A Farmer’s Perspective on the Relevance of Grassland-Related Innovations in Mediterranean Dehesa Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Grasslands are of key importance for the provision of ecosystem services. Suitable management is essential to guarantee their persistence and functionality. Methodology is correct, results are useful, discussion part is clear. This study provides insightful results that can inform the implementation and research of relevant innovations in the context of Mediterranean grasslands. Conclusions are important for decision makers.

Author Response

The authors are grateful for the comments made by this reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is novel, and its conclusions are consistent with the stated objectives. However, there is a lack of data to corroborate the sample's representativeness and the contrast with census information. 

 

Some observations and comments are listed below.

 

Some keywords do not represent the article's content, for example, grasslands management, dissemination, grasslands performance.

 

Line 115. Because practices associated with regenerative agriculture, such as grazing management, water harvesting systems, and zero tillage, among others, were not considered.

Line 132. How representative was the sample concerning the producers of the Dehesa, considering the high educational level? Does this correspond to the information provided, for example, through agricultural censuses? What characteristics did those attending the seminars have? For example, do they belong to a producer organization?

Who applied the questionnaires, or Were the questionnaires delivered and then the answers collected?

Line 185. Why were the 25 and 75% quartiles selected, and the stocking rate and farm size variables not divided into intervals with a similar number of farms?

Line 191. What happened to the variables without correlation with others? Were these included?

Line 192. Explain what was the objective of performing the categorical principal component analysis

Line 200, where are these results presented?

Line 207. Include reference to figure or table where these results are reported

Line 240. The authors indicate that the main components explain 51.9% of the variability of the data. However, the authors do not indicate how many main components were selected and what criteria were used for this selection.

Line 241. How do farms with pigs and cattle differ from those with sheep only? Clarify the meaning of the results obtained in the main components.

What results were obtained in the tests carried out to determine the suitability of the set of variables incorporated into the analysis?

Table 3. It is suggested to modify the titles of the tables, including additional information such as footnotes to the table.

Line 366-397. The authors speculate on the reasons for the low relevance of "high-tech" innovations; why was it not considered to consult the reason for the scores given?

Line 407. Could not the positive relationship between age and education be conditioned by the number of people in each category?. This is given that, as the authors point out, the most common is the inverse relationship.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for the helpful comments that have contributed to significantly improve the manuscript. We have tried to address the issues raised following the suggestions and we hope that these points are clearer now.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx