Farmer Perceptions of Adopting Novel Legumes in Traditional Maize-Based Farming Systems in the Yucatan Peninsula

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Most of my concerns raised in the earlier submission (Sustainability 1412353) have duly been addressed
I still find the discussion mainly focused on the current study with very little comparisons with similar studies. However, I appreciate the thorough revision done by the authors hence find the current version of the manuscript needs minor adjustments of the manuscript text presentation are done (gaps, uniform fonts etc.)

Author Response

Response 1: We added a few more comparisons with similar studies in the discussion section. Line 354-364 and Line 385-390.  The manuscript has been thoroughly read for formatting adjustments. We thank Reviewer 1 for their support and comments that have greatly strengthened the manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

There are three objectives in this article: (1) to investigate the current state of the maize intercropping system; (2) to assess the underlying motives and concepts of intercropping practice; and (3) to identify the major factors affecting the adoption of new legume species into the cropping system. Materials and methods used in this study is capable of achieving the first two objectives but not the third one. I’d like to offer two comment to improve the clarity and quality of presentations in the manuscript.

In the “Materials and Methods” section, the method for statistical analysis used in this study is missing. Please add the description of the correlation analysis and chi-square test in the section. Specifically, (1) what kind of correlation analysis, Pearson or Spearman, is used and the purpose of using the method; and (2) what kind of chi-square test, goodness-of-fit or independence, is used and the purpose of using the method.

Methodologically speaking, correlation and/or chi-square test can only be used to examine the association between two economic variables. Therefore, I’d like to suggest the authors to revise the statement of third objectives as “to examine the association of farmers’ level of knowledge about legumes and the adoption decisions.” Also, revise the wordings to avoid the use of major factors affecting the adoption or similar statements.

Author Response

Response 1: We have taken the reviewer´s comment. The section has been clarified: In this study, a Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis was used in order to assess if there was a significant relationship between farmer´s growing conditions (i.e, rainfed or irrigated land) type, and factors affecting intercropping practice into the cropping system. In addition, a Chi-square test of independence was used in order to determine whether there was a statistical relationship between the type of cropping system (i.e, intercropping or monocropping) and farmer´s level of knowledge about legumes to adopt intercropping in their farming systems. This has been clarified in Lines 183-190.

Response 2: We have taken the reviewer´s comment. The third objective was revised and we included the suggested objective by the reviewer as “to examine the association of farmers’ level of knowledge about legumes and the adoption decisions” and we also corrected the wordings as a way we could avoid using major factors affecting the adoption. Lines 94-95.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article suffers really good improvements. Since I have considered it appt to be published in the first version, I sustain this opinion. But I have few comments to be improved in this new version.

Line 104  “between 18°and 21°30 ’north latitude” is not the correct way to cite a geographic coordinate. Please correct it.

Line 112 Wrong way make a citation in MDPI papers.

Figure 1 has increased in quality as I have asked, but it can still become better. It is impossible to read inside the figure, and please increase the type size.

Author Response

Response 1: This has been corrected. Line 104.

Response 2: This has been corrected. Line 112.

Response 3:  Size of the map of Figure 1 has been adjusted. Lines 129-137.

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

Please see my comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper attempts to examine the underlying motives of farmers to practice intercropping and to identify the major factors affecting the adoption rates of new legume species into the cropping system. My comments are as the following:

The abstract is too long. Please shorten it to highlight the research question addressed, methods, results and main conclusions or interpretations.

According to the objectives of the present study stated in the abstract and introduction, one of the objectives of this study is to “identify the major factors affecting the adoption of new legume species into the cropping system”. The determining factors of adoption of new species is not a new topic in the literature, a strong motivation statement is missing in the introduction.

Since the main research question is to examine the underlying motives of farmers to practice intercropping and to identify the major factors affecting the adoption rates of new legume species into the cropping system, the authors need to elaborate a lot more on discussing: (1) the factors affecting intercropping practice; and (2) the factors affecting the adoption of new legume species into the cropping system. The results reported in “3.4. Farmer’s opinion of intercropping practices” or the discussion of “Farmer perception” did not provide enough information to address the two research questions.

Methodologically speaking, the authors used a descriptive way, such as frequency, to investigate the factors affecting intercropping practice. Some regression or statistical analysis need to be performed in order to examine the factors affecting intercropping decisions. Moreover, I did not any results or discussion of “factors affecting the adoption of new legume species into the cropping system”.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is very interesting and contains a good piece of work. It is related to the sustainability of the maise crop in two Mexican state.  Related to the structure, the paper must have some improvements as it will be seen in the next comments.

Abstract

The abstract is ok and it is in according to the body of the text.

Introduction

The introduction is well written and make the reader to understand the real problem to be faced by the article. Some little mistakes should be corrected such as:

Line 45 “In” should be “in”, also the lines 45 to 47 are a little bit confusing, please make it better.

Line 67 “ha-1” should be “ha^-1”.

Materials and Methods

Please increase the Figure 1 quality. A 2D map would be much better. Also, it should be placed at line 117.

The survey form should be presented in material and methods, also explanation about the survey and why did you chose that questions.

Results

Table 1 – Which is the unit od the “Average Field Size”? Why did you make big spaces in the middle of the table (such as between labor and chemical input, and between chemical input and the end of the table)? Please keep the table standard.

Line 188 when are you talking about Fig. 1 do you mean Fig. 2? If so, please bring fig. 2 closer to this paragraph.

Line 228 when are you talking about Fig. 2 do you mean Fig. 3? If so, please bring fig. 2 closer to this paragraph.  But in figure 3 you presented only one system, the authors should provide pictures of the other systems.

Some charts would be nice to show the results, some times it is a little bit boring just to read the values.

Discussion

It is ok.

Conclusions

The authors only need to answer their objectives they do not need to make discussions here. The discussions must be placed at discussion topic. The conclusion presented by the authors is much more a discussion then a conclusion, please rewrite it.

Final considerations

I considered this is an interesting paper, but the authors need to give more emphasis on sustainability, since it is the main focus of the journal, and the authors did not explore this theme.  It will be crucial to the paper.