Can Retention of Crop Residues on the Field Be Justified on Socioeconomic Grounds? A Case Study from the Mixed Crop-Livestock Production Systems of the Moroccan Drylands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is completely unprepared in terms of editing for the requirements of the journal. The discussion was not conducted in accordance with the guidelines of journal.

The article has a lot of text, but nothing concrete has been specified in it. 

There is no in-depth statistical analysis. The manuscript does not have any advanced statistical analysis and correlation e.g. with the use of ANOVA with the Duncan test. It will certainly enrich the manuscript.

An expansion of literature, conclusions and discussions is required.

In this form, I advise against publishing the article in this journal.

English needs a lot of improvement.

Author Response

Thank you very much. to  the best of our ability, we have tried to respond to your comments 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done a great job revising the manuscript and I have no further comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much.We have now thoroughly edited the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript was improved because the authors corrected most points. However the authors did not clearly respond to some points raised by this reviewer, most of this information was not included in the manuscript. Some details not responded: What is characterized as wheat crop residue? Can't we mention the intercropping between different plant species in Conservation Agriculture for diversification? Why only crop rotation? Paragraph 3, L.16-19. Please, consider that the explanation for the negative effect of residue retention was not clear.

Author Response

Thank you very much.To the best of our ability, we have tried to respond to your comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The entire article is about 41 pages of content, but nothing innovative is written in it.

The manuscript is to long and bad formated.

All manuscript was not conducted in accordance with the guidelines of journal.

There is no in-depth statistical analysis.

In this form, I advise against publishing the article in this journal.

English needs a lot of improvement.

Author Response

Thank you very much.we have tried to respond to all of your comments.

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

According to the title, the authors trying to answer the question: Can retention of crop residues on the field be justified on socio-economic grounds in the mixed crop-livestock production systems of the drylands?

The article contains statistical data, but they are at the primary level. The statistical analysis of the factors was not supported by any post-hoc test (eg Duncan), which would allow any more advanced conclusions to be drawn. The manuscript has very mediocre results.

It would be good to compare commonly used fertilization techniques . In particular, the authors write about nitrogen (for example page 9). I recommend that the authors should read the article that I note below because it is about described topic.
Roman, K. K., & Konieczna, A. (2015). Evaluation of a different fertilisation in technology of corn for silage, sugar beet and meadow grasses production and their impact on the environment in Poland. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 10(12), 1351-1358.

It would be also good to describe the economic impact of the technology used and compare how much the commonly used technology (an example estimate by the used fertilizers) would cost to that proposed by the authors technology. This is important because the cost of implementing the technology is the basis for its application. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This work addresses an important issue and seems to have made a useful contribution to the subject and the policy recommendations seem useful. The paper has far too much detail and a lot of it is in the wrong sections. I have made comments in the text and in my report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript aimed to provide credible evidence for the adoption and economic viability of different levels of crop residue on the field in Morocco by applying the endogenous switching regression model to a case study of 2,296 wheat fields. The interest of the topic to Morocco and other similar countries in North Africa and West Asia is well explained. The article is interesting and well write, the introduction and material and methods as well as the results are very clear and reach of information. Discussion and conclusion could be quite improving. Moreover, only other few corrections are necessary.

General comment:

The lines could be numbered, according to instructions for authors. Citations in the text should follow the instructions for authors, using numbers placed in square brackets.

What is characterized as wheat crop residue? This definition is particularly important because it can vary from region to region.

Introduction

Paragraph 1. Can't we mention the intercropping between different plant species in Conservation Agriculture for diversification? Why only crop rotation?

Paragraph 5. There was some mistake. In the introduction 1,901 wheat fields cultivated by 1230 farm households are described, in the summary there are 2,296 wheat fields. Materials and methods are 2,296 wheat fields cultivated by 1,230 farm households.

Materials and methods

2.1 - Paragraph 5, L.4. At the end of the citation there are two full stops.

2.1 - Paragraph 5, L.5. What do you mean with “different temporal dimensions”?

2.3 – Paragraph 1, L.12. At the end of the citation there are two full stops.

Table 2. Rainfall (mm). Is it the total for the year?

Results and discussion

Table 3. Please, correct the header "yield for non- " ?

3.1. Impacts on Yield

Paragraph 3, L.16-19. Please, consider toThe explanation for the negative effect of residue retention was not clear.

3.3. Impacts on wheat consumption from own production

Paragraph 1 L.3. Add Table 4

Paragraph 1. It is not clear why retained more residue increases wheat consumption than those that did not retain.

4. Conclusion

This part could be improving in relation of parameters analysed.

Paragraph 1. Please, consider removing this paragraph.

Paragraph 3. This paragraph is only a summary of the results previously described.