Thank you for your comment. In our response, we highlighted several design and methodological issues in the published version that could lead to potential misinterpretations of the novelty of the results and, more importantly, to implications against grassland conservation. Of course, it would be important to receive a response from the authors on these points.

We believe that discussing scientific neo-colonialism is  justly relevant and appropriate for a scientific journal. Recognising the practices of intellectual colonialism is a first step, but not enough if scientific practitioners are to create truly inclusive environments and reduce inequalities. The idea of scientific colonialism is often most evident when we move from looking at a particular article and/or journal to looking at the way research groups work. This seems to be an example, where all the articles (at least 10) derived from the same project and funding source (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the project“Rural Futures—Strategies toward multifunctional, bio-diverse and sustainable productive landscapes in silvi-and agricultural modified grasslands in Uruguay”(01LN1305A)), almost exclusively authored by the European research group while local researchers are listed in the acknowledgements section. In other words, what could be a special case of an article seems to be a way of working.

In our manuscript, we cited an article by Nakamura et al. (2023) published in Nature that addresses, precisely, the dynamics of scientific relationships between the Global South and North. A well-founded opinion that opens further discussion on how we conduct science deserves to be included in a scientific journal. Removing our comment on scientific neo-colonialism would obstruct an important dialogue that we believe could enhance collaboration.

Of course, these issues are complex and filled with contradictions. For instance, the senior author of this manuscript (JMP) is writing this while looking at posters of two of his "idols": Humboldt and Darwin. Both eminences were associated with colonial powers. Clearly, they lived in a different historical context, political climate, and stage of scientific development in South America. Were they ardent colonizers? Were they merely functional to colonial power? The answer is not straightforward; it depends on the context in which we judge their legacy. 

We are no longer in the 19th century, and the political, historical, and scientific contexts have evolved. These changes need an open discussion about what South American scientists perceive as colonialist practices.

Thank you for your comment. Our focus in the submitted comment was to highlight some design and methodological problems of the original paper that may lead to erroneous conclusions and recommendations against grassland conservation. We believe the best way to address these shortcomings is to be specific, identifying the most critical points and clearly stating our concerns. This approach would facilitate a meaningful response from the authors. Our main objective was to comment on issues that may affect the interpretation and use of the results. For example, if the geographical scope of the article is Uruguay, and the conclusions are generalized for the entire country, discussing the sampling design is particularly relevant. Our focus was not on introducing broad issues open to discussion, such as the expansion of forests into grassland areas or the role of silvopastoral systems. Instead, we aimed to identify and explain some conclusions that, in our opinion, are not well-supported by the data. In a revised version of the manuscript, we will remove statements related to such broad and controversial points that are beyond the scope of this type of article. Moreover, we do not consider appropriate to present an alternative thesis while there are concerns about the methodological approach that questions the quality of the presented evidence.

We have no issue with the authorship itself. Our general concern is related to Global North scientists providing “scientific evidence” and “solutions” on the poor environmental performance of a Global South country. The interpretation of highly sensitive issues such as environmental performance requires local and regional context, which local scientists are in a much better position to provide. Including two South American researchers in the authorship does not sufficiently address this concern. We support the importance of Global North-South collaboration in studies of this nature, regardless of our opinion on the scientific quality of the research. However, in the case of Saumell et al.'s article, we have major concerns about the evidence presented and the recommendations they addressed.