The Effects of Cover Crops on Multiple Environmental Sustainability Indicators—A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A good review with sound methodology that provides some interesting results.  Expansion on the indicators with 10 or more studies would strengthen the manuscript.  In addition, some minor changes are needed.

Reviewer’s report – Agronomy-1850622

Summary:

The paper uses the systematic literature review protocol and poses two questions:

(i)               what are the effects of CC on sustainability indicators across European arable farming systems?, and

(ii)              how have the effects been assessed and what analytical methods have been used?

The main purpose of the work is to review the effects of introducing CC on environmental sustainability of agroecosystems by reviewing the literature while considering a wide range of sustainability indicators. The authors use a systematic literature review protocol with success. 

The manuscript presents a novel study that summarises some really useful and valid information and is a good resource for studying cover crop.  It fits well with the scope of the Journal. The results are significant but expansion on the indicators that hit 10 or more studies would strengthen the review.  The quality of the manuscript is generally good, although some attention to Table 2 is needed.

Overall, there is an overall benefit to publishing the manuscript with minor changes:

General points:

·        One of the questions posed in the PICO process is worded differntly to that outlined in the introduction. Would be better if the wording was changed in the introduction to include environmental and socio-economic.

·        The requirement for a temporal framework of 3 years would have excluded post-grad research, however, I feel that the literature search did highlight sufficient studies to make the paper worthwhile and relevant.

·        Expansion on the 3 indicators that have 10 or more studies, i.e. Pest and disease control, Fertiliser input and Global climate change, in the results section would strengthen the review.

·        The quality of presentation of the information in Table 2 could be improved.

 

Specific points:

1)     Lines 64, 299, 301, 304, 312, 340: N2O – subscript for 2?

2)     The information in Table 2 is duplicated in the body of the text in section 2.4 – is this necessary?

3)     Line 222: additional full-stop after ‘studied’ needs removed.

4)     Lines 227-234: could number of indicators be expressed as % as well as e.g. 15/41)

5)     Line 229: depend not ‘depends’.

6)     Line 233: the sentence ‘Let us focus…’ is ambiguous.  Perhaps ‘Let us focus on the two indicators which have the highest number of studies in more detail:’

7)     Line 254: GWP first mention – expand on acronym

8)     Lines: 250, 260, 262, 295, 314, 327, 330, 338: CO2 – subscript of 2?

9)     Lines 375: sentence beginning ‘We can conclude..’ needs explanation or re-written.  The statements before and after the comma don’t relate.

10)  Line 379: interest in the – rather than interest ‘of’

11)  Line 380: the use of identical seems inappropriate.  Perhaps ‘similar’.

12)  Line 407: pre-emptive.

13)  Line 407: unfavourable

14)  Line 407: succeeding

15)  Line 414: do you mean ‘sown under maize during the growing season’? Ambiguous

16)  Line 416: ‘less than’ rather than ‘under’?

17)  Appendix B: in the column Location and agricultural system, there are some entries that only state location.  This should be updated to include agricultural system, or the column title adjusted. The wording in this column for each study could also be more harmonised.

18)  Appendix B: Entry 50: Soil not ‘soli’

 

Author Response

Dear

please find in the joined pdf file our comments to your review.

sincererly yours

JE Bergez

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled -"The effects of cover crops on multiple environmental sustainability indicators. A review" is critically reviewed. The effect of cover crops on the environmental aspect of the EU is reviewed in this manuscript.  Almost all the section of the manuscript is well written and nicely discussed with relevant studies. This study lies in the aim and scope of the issue and journal and therefore I recommend this manuscript for publication in the MDPI-agronomy Journal.      Minor comments:  Improve the abstract and conclusion by adding quantitative findings.  Check  for super and sub fix in line 20, 64, 295, 299, 301, 304,312, 327, 329, and 338.    ​

Author Response

Dear

please find in the joined pdf file our comments to your review.

sincererly yours

JE Bergez

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf