil arthropods allowed to compare…” This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Line 502: “…pollinators wants to be improved” This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Author Response

General comments

This is a very worthwhile study of biodiversity benefits of multifunctional margins (MFM) in agricultural landscapes. In this respect the paper provides a useful contribution to improving the sustainability of agricultural management.

The experimental design appears sound; however, parts of the methodology are unclear and require further explanation.

The results are generally well presented; however, a table presenting the outputs of statistical analyses (Table 7) has been omitted. The conclusions are supported by the results, although, as noted the omission of statistical outputs needs to be corrected.

Table 7 (Table 6 now) has been introduced in line 346). In this table can be seen statistical outputs of different results.

There are grammatical errors throughout the manuscript so it is recommended that the authors seek assistance with English language editing when drafting revisions.

Detailed comments

Line 22: “Has been determined a big capacity…”. This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Corrected in line 22.

Line 34: Replace “The human being has been…” with ‘Humans have been…’

Replaced in line 32.

Lines 36 – 37: “Above all, related to the exponential growth of the human population, which has been requiring greater sources of food”. This sentence is grammatically correct and should be revised.

Corrected in lines 34 – 35.

Lines 59 – 60: “wants agriculture to revert to nature… the subtracted elements in recent decades”. This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Corrected in lines 56 - 57

Lines 93 – 94: “Currently, significant decrease in pollinator populations and the increase in the cultivated areas in recent decades”. This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Corrected in lines 91 - 93

Line 104: Replace ‘repetitions’ with ‘replicates’

Corrected in all text and figures

Line 123 – 128: This paragraph is very confusing. It is not clear what the authors are trying to convey.

Removed the modeling part on the advice of the reviewer 2

Line 130: Replace ‘experience’ with ‘experiment’.

Corrected in line 126

Lines 144 – 144: “The MAKED mixture responds to its own proposal…”. This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Corrected in lines 138 - 139

Lines 151 – 152: “And also…” This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Corrected in lines 146 - 147

Line 156: By “launched” do you mean thrown?

Yes, corrected in line 151.

Line 164: Please explain how you observed which species were most suitable.

Removed the modeling part on the advice of the reviewer 2

Line 169: “allows to model”. This is grammatically incorrect. Please revise.

Removed the modeling part on the advice of the reviewer 2

Lines 179 – 180: Explain why a correlation value of >0.7 was chosen and which variable were omitted using this criterion.

Removed the modeling part on the advice of the reviewer 2

Line 211: define what is meant by “effective species”.

Explicated in lines 186 - 188

Lines 219 – 221: Explain why sampling was only conducted within the crop in May. Could this difference in sampling effort between crop s and MFMs have an effect on the results i.e. seasonal influences?

Explicated in lines 196 - 199

Figures 2, 4, 5 & 6: Statistical outputs of the ANOVA (F and P values) are required to justify the results presented. It is stated later in the manuscript that these are presented in table 7, however, this table is missing.

• Figure 2 only represent percentage of sown flora appearance in each experimental farm, not anova.
• Figure 4, now 3 – F:10.95 and P: 0.0009
• Figure 5, now 4 – F:15.56 and P: 0.0018
• Figure 6, now 5 – F:  46 and P: 0.0027

 

Table 1: Replace ‘specie’ with ‘species’.

Corrected in Table , line 251

Table 4: (now Table 3) Statistical outputs of the ANOVA (F and P values) are required to justify the results presented. It is stated later in the manuscript that these are presented in table 7, however, this table is missing.

In Table 4 (now Table 3) only appearance numbers of morphoespecies and its average, not ANOVA. Line 284

Table 5 (now Table 4): Replace ‘specie’ with ‘species’.

Corrected in Table 4 (line 327)

Lines 385 – 386: Table 7 (now Table 6) is missing, hence it is not possible to assess the validity of the results and conclusions.

Table 6 is introduced now (line 346).

Lines 411 – 412: This sentence is unclear. Please revise.

Removed the modeling part on the advice of the reviewer 2

Lines 477 – 478: What do you mean by “best data”?

Corrected in lines 397 - 398

Line 486: “The study about soil arthropods allowed to compare…” This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Corrected in lines 406 - 407

Line 502: “…pollinators wants to be improved” This sentence does not make sense and is grammatically incorrect. It appears some syntax is missing.

Corrected in lines 421 - 422

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Effects of multifunctional margins implementation in annual crops on biodiversity" focuses on the problem of the need for multifunctional crop margins and proposes combinations of species to be planted in them that would improve the flora and fauna of arthropods. I think it is well written, except for some errors of form and content which I will point out later. However, I note that there is an objective that deviates from the subject and that is not addressed in the discussion, but curiously it is in the conclusions. I am referring to objective II, which tries to study the potential distribution area of the most successful species planted and attracting the most arthropods. In my opinion, this issue is not highlighted in the title and deserves to be analysed in another article. Moreover, precisely where it is placed in the article (always after the germination analysis, in the material and methods, in the results and in the discussion) makes the reader lose the connecting thread of the topic, which is the effect of implementation of multifunctional margins on biodiversity. In the conclusions, it is commented that the creation of these multifunctional margins in the lower Guadalquivir would allow the connection of 36 areas of the Natura 2000 network, but this issue is not discussed in the discussion. I therefore suggest that this objective be removed from the article.

On the other hand, the results of this study only come from one year of sampling and the conclusions should take into account that the specific composition of the adventitious flora depends to a large extent on the meteorology of the year and also on its ability to compete with the newly planted plants.

 

List of errors:

 Line 59, needs to be re-specified because it is not understood.

Line 80, heterogeneous characteristics should be commented on.

Lines 93 and 94, rewrite

Line 97, should define what is meant by "best capability".

Line 151, again heterogeneous characteristics are not defined.

Line 163 onwards up to 184, I would remove this paragraph and comment on it in a more focused way in another article.

Line 245-246, remove the sentence. It is not necessary to explain that the letters indicate significant differences in the text. It is sufficient that it is stated in the figure legend.

Line 274, Table 1 revise the families to which Glebionis and Coriandrium belong.

Line 275, remove the whole paragraph on potential distribution.

Line 282, Table 2 would be better in material and methods as it is not a result. Although it would disappear if it is decided to delete the potential distribution issue.

Line 316, Table 3, put species or families in alphabetical order.

Line 319, between MAKED and HONEY there is no significant difference.

Line 322, put "LA farm" to help the reader.

Line 337, "realationship" to revise spelling.

Line 386, table 7 does not exist

Author Response

The manuscript entitled "Effects of multifunctional margins implementation in annual crops on biodiversity" focuses on the problem of the need for multifunctional crop margins and proposes combinations of species to be planted in them that would improve the flora and fauna of arthropods. I think it is well written, except for some errors of form and content which I will point out later. However, I note that there is an objective that deviates from the subject and that is not addressed in the discussion, but curiously it is in the conclusions. I am referring to objective II, which tries to study the potential distribution area of the most successful species planted and attracting the most arthropods. In my opinion, this issue is not highlighted in the title and deserves to be analysed in another article. Moreover, precisely where it is placed in the article (always after the germination analysis, in the material and methods, in the results and in the discussion) makes the reader lose the connecting thread of the topic, which is the effect of implementation of multifunctional margins on biodiversity. In the conclusions, it is commented that the creation of these multifunctional margins in the lower Guadalquivir would allow the connection of 36 areas of the Natura 2000 network, but this issue is not discussed in the discussion. I therefore suggest that this objective be removed from the article.

Removed the modeling part on the advice of the reviewer 2

On the other hand, the results of this study only come from one year of sampling and the conclusions should take into account that the specific composition of the adventitious flora depends to a large extent on the meteorology of the year and also on its ability to compete with the newly planted plants.

Indeed, only one year of follow-up has been carried out. But 8 fields of study have been taken into account, rearranged in 4 different locations. In which there has been different climatic heterogeneity. And generally, the same type of adventitious flora usually appear, characterized by their resistance to the elimination of their populations in agricultural lands. These types of plants are the ones that still maintain a seed bank in these agricultural areas.

List of errors:

Line 59, needs to be re-specified because it is not understood.

Corrected lines 56 - 57

Line 80, heterogeneous characteristics should be commented on.

Corrected in lines 77 - 78

Lines 93 and 94, rewrite

Corrected in lines 91 - 94

Line 97, should define what is meant by "best capability".

Corrected in lines 96 - 97

Line 151, again heterogeneous characteristics are not defined.

Corrected before in lines 77 - 78

Line 163 onwards up to 184, I would remove this paragraph and comment on it in a more focused way in another article.

Removed the modeling part on the advice of the reviewer 2

Line 245-246, remove the sentence. It is not necessary to explain that the letters indicate significant differences in the text. It is sufficient that it is stated in the figure legend.

Removed of the text.

Line 274, Table 1 revise the families to which Glebionis and Coriandrium belong.

Corrected in Table 1 (line 251)

Line 275, remove the whole paragraph on potential distribution.

Removed the modeling part on the advice of the reviewer 2

 

Line 282, Table 2 would be better in material and methods as it is not a result. Although it would disappear if it is decided to delete the potential distribution issue.

Removed the modeling part on the advice of the reviewer 2

Line 316, Table 3 (now Table 2), put species or families in alphabetical order.

Corrected in line 265

Line 319, between MAKED and HONEY there is no significant difference.

Corrected in lines 268 - 269

Line 322, put "LA farm" to help the reader.

Corrected in line 271

Line 337, "realationship" to revise spelling.

Corrected in line 287

Line 386, table 7 (now Table 6) does not exist

Table 6 is introduced now (line 346)

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Effects of multifunctional margins implementation in annual crops on biodiversity" has been improved. I would just like to add that the first two paragraphs of the conclusions should be integrated into a single paragraph, so as not to leave a sentence hanging.

Author Response

The manuscript entitled "Effects of multifunctional margins implementation in annual crops on biodiversity" has been improved. I would just like to add that the first two paragraphs of the conclusions should be integrated into a single paragraph, so as not to leave a sentence hanging.

Corrected