Effect of Native Vegetative Barriers to Prevent Wind Erosion: A Sustainable Alternative for Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Effectiveness of T’ola [Parastrephia lepidophylla (Wedd.) 2 Cabrera] as native vegetative barrier: an sustainable alternative 3 of agricultural production of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa 4 Willd.)" presents the benefits of using a vegetatitve bareer to reduce soil losses due to wind erosion.

I strongly suggest a revision of the manuscript title for it to be more informative. Plase also rethink your keywords, as they are useful for indexing. Keyword must not have any sort of redundancy with the title.

Overall the manuscript requires a thourough English revision. Sentences are poorly phrased. The authors must favor formal language usage.

INTRODUCTION

L47.- What does this (2) mean?

L60-62 Avoid the usage of superflous adjectives.

Regarding Section 1. Introduction, the authors failed to state the knowledge gap. Please revise your last paragraph as it does not have a natural language flow.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Study area.- A figure ilustrating the region is needed (Map, ground-imagery, aerial-imagery, etc.). Further social information regarding the area could help you state the improtance and significance of your work.

 In section 2.2, the authors would benefit of a map showing dominant wind direction and the locations of the three established barriers.

There is a lack of details regarding materials and methods. The importance of detailing the steps taken and teh materials used are what make scientific work advance. The authors failed to present detailed methods regarding their work. With the information they present reproducibility is impossible.

RESULTS

The results section does not portray correctly what the authors are describing. The charts, figures and tables are not corresponding to the expectations of a scientific journal.

DISCUSSION.

This section seems to be forced into the manuscript. There is enough information that could have beeen cited in the Introduction instead of brought up toward the end of the manuscript.

 

Unfortunately, this manuscript in its present form cannot be recommended for publication.

 

English language needs to be thoroughly revised. Please consider using a paid editorial service.

Author Response

The manuscript "Effectiveness of T’ola [Parastrephia lepidophylla (Wedd.) 2 Cabrera] as native vegetative barrier: an sustainable alternative 3 of agricultural production of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa 4 Willd.)" presents the benefits of using a vegetatitve bareer to reduce soil losses due to wind erosion.

I strongly suggest a revision of the manuscript title for it to be more informative. Plase also rethink your keywords, as they are useful for indexing. Keyword must not have any sort of redundancy with the title.

Sugiero enfáticamente una revisión del título del manuscrito para que sea más informativo. Por favor, también reconsidere sus palabras clave, ya que son útiles para la indexación. La palabra clave no debe tener ningún tipo de redundancia con el título.

• The title was changed with a clear meaning of the study. Keywords are not redundant to the title.

Overall the manuscript requires a thourough English revision. Sentences are poorly phrased. The authors must favor formal language usage.

• The writing was sent to an editorial service to improve the writing in English, certificate is attached.

 

INTRODUCTION

L47.- What does this (2) mean?

• Yes, you were right, it was a mistake, and now it is corrected.

 

L60-62 Avoid the usage of superflous adjectives.

• The observed adjectives were properly corrected.

Regarding Section 1. Introduction, the authors failed to state the knowledge gap. Please revise your last paragraph as it does not have a natural language flow.

Section 1 (Introduction) was improved based on updated literature and knowledge. The last paragraph was appropriately improved.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Study area.- A figure ilustrating the region is needed (Map, ground-imagery, aerial-imagery, etc.). Further social information regarding the area could help you state the improtance and significance of your work.

• It has been complemented with a georeferenced location map of the study area

In section 2.2, the authors would benefit of a map showing dominant wind direction and the locations of the three established barriers.

• Within the location map the prevailing wind direction has been incorporated.

There is a lack of details regarding materials and methods. The importance of detailing the steps taken and teh materials used are what make scientific work advance. The authors failed to present detailed methods regarding their work. With the information they present reproducibility is impossible.

• The materials and methods section presents a methodology known to be reproduced in any region of arid and semi-arid conditions.

RESULTS

The results section does not portray correctly what the authors are describing. The charts, figures and tables are not corresponding to the expectations of a scientific journal.

• The results section was clarified with an adequate presentation of graphs, figures and tables to be considered in a scientific journal.

DISCUSSION.

This section seems to be forced into the manuscript. There is enough information that could have beeen cited in the Introduction instead of brought up toward the end of the manuscript.

Unfortunately, this manuscript in its present form cannot be recommended for publication.

• The writing was adequately improved for its consideration and publication.

 

El escrito fue mejorado adecuadamente para su consideración y publicación.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language needs to be thoroughly revised. Please consider using a paid editorial service.

• The writing was sent to an editorial service to improve the writing in English. We attach the certificate:

 

Submission Date

15 April 2023

Date of this review

18 May 2023 20:16:30

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This was a good research work, and interesting. I suggest accept this manuscript after minor revision. 

(1) Line 37, an extra space.
(2) Result of 3.1. Weather: This section is not recommended as research results, but should be included in the introduction of the study area.

(3) 

• It is suggested to add a study area profile map to the study area.

Write well, Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

This was a good research work, and interesting. I suggest accept this manuscript after minor revision. 

(1) Line 37, an extra space.

• Fixed extra space on line 37.

(2) Result of 3.1. Weather: This section is not recommended as research results, but should be included in the introduction of the study area.

• The climate information table was included in the section related to the study area.

(3) It is suggested to add a study area profile map to the study area.

• A georeferenced location map has been included in the study area section.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Write well, Minor editing of English language required.

• The manuscript was edited by professional and the proof certificate is attached.

Submission Date

15 April 2023

Date of this review

29 May 2023 15:53:13

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It would be good to supplement the map background of the location of interest. It would be good to add references to the literature in the list of references [CrossRef]

 

Author Response

It would be good to supplement the map background of the location of interest. It would be good to add references to the literature in the list of references [CrossRef]

• It has been complemented with a georeferenced location map of the study area. Furthermore, additional bibliographic references were added to support the study.

 

Submission Date

15 April 2023

Date of this review

19 Jun 2023 16:13:45

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors significantly improved their manuscript. 

Once again, the KEYWORDS MUST be revised. 5 out of 6 keywords are repetitive from the title. 

Conclusions are written in the same writing style as the discussion and lack soundness.

Consider that the conclusions section of a scientific manuscript plays a vital role in placing your study within the broader scientific context, highlighting its significance in relation to existing knowledge, and examining its alignment or deviation from previous studies and theories. Additionally, it is important to emphasize any unique insights or contributions that your study brings to the field. Acknowledging the limitations of the study, such as methodological constraints or potential biases, is crucial and should involve discussing their potential impact on the generalizability and validity of the findings in different regions or contexts. Furthermore, it is essential to clearly articulate the practical implications and applications of the research findings for relevant stakeholders, demonstrating how they can be translated into practical situations. Finally, it is pivotal to identify areas that warrant further investigation based on the obtained results, providing valuable directions for future research.

The manuscript in its present form is not ready for publication.

Author Response

Once again, the KEYWORDS MUST be revised. 5 out of 6 keywords are repetitive from the title. 

1. We changed the keywords

Conclusions are written in the same writing style as the discussion and lack soundness.

Consider that the conclusions section of a scientific manuscript plays a vital role in placing your study within the broader scientific context, highlighting its significance in relation to existing knowledge, and examining its alignment or deviation from previous studies and theories. Additionally, it is important to emphasize any unique insights or contributions that your study brings to the field. Acknowledging the limitations of the study, such as methodological constraints or potential biases, is crucial and should involve discussing their potential impact on the generalizability and validity of the findings in different regions or contexts. Furthermore, it is essential to clearly articulate the practical implications and applications of the research findings for relevant stakeholders, demonstrating how they can be translated into practical situations. Finally, it is pivotal to identify areas that warrant further investigation based on the obtained results, providing valuable directions for future research.

1. In this new version, the conclusion has been modified, outlining limiting aspects (study carried out on a regional scale), possible applications by stakeholders in decision-making, and future studies to consider based on our findings.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx