Quality Production of Sainfoin Swards Challenged by Global Change in Mountain Areas in the Western Mediterranean

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Corrections must be made according to the feedback provided. The corrections are simple, nothing that detracts from the merit or that methodologically compromises the work. The article has an important contribution to agriculture, especially mangiculture. it is a relevant work and adequate to the scope of this renowned scientific journal, meeting the quality standard of this journal.

1、Lines 5, 8, and 11 have no superscripts for 1, 2, and 3.

2、There are too many keywords, it is recommended to reduce them appropriately.

3、Graphical Abstract is too simple, it is recommended to delete or modify it.

4、The analysis of the results is too simple, and it is recommended to deepen it.

5、Lines 385 to 391 seem to duplicate the content in the introduction.

6、The discussion should compare more with the research of others to determine the differences between the results of this study.

7、The format of the references is not uniform and did not follow the requirements of the journal.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The present manuscript describes the productivity and nutritive qualities of sainfoin swards depending on species diversity and management regimes. The authors found that the combination of legume with grass as well as the traditional style of pasture management is more preferable in Eastern Pyrenees. The authors are well informed about the problem as evidenced by the introduction. The important aspect of the present investigation was that the part of research was conducted directly on the farmer fields. The authors selected the appropriate statistical methods to interpret the data obtained from the experiment and from survey of commercial sainfoin swards.

There are comments on the text of the manuscript.

1) Abstract

If the Latin name of sainfoin is not included in the Title it would be desirable to give it in the abstract

2) Introduction

The last paragraph should be moved one paragraph above

3) Line 66 – The Latin name of sainfoin should be given at the first mention in the text, but not later (Line 75)

4) Line 80 - The Latin name of alfalfa should be given here at the first mention in the text, but not later (Line 85)

5) Materials and Methods

Section 3.1 - the authors should give a description of material used in the experiment (species, varieties – Lines 146-149) but not the description of sainfoin.

6)Line 149 -152 - It would be desirable to give a more accurate description of experiment

7) Line 190-191 – The second mention of Latin names is not necessary

8) Figure 1B. - It is necessary to give an explanation of symbols (Cv and others)

9) Table 2 – The title of the table should be shorter, explanations should be done or below or in the text.

10) Discussion

Sometimes the authors used the uncorrected style of citing. For example (line 460, not only)

“…as shown by [53], …”

In the author version it should be “…as shown by Finn at. al. [53], ..”, or number of references should be done at the end of phrase

11) Line 631 –there is no date of publication

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The problem presented in this article is very current due to global warming. Although the problem of growing sainfoin in the mountains is local, the approach to achieving the goal may be universal. The introduction provides a good justification for undertaking the research. The Materials and Methods section is written comprehensively, but section 3.1 Sainfoin should be moved to the Introduction. Results – for me, the data in Figure 3 is difficult to read. It is difficult to guess what curve applies to a specific management regime. Please consider how to label the curves better so that they are clear to the reader. I have no comments on the Discussions and Conclusions.

Other comments

-         Latin names of species should be standardized and written correctly, e.g.

-         In the Abstract, I suggest giving 22% instead of 22.09% and the same for -26.08% and -10.76.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Line 21: please insert "Based on" before "combining...".

Line 53: please replace the "global" with "long-term".

Lines 117 to 125: remove the text to the Introduction chapter.

Lines 136-137: Please explain the meaning of "average precipitation of 1.9 mm in spring and 2.02 in summer of 2022"? Is it average daily precipitation like a result after dividing the total period precipitation with count of days of the same period?

Line 152: What "forbs" do you mean? Tested legumes sainfoin and lucerne are not forbs but legumes! As per Material and methods chapter, there was no seeded forbs, neither measured volounteering forbs in the trial.

In the Material and methods chapter, authors should state how many replications were set for each experimental variant and what was the way of spatial randomization of tested variants into respective replications (in the first part of the research)?

Line 176: Part of the sentence after the comma has no sense (no understandable meaning). Please explain what you meant.

Line 432: After "of" please insert "previous researchers".

Line 447: after "Furthermore" please insert "previous authors".

Line 67: after "not only" add "in them".

Line 84: insert "there" in front of "found".

Line 90: after "grasses" start a new sentence with "Some researchers" and continue with numbers from the list of literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The MS "Quality production of sainfoin swards challenged by global change in mountain areas in the Western Mediterranean" is well written. The aims and results are clear and conclusion corresponds to the aim. I would  suggest to consider changing the term 'drought resistant plant' to 'drought tolerant plant'. On line 54 - a temperature anomaly up to 2 C  - not clear. Line 71 - what is the third sector?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx