The limitations of the data, two days of predation simulation and a 10 day mineralization test, should preclude making any conclusions. The reviewers should have caught this before publishing and either required more data, perhaps another year, or should have limited the extrapolation and far-reaching conclusions made by the authors.

It would be a stretch to use this short snapshot of data to extrapolate to future years in the same fields, much less to the region, but to extrapolate it to 110 countries in 15 regions goes beyond all scientific prudence to the absurd.

Does it make sense to show the value of the crops, gross in this case, without also showing the costs?

There are no details on how the energy inputs and outputs were calculated. What about labor inputs, were those included. How was weed control in the organic system done (you include herbicides on the conventional side)?

One 10-day test cannot tell the whole story; the soil is too complex for that. Any differences could have simply been due to temperature differences, or differences in the residue quality of previous crops, or tillage differences. Although you did not find significant differences, the short time frame for the data limits its use.

I don't think you can put much confidence in two days data from the same cropping season, especially because it is a simulation of what you are actually trying to measure. Perhaps there were less predators in the conventional fields because there were less prey numbers, or because of the previous crop. Two days of data is not robust research.

Here it says that there were no significant differences in the removal rates/mineralization, but then in the Abstract, under results, you say "The economic values of the two selected ES were greater for the organic systems in all four crops." It looks like only one of the ES was greater in the organic fields.