Potential of Eco-Weeding with High-Power Laser Adoption from the Farmers’ Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript refers to an extensive survey in three countries (Denmark, Poland and Spain) on the willingness to introduce innovations on farms with particular reference to a weed control prototype developed through a European research project.

The Authors used a questionnaire and carried out a statistical analysis to highlight the differences linked to the different national characteristic of the farms, farmers, level of innovation already introduced in their system and knowledge of the farmers, and evidenced the conditions necessary for the introduction of a relevant innovative machine (public support, presence of rental services or contractors, organization of educational courses to improve the knowledge, and so on).

The Authors have detailed the methodology used in the interview and in the elaboration of the answers. Ultimately, in my opinion, the manuscript is interesting, well structured and written, so I propose to accept it in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript, your valuable general comments and positive review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript ‘Potential of eco-weeding with high power laser adoption in the farmers’ perspective’ is interesting and useful for innovators and organic farmers. In the study there were identified key aspects of implementation of laser based weeding technology form the farmers perspective.

The manuscript contains all the relevant sections and meets the requirements of Sustainability. Overall, the article is well written, concise, and merits publication. However, the article needs to be corrected before it can be published. The sections and subsections of the manuscript should be numbered correctly, and these points should be corrected:

Line 99 – 2.1. subsection is not needed. The content of this subsection does not correspond to its title.

Line 137 – the description of the survey method should not be divided into subsections.

Line 159 – all tables presented in the manuscript should have a number and title at the top.

Line 190 – this subsection should be titled: 2.1. Statistical Analysis of data.

Line 264 – the following section should be indicated above: 3 Results.

I have indicated some observations in the manuscript.

Best of all to the authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript an all valuable comments. This are our answers to your detailed comments.

Line 99 – 2.1. subsection is not needed. The content of this subsection does not correspond to its title. Corrected.

Line 137 – the description of the survey method should not be divided into subsections. Corrected.

Line 159 – all tables presented in the manuscript should have a number and title at the top. Corrected.

Line 190 – this subsection should be titled: 2.1. Statistical Analysis of data. Corrected.

Line 264 – the following section should be indicated above: 3 Results. Corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1 Please add some related keywords according to the contents of the manuscript, such as farmers' perspective.

2 We noticed that“help to improve the design”in line 95, but we did not find how the results of the study help to improve the design detailed in the manuscript. Could you explain a little bit of the design issue?

3 Where is the title for “The table” in line 158? Should be Table2？How about the table form? Actually, I find a lot of tables without table titles in the manuscript. You used “table below” “are presented below” “Below is” “following” “matrix below” “next table” “Below, the contingency table” “table above” and “next contingency table” to point to the specific tables. This can easily confuse readers. I suggest that you might number and title all the tables, and then mention them one by one in the manuscript.

4“However, in further analyses, data on age and farm size were expressed in three classes”in lines 184-185, please explain a little bit about the A1 and A2 in the “presented below” table. And please explain P9A and P9B in the “Below” table and explain the relationship between this table and Table 1.

5 The contents from line 178 to line 189 and the contents of section "3.1. Statistical approach" from line 190 to line 263 might be moved to section 2.

6 About“the number of respondents”in line 221, but you used "number of samples" in line 160? The same meaning?

7 Please double check the sub-section numbers in section 3, such as several “3.1.1.” and “3.1.”.

8 The“3 states”in Table 10 might be changed to “3 countries”?

9 The abbreviation “(PA)” in line 728 should be appeared in the first place of the manuscript, for example, in line 42.

10 There is no “2)” corresponding to“1)”in line 794.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The“the subject of the study”in lines 101-102 seems repeated to "The overall goal of the survey" in line 100. Delete it? The word “according” or “according to” in the whole manuscript? There are several problems with punctuation mark, capital letter or lower case letter, etc. Please check and correct them in the whole manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript an all valuable comments.

1 Please add some related keywords according to the contents of the manuscript, such as farmers' perspective. Corrected.

2 We noticed that“ help to improve the design” in line 95, but we did not find how the results of the study help to improve the design detailed in the manuscript. Could you explain a little bit of the design issue? Corrected - more comments on this issue are included in the section „Country comparison”.

3 Where is the title for “The table” in line 158? Should be Table2? How about the table form? Actually, I find a lot of tables without table titles in the manuscript. You used “table below” “are presented below” “Below is” “following” “matrix below” “next table” “Below, the contingency table” “table above” and “next contingency table” to point to the specific tables. This can easily confuse readers. I suggest that you might number and title all the tables, and then mention them one by one in the manuscript. Corrected.

4 “However, in further analyses, data on age and farm size were expressed in three classes” in lines 184-185, please explain a little bit about the A1 and A2 in the “presented below” table. And please explain P9A and P9B in the “Below” table and explain the relationship between this table and Table 1. Corrected. Additional explenation was added in Chapter 3.1

5 The contents from line 178 to line 189 and the contents of section "3.1. Statistical approach" from line 190 to line 263 might be moved to section 2. Corrected.

6 About “the number of respondents” in line 221, but you used "number of samples" in line 160? The same meaning? Corrected – we used respondents.

7 Please double check the sub-section numbers in section 3, such as several “3.1.1.” and “3.1.”. Corrected.

8 The “3 states” in Table 10 might be changed to “3 countries”? Corrected – we used countries.

9 The abbreviation “(PA)” in line 728 should be appeared in the first place of the manuscript, for example, in line 42. Corrected

10 There is no “2)” corresponding to“1)”in line 794. Corrected.

The “the subject of the study” in lines 101-102 seems repeated to "The overall goal of the survey" in line 100. Delete it? The word “according” or “according to” in the whole manuscript? There are several problems with punctuation mark, capital letter or lower case letter, etc. Please check and correct them in the whole manuscript. Corrected, we deleted “subject of the study”.