Time Allocation Effect: How Does the Combined Adoption of Conservation Agriculture Technologies Affect Income?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is of an important topic but needs to be improved to make its content clear and more easily understood by readers. In the attachment I am sending authors the pdf with comments and suggestions. Some other things I would like to point out are:
1) There are several mistakes in formatting the file. Lack of spaces after comma or between words, words writing together, please double check this. I marked most of them;
2) The manuscript is too focused in China. It restrited too much the readers and consequantly its impact. China should be used as a study case from where the data were collected but the manuscript should be written to a broaden audience. The results obtained are used not only to Chine but to all over the world. Try to make it emphasized in the text.
3) Discussion should be improved considerable with the add of references. See in the attachment some additional comments.
All the best
Reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Should be revised by and English professional service.
Author Response
Comments on manuscript number 3599845 titled “Time Allocation Effect: How The Combined Adoption of Conservation Agriculture Technologies Affects Income？”
Comments 1: There are several mistakes in formatting the file. Lack of spaces after comma or between words, words writing together, please double check this.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice.We have checked the irregular uppercase and lowercase letters and spaces in the entire text according to your modification suggestions, and made corresponding adjustments and modifications.
Comments 2: The manuscript is too focused in China. It restrited too much the readers and consequantly its impact. China should be used as a study case from where the data were collected but the manuscript should be written to a broaden audience. The results obtained are used not only to Chine but to all over the world. Try to make it emphasized in the text.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice.Based on your suggestions, we have made the following revisions: First, the introduction emphasizes that developing countries have adopted a variety of policy measures to promote conservation tillage, and China is only a part of them; second, in the literature review and hypothesis sections, we introduced the impact of farmers' adoption of conservation tillage techniques on their income in various countries; finally, in the conclusion, we introduced a comparison of research results on conservation tillage practices in other countries, highlighting the universality of the article's conclusions.
Comments 3: Discussion should be improved considerable with the add of references.
Response:
1)Thank you for reviewer’s advice. In the conclusion section, we expand the discussion of the conclusions on the original basis, add references and some reasons, and state the shortcomings of the current research.
2)Thank you for reviewer’s advice. We have added a discussion section after the conclusion according to your revision suggestions, based on the conclusions of this paper and the comparison with previous literature, as shown in 5.2. The conclusion describes the reasons for the decline of technology income generation effect, the changes of three time allocation effects, and the inequality of sector transfer and technology diffusion, and provides appropriate extended discussions.
Comments 4: See in the attachment some additional comments.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice. Based on your suggestions, we have made the following changes:
- In lines 16-17 of the manuscript, we adjusted the “composite technologies” that appeared in the abstract to adopt multiple CA technologies to facilitate readers’ understanding without changing the original meaning of the article;
- In lines 21-22 of the manuscript, we adjusted the “off-farm work” that appeared in the abstract to farmers’ work in non-agricultural sectors to facilitate readers’ understanding without changing the original meaning of the article;
- In line 23 of the manuscript, we adjusted the “China government” that appears in the Abstract to “government” to enhance the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations;
- In lines47-49 of the manuscript, we adjusted the “composite technology.” that appeared in the abstract to the simultaneous use of multiple CA technologies. The change is the same as in the abstract, which facilitates readers' understanding without changing the original meaning.
- In lines 58-61 of the manuscript, we have made explicit the requirements of the CA technology, namely minimizing soil disturbance, implementing water-saving irrigation, and managing fertilizer inputs.In lines 151-158 of the manuscript, we clearly explain why the opposite conclusions were drawn. In short, not all CA technologies can help farmers save practical inputs in field management. For example, crop residue management and mulch maintenance after straw returning will increase time investment. At the same time, it will also increase the difficulty of field management when the level of mechanization is low.
- In lines 197-199 of the manuscript, we adjusted and clarified the “different attributes”. First, it was made clear that this section was to explain the differences between different CA technologies. Second, the different attributes of CA technologies were specifically mentioned in terms of machinery use, field management, and time investment. In addition, we added additional explanations on the technical attributes of straw return in lines 211-213 of the manuscript to make it more suitable for the empirical analysis of the article.
- In lines 422 and 426 of the manuscript, we relabeled Fig A.1. The figure referred to here is Fig A.1 in the appendix.
- In the introduction, we deleted the redundant term conservation agriculture to ensure consistency of the CA abbreviation throughout the text.
- In the conclusion, we deleted the inappropriate discussion that was the same as the introduction and method.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a study on the impact of adopting conservation agriculture technologies on income. The time allocation effect is the focus of this study.
General remark: The authors use capital letters and spaces in a very random way not in line with the English rules.
Introduction: A sufficient study background is presented.
Literature review …: The authors formulated 4 research hypotheses.
Fig 1 and 2 – could they be combined into one figure and clearly present the study logic.
The authors clearly presented the study area and sampling procedure.
Why is section 5 entitled “Discussion and Conclusion” in which there is no discussion?
The results are compelling and clearly presented. The conclusions are based on the study findings.
Author Response
Comments on manuscript number 3599845 titled “Time Allocation Effect: How The Combined Adoption of Conservation Agriculture Technologies Affects Income？”
Comments 1: The authors use capital letters and spaces in a very random way not in line with the English rules.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice.We have checked the irregular uppercase and lowercase letters and spaces in the entire text according to your modification suggestions, and made corresponding adjustments and modifications.
Comments 2: Fig 1 and 2 – could they be combined into one figure and clearly present the study logic.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice.According to your modification suggestion, we merged the two path diagrams in Figure 1 and Figure 2 into one diagram and named it Theoretical framework diagram, that is, Figure 1
Comments 3: Why is section 5 entitled “Discussion and Conclusion” in which there is no discussion?
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice.We have added a discussion section after the conclusion according to your revision suggestions, based on the conclusions of this paper and the comparison with previous literature, as shown in 5.2. The conclusion describes the reasons for the decline of technology income generation effect, the changes of three time allocation effects, and the inequality of sector transfer and technology diffusion, and provides appropriate extended discussions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPoint 1: In the abstract (line 15), you use an abbreviation that you have not previously explained in the text. In the earlier part of the text, please include the full term followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.
Point 2: In the abstract, it is necessary to specify the statistical methods used for data analysis.
Point 3: Line 47 contains a technical error — please check the period at the end of the sentence.
Point 4: In the introduction (lines 62-65), you state that this is the first study in China to examine the income effects of adopting different conservation tillage technologies using micro-level data from regional representatives. It would be advisable to first provide an overview of similar studies conducted in other countries in order to establish a broader context and identify the existing gap in the Chinese literature. Only then should the novelty and significance of this study within the context of China be emphasized.
Point 5: Subsection 2.1 Technical attributes and farm household revenue provides a good starting point for examining the relationship between the technical characteristics of technologies and farm household income. However, this section should be supplemented with additional empirical studies from relevant literature, including a review of the findings of other authors who have explored similar topics—both within the Chinese context and internationally. Such an addition would enhance the understanding of the proposed hypothesis.
Point 6: In subsection 3.1 Research methodology, it is necessary to provide a clearer explanation of the ESR model, including the key assumptions required for its application and whether these assumptions are met in this study. Additionally, the authors have selected he number of times that farmers have been trained as the instrumental variable. The choice of this variable should be justified by referencing relevant literature.
Point 7: In subsection 3.2 Data sources and descriptive statistics, you state that the study covers five Chinese provinces. It would be advisable to include a map illustrating the geographic locations of these provinces to help the broader audience better understand which part of China is covered by the research.
Point 8: The sample construction is not sufficiently explained. Why was stratified sampling chosen for this study? How many strata were included in the sampling design? It is recommended that the authors provide a more detailed explanation of the sampling strategy, including the rationale for using stratification and the structure of the strata.
Point 9: The survey instrument used for data collection is not adequately described. It is recommended that the authors provide a more detailed explanation of the questionnaire, including how many sections it contained, the total number of questions, and the types of questions used (e.g., closed-ended, Likert scale, open-ended).
Point 10: In Section 4 Empirical results, it is necessary to revise the formatting of the tables. The current layout includes excessive spacing, resulting in unnecessarily large tables that reduce readability. It is recommended to condense the tables by minimizing row height and improving overall alignment for better clarity and presentation.
Point 11: In the section of the paper dedicated to the discussion, the empirical results of the study should be interpreted more thoroughly. The findings indicate that CA technology adoption has a weaker effect on income; however, the paper does not provide a clear explanation for this outcome. It is important to discuss potential reasons behind this result. Furthermore, it would be valuable to compare these findings with those of previous studies in order to determine whether they are consistent with the existing literature or if they represent a novel contribution.
Point 12: In the conclusion section, it would be advisable to include a brief discussion of the limitations of the study.
Author Response
Comments on manuscript number 3599845 titled “Time Allocation Effect: How The Combined Adoption of Conservation Agriculture Technologies Affects Income？”
Comments 1: In the abstract (line 15), you use an abbreviation that you have not previously explained in the text. In the earlier part of the text, please include the full term followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice. In the Abstract section, we have restructured and revised to use the full term followed by the abbreviations in parentheses.
Comments 2: In the abstract, it is necessary to specify the statistical methods used for data analysis.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice. In lines 13-14 of the manuscript, we again clarified that this paper used the ESR model and different forms of mediated effects models.
Comments 3: Line 47 contains a technical error — please check the period at the end of the sentence.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice. We corrected the erroneous period here and removed it.
Comments 4: In the introduction (lines 62-65), you state that this is the first study in China to examine the income effects of adopting different conservation tillage technologies using micro-level data from regional representatives. It would be advisable to first provide an overview of similar studies conducted in other countries in order to establish a broader context and identify the existing gap in the Chinese literature. Only then should the novelty and significance of this study within the context of China be emphasized.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice. We made the following changes in Section 3.1:
- In lines 64-72 of the manuscript, according to your suggestion, we systematically explained the economic benefit evaluation based on the adoption of CA technology by African farmers in the existing literature, and presented a discussion on the mechanism that is rarely presented in the literature; at the same time, we showed the gaps in the existing literature that have not yet been explored from the perspective of technology portfolio adoption and labor sector transfer. China, as a country with an urban-rural dual structure, has a rich labor transfer phenomenon in the country, which is precisely the research sample that can provide the most new and powerful evidence.
- In lines 259-264 of the manuscript, we added the description of using “the number of times that farmers have been trained”as an instrumental variable according to your suggestion, and cited the literature to support it.
Comments 5: Subsection 2.1 Technical attributes and farm household revenue provides a good starting point for examining the relationship between the technical characteristics of technologies and farm household income. However, this section should be supplemented with additional empirical studies from relevant literature, including a review of the findings of other authors who have explored similar topics—both within the Chinese context and internationally. Such an addition would enhance the understanding of the proposed hypothesis.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice. In lines 130-136 of the manuscript, according to your suggestion, we added additional empirical studies from the relevant literature, showing the impact of CA technology on farmers' economic benefits based on a sample of farmers in China's Loess Plateau and a sample of farmers in South Asian countries, in the hope of enhancing readers' understanding of the hypothesis.
Comments 6: In subsection 3.1 Research methodology, it is necessary to provide a clearer explanation of the ESR model, including the key assumptions required for its application and whether these assumptions are met in this study. Additionally, the authors have selected he number of times that farmers have been trained as the instrumental variable. The choice of this variable should be justified by referencing relevant literature.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice.In lines 242-248 of the manuscript, we added the reasons why the ESR model was adopted according to your suggestion. In brief, there are two points: first, it explains the unobservability of various types of technology adoption by farmers and the endogeneity of technology adoption and income; second, it shows the advantages of the ESR model in dealing with endogeneity problems and evaluating counterfactual effects, which is more in line with the verification of the article's hypothesis.
Comments 7: In subsection 3.2 Data sources and descriptive statistics, you state that the study covers five Chinese provinces. It would be advisable to include a map illustrating the geographic locations of these provinces to help the broader audience better understand which part of China is covered by the research.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice.In lines 355-356 of the manuscript, we have added a map description based on your suggestion to help a wider audience understand the research area of the paper.
Comments 8: The sample construction is not sufficiently explained. Why was stratified sampling chosen for this study? How many strata were included in the sampling design? It is recommended that the authors provide a more detailed explanation of the sampling strategy, including the rationale for using stratification and the structure of the strata.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice.In lines 339-342 of the manuscript, based on your suggestion, we added an explanation of why the stratified sampling method was used; at the same time, in lines 349-354 of the manuscript, we adjusted and explained that the sampling design included stratification at five levels of "province-city-county-village-farmer household" to detail the design of the stratified sampling plan.
Comments 9: The survey instrument used for data collection is not adequately described. It is recommended that the authors provide a more detailed explanation of the questionnaire, including how many sections it contained, the total number of questions, and the types of questions used (e.g., closed-ended, Likert scale, open-ended).
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice.In lines 342-347 of the manuscript, we added the explanation of the parts and total number of questions in the questionnaire according to your suggestion. At the same time, we explained that except for the closed-ended questions on farmers’ stechnology awareness and adoption characteristics, the rest of the questions were collected using open-ended questions.
Comments 10: In Section 4 Empirical results, it is necessary to revise the formatting of the tables. The current layout includes excessive spacing, resulting in unnecessarily large tables that reduce readability. It is recommended to condense the tables by minimizing row height and improving overall alignment for better clarity and presentation.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice.In the empirical results in Section 4, we have compressed all tables in the empirical results by minimizing row height, column spacing and improving overall alignment according to your suggestions to further optimize the clarity and presentation of the empirical results.
Comments 11: In the section of the paper dedicated to the discussion, the empirical results of the study should be interpreted more thoroughly. The findings indicate that CA technology adoption has a weaker effect on income; however, the paper does not provide a clear explanation for this outcome. It is important to discuss potential reasons behind this result. Furthermore, it would be valuable to compare these findings with those of previous studies in order to determine whether they are consistent with the existing literature or if they represent a novel contribution.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice.Thank you for reviewer’s advice. We have added a discussion section after the conclusion according to your revision suggestions, based on the conclusions of this paper and the comparison with previous literature, as shown in 5.2. The conclusion describes the reasons for the decline of technology income generation effect, the changes of three time allocation effects, and the inequality of sector transfer and technology diffusion, and provides appropriate extended discussions. The specific content is shown in lines 578-620 of the manuscript.
Comments 12: In the conclusion section, it would be advisable to include a brief discussion of the limitations of the study.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s advice.In lines 569-576 of the manuscript, we added a brief discussion of the limitations of the study
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The suggestions provided in the first round of evluation was adopted and the second version of the manuscript is in better shape now. Some English polisment to make the message clearer can still be adopted.
The manuscrispt can be accepted for publication after those minor editing
reviewer
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish can be improved by a professional service to make it more direct and clear.
