Productive Livestock Characterization and Recommendations for Good Practices Focused on the Achievement of the SDGs in the Ecuadorian Amazon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study was well designed, and the results could be of interest in the field of livestock management and forest restoration providing good suggestions for policy makers in related to SDGs.

More specific comments are listed below:
Line 131. and

Line 145 - 147. State the possible reason, why?

Line 150. Cite as per format of the journal.

Line 151. in the present study???

Line 151. What are these? Probably the authors want to say the size of the household??? Make it clear

Line 160. Though they live further from schools, yet they are having secondary education. What is the reason??

Line 160. schools

Table 2. Why ethnicity of only Kichwa people is provided? What about the other ethnic groups in the region? Were there no other prominent ethnic groups found among the livestock producers especially in low and high altitudinal gradient?

Line 221. in

Line 246 space

Line 250. 87 is before 86.. Arrange properly

Line 258. Cite as per format

Line 264. Incomplete sentence giving incomplete sense. Merge with previous or following sentence.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer #1

 

Dear expert reviewer,

 

As authors of the manuscript now entitled “Productive livestock characterization and recommendations for good practices focused on the achievement of the SDGs in the Ecuadorian Amazon”, we appreciated a lot your description and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to eliminate obvious errors and to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. Hereunder, we will reply and accomplish to change each mentioned point based on your input.

 

The study was well designed, and the results could be of interest in the field of livestock management and forest restoration providing good suggestions for policy makers in related to SDGs.

More specific comments are listed below:

 

Line 131. And

Between lines 113-117, it was arranged in sentence sense.

Line 145 - 147. State the possible reason, why?.

Thanks to your adequate question, we did complete potential reasons between lines 146-148.

Line 150. Cite as per format of the journal.

            Along the same lines, we fixed this using the citation format

Line 151. in the present study???

Between lines 151 – 153, it was clarified that it refers to the indigenous Kichwa households that live in the Andes

Line 151. What are these? Probably the authors want to say the size of the household??? Make it clear

Sorry, again, between lines 151 – 153, it was clarified that it refers to the indigenous Kichwa households that live in the Andes

Line 160. Though they live further from schools, yet they are having secondary education. What is the reason??

This has been clarified between lines 161-163.

Line 160. Schools

            Clear inconsistency has been fixed

Table 2. Why ethnicity of only Kichwa people is provided? What about the other ethnic groups in the region? Were there no other prominent ethnic groups found among the livestock producers especially in low and high altitudinal gradient?

Answering your kind question, it is fundamental to clarify that, in the three zones of this investigation, only in the central zone there are indigenous Kichwa, while in the upper and lower zones they are mestizos (migrant settlers from other regions of Ecuador)

Line 221. In

On line 224, we changed the existing error

Line 246 space

On line 249, we fixed the existing error

Line 250. 87 is before 86.. Arrange properly

On line 253, we changed the apparent error

Line 258. Cite as per format

On line 261, changed as asked

Line 264. Incomplete sentence giving incomplete sense. Merge with previous or following sentence.

On line 266, the wording has been substantially improved

 

 

Once again and with all due respect, we are very thankful for your comments and corrections, which helped to see a few unclear parts and or even faults of our side within our manuscript. With your comments we were able to smooth the text, clarify missing parts or wrong spellings, which resulted to a much better than the initial version of this current study.

 

Thanks a lot on behalf of all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The detailed comments are attached herewith. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer #2

 

Dear expert reviewer,

 

As authors of the manuscript now entitled “Productive livestock characterization and recommendations for good practices focused on the achievement of the SDGs in the Ecuadorian Amazon”, we appreciated a lot your description and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to eliminate obvious errors and to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. Hereunder, we will reply and accomplish to change each mentioned point based on your input.

 

Comments to authors

The article under review was interesting. Some of the information was really enjoyable. The authors did good job to characterize the livestock households and their income status. However, they need to significantly improve the recommendation section of the manuscript. The specific comments for authors’ guidance are as follows.

Line 20: Only use abbreviations in the abstract if you are to repeat the phrase more than twice. Define the abbreviation in the main body of the manuscript.

Line 21: Remove the word “predominant” before “aim”. The word aim itself means something major and having the big importance.

Line 22: Replace “has been” with “was”.

Line 24: Rephrase the sentence to categories the gradients e.g., the study area had three zones: low (), middle (), and high ().

Corresponding corrections were realized in the abstract based on your kind suggestions.

Line 25: Significant differences among the zones? Use active voice to present the findings in the abstract.

            Between lines 26-27, the results were written in active voice

Line 31 -33: Please rephase the sentence to describe the livestock share in the household

economy of

Between lines 33-35, the sentence is reformulated to describe the participation of cattle in the economy of households in the upper zone.

Line 55 to 56: What does this mean? Please clarify the sentence.

            Between lines 57-58, the sentence was clarified, placing the target population.

Line 57: Please Remove the “etc.” and be specific.

On Line 59, another concrete example was written, to be more specific in the sentence.

Line 56 to 59: Split the sentence in to two making it easier for the reader to understand.

            Between lines 58 – 63, the text was separated into two sentences

Line 79: Where did to first use this abbreviation REDD+ in the text?

            On line 62, for the first time, the abbreviation REDD+ was used.

Line 80-81: The authors used confusing phrases. Please make it simpler.

Overall, the 3rd paragraph presented a strong correlation of Livestock production with the

SGDs.

 Line 83-84, the wording was substantially improved

Line 84-85: The sentence needs English editing to make it clearer.

            line 87, the sentence was written in a more appropriate way

Line 92-94: This sentence appears as one of the objectives of the study. So add this in the

objectives list as well.

Following his wise suggestion, in line 90, the fourth objective of the investigation was indicated

Line 97: Good geographic description of the study area.

            Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comment.

Line 113: “Of a total of” seems odd. Please rephrase appropriately.

            line 116, the writing had a substantial change

Line 116-119: Please be consistent with classification of zones. Use the names of zones previously described. You can use addition information in parenthesis (e.g. name of area).

            Between lines 117 -120 the same zone classification was used.

Line 131: Please correct the heading.

            On line 134, what was indicated was corrected

Line 133-139: Add the subheading to this paragraph.

            On line 136, the suggested subtitle was placed.

Line 145-147: Make it simpler for understanding.

From line 149, the writing improved substantially and the idea that you want to convey to the reader

Line 150: Use the full words instead of abbreviation.

            Following your wise suggestion, at line 155, the writing improved substantially.

Line 160: did you mean further away from school? Use some good alternative.

            Between lines 165-168, the idea was consistently explained for the reader.

Line 173: The table only shows one ethnic group. Are there some other groups as well?

Also, be consistent with the classification of zones “middle” or “medium”. In the text

sometimes it is written as middle and on other places as “medium” or “intermediate”.

In table 2, line 181, it is important to mention that only indigenous Kichwas live in the middle zone of the study.

Throughout the document the word middle was written

Line 179-186: Small reorganization is needed for more clarity of results. Something like”

Producers in the middle zone have the largest total farm area (--- ha; % of total area) followed

by the lower (---) and the higher zone (--), respectively”.

In line 222, which corresponds to Table 3, the differences between the sizes of the farms are read, so we consider that it is not necessary to repeat the information in a paragraph

Line 188-195. The authors need to break these two sentences into smaller ones without having

too much independent clauses separated by comms,

            Between lines 198-202, the writing of the sentences was substantially improved.

Line 204-211: See the comment of Lines 188-195

            Between lines 210-216, the writing of the sentences was substantially improved.

Line 221: Start word with small letter after semicolon.

            On line 224, what was suggested was done.

Line 239: main forages instead of predominant grasses.

            Line 241, the suggested change was made

Line 251: It is Normando or Normande cattle breed?

            On line 255, Figure 2, the writing was substantially fixed for reader comprehension

Line 272-282: It looks like more of a Materials and Methods section instead of Results.

            Line 134-145 we have moved the suggested paragraph to Material and Methods

Line 283-295: Good description of results and discussion.

            Dear reviewer, very kind for your comment.

Line 298: Does the animals heads include all types of animals from calves, heifer, and mature

cows?

On line 301, your question is correct.

Line 297-298: Any information about average daily milk yield of cows?

On line 295-298 and in table 5 we have add the average of daily milk yield (litre/cows)

Line 297-298: There must be some supplemental material as an annexure representing the

variables of total income, investment, and profit.

On line 587-589 we have add Appendix A (Appendix A). Variables used to determine total income, cost/investments and net profit

Line 297-298: It would be great if the authors share the questionnaire as a supplementary

material. It would help other researchers to plan similar studies.

On line 593 we have add Appendix B. Household survey used to carry out the productive characterization and recommendations of good practices oriented to the achievement of the SDGs.

Line 309: Recommendations of this paper should be based on the findings of this study.

The following are some of the important points that need to be addressed clearly.

• It appeared that the recommendations were general and were derived from other studies.
• Identify the need in each of the zone for sustainability issues.
• Recommend sustainability practices specific to each zone based on your own research.

Otherwise, it would be a summary of recommendations from other studies.

• Recommendations should be zone specific.
• General recommendations may also be suggested for the whole study area.

Dear expert, thanks for your valuable suggestions, it is important to indicate that between lines 307-311, it is indicated that the recommendations are focused on the entire study area and we have also supported them with references for better support for the reader.

Line 312: The first paragraph of conclusion is relevant to the study. The 2nd paragraph is not

needed.

Line 334-342: The authors have decided to keep the paragraph

Line 347: More than 100 articles were cited in this manuscript. It seemed too many. The

authors need to reduce the total no of references. Try to retain the references from the

last 5 years.

            Line 351, An adjustment was made to the number of references.

 

Once again and with all due respect, we are very thankful for your comments and corrections, which helped to see a few unclear parts and or even faults of our side within our manuscript. With your comments we were able to smooth the text, clarify missing parts or wrong spellings, which resulted to a much better than the initial version of this current study.

 

Thanks a lot on behalf of all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion this work fits well within scope of the journal. The research can make an

original contribution in this area. Some areas should be improved before publication.

Please see the specific points as following:

1.Add the reference of elevation classification criteria

 

2.Separate the discussion from the results

 

3.Should add landscape restoration to the discussion

Author Response

Response to reviewer #3

 

Dear expert reviewer,

 

As authors of the manuscript now entitled “Productive livestock characterization and recommendations for good practices focused on the achievement of the SDGs in the Ecuadorian Amazon”, we appreciated a lot your description and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to eliminate obvious errors and to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. Hereunder, we will reply and accomplish to change each mentioned point based on your input.

 

In my opinion this work fits well within scope of the journal. The research can make an

original contribution in this area. Some areas should be improved before publication.

Please see the specific points as following:

 

1. Add the reference of elevation classification criteria

Line 116-124, we have incorporated additional information on site selection criteria in the altitudinal gradient studied.

 

2. Separate the discussion from the results

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, you can verify that we have made substantial changes in the document, according to the different recommendations. Since the results and discussion were developed jointly from the beginning, we believe that separating them would complicate the progress at this stage of the document.

 

3. Should add landscape restoration to the discussion

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for this comment, the authors agree that the document does not really have a direct focus on landscape restoration, so we have decided to remove this focus in the title of the document, we believe that this would be a good topic to develop in another document in the future.

 

 

Once again and with all due respect, we are very thankful for your comments and corrections, which helped to see a few unclear parts and or even faults of our side within our manuscript. With your comments we were able to smooth the text, clarify missing parts or wrong spellings, which resulted to a much better than the initial version of this current study.

 

Thanks a lot on behalf of all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did a great job and addressed the key points raised in the previous review. The manuscript appears good for publication.