Environmental Assessment of an Innovative High-Performance Experimental Agriculture Field

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Line 8 - Avoid we , I,  in academic writing

2. Abstract - Please indicate the conclusion / significant in abstract.

3. Line 22 - What the other strategies apply or available? Please state in your manuscript

4. Before explain about mulch cover -  discuss available strategies practice in agriculture in order to improve the production

5. Line 31 - the value 350,000 -400,000 ton of plastic consumption or what??. not to clear

6. Discuss the previous study about the effect of different munch colour in one paragraph

7. LCA study put in one paragraph

8. Discuss also the LR related to this study that apply LCA

9. What functional apply in this study 

10. Separate the figure 1.

11. Provide the justification why the area F1 and F2 not identical

12. Clearly explain the step in your experiment -methodology part

13. Add citation in Table 1 ( lifespan of the system). 

14. Add recent/latest references 

15. Reduce the similarity index (currently 26%).

Author Response

July 18^th, 2022

Response to the Reviewers’ and Editors’ comments

This statement concerns the authors' revision n.1 of the sustainability-1805028 paper, entitled “ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF AN INNOVATIVE HIGH-PERFORMANCE EXPERIMENTAL AGRICULTURE FIELD”, based on the reviewers' report.

The comments of the reviewers have been very useful and all of them have been addressed by the authors. Following up on the reviewers' suggestions, the authors restructured the paper, particularly focusing on the discussion, they also corrected all factual errors and minor forms of presentation that the reviewers brought to their attention. The major changes to the paper are directly implemented in the manuscript (in red characters), and each individual comment is dealt with in detail below.

The authors thank very much the reviewers for taking the time to carefully assess their contribution and providing useful insights for its improvement.

Reviewer #1

Comment 1:

Line 8 - Avoid we, I, in academic writing

Authors:

Following this reviewer’s suggestion, the text was completely reviewed and the pronoun was substituted. The modifications are highlighted in red.

Comment 2:

Abstract - Please indicate the conclusion / significant in abstract.

Authors:

The authors thank very much the reviewer for the comment. The abstract was reviewed and the most important results and conclusions were included (lines 8 to 14, highlighted in yellow).

“The CML baseline method demonstrated that the covered field (F1) is associated with more than 23 kg CO2 eq emissions (25% attributed to the mulch) in comparison to about 18 kg CO2 eq of the non-covered sector (F2). In addition, electronic components and drainage systems were linked with most toxicity indicators. However, F1's higher productivity compensated for the mulch impact, resulting in 9% lower CO2 equivalent emissions per kg yield in the first year and 18% lower each year for 30 years. Results encourage applying such a solution in an urban context with several benefits.”

Comment 3:

Line 22 - What the other strategies apply or available? Please state in your manuscript

Authors:

Other strategies were cited, including sustainable alternatives (lines 25-29). These strategies were grouped as technological, traditional, and sustainable practices.

Comment 4:

Before explain about mulch cover -  discuss available strategies practice in agriculture in order to improve the production

Authors:

According to this reviewer’s suggestion, different strategies were discussed in paragraph 2 (Introduction):

“Strategies to improve production can vary between more technological advances such as biotechnology manipulation and investment in new machinery [3], traditional use of pesticides and fertilizers, and a more sustainable approach as the practice of culture rotation and mixed crops, the use of pollinators and anaerobic digesters, besides the application of mulches [4]”.

Comment 5:

Line 31 - the value 350,000 -400,000 ton of plastic consumption or what?? not to clear

Authors:

The authors agree and thank the reviewer. The phrase was reformulated:

Blanco et al. reported that, only in Italy, the agricultural plastic consumption for mulching reaches around 350,000 - 400,000 tons per year [10].

Comment 6:

Discuss the previous study about the effect of different munch colour in one paragraph

Authors:

The authors thank very much the reviewer and revised the mulch color argument in one dedicated paragraph (lines 58-70).

Comment 7:

LCA study put in one paragraph

Authors:

The authors thank the reviewer and concentrated the LCA context in the following paragraph:

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly used to assess the ecological sustainability of food production systems [11–13], including agriculture [14–17].  Gaillard et al. reviewed LCA literature and underlined as relevant barriers geographical particularities, the adaptation of the method from the industrial sector to agriculture, and the general audience's lack of knowledge concerning the LCA method [16]. Indeed, the agricultural sector is the one that needs more progress in LCA research [18-20]. Stoessel et al. developed a Swiss reference database of several fruits and vegetables produced or imported [18]. The study concluded that seasonality and local production could reduce emissions if not depending on greenhouses fossil fuel heated structures. Through LCA, Urbano et al. compared eight scenarios of tomato production for urban consumption, obtaining not such an evident result was the zero-kilometer culture produced in greenhouses had the worst environmental performance, concluding that the efficiency of all systems involved in the production chain is crucial for a sustainable strategy [21].

Comment 8:

Discuss also the LR related to this study that apply LCA

Authors:

According to the reviewer suggestion and the LCA case was better explained in paragraph 4, in the Introduction section.

Comment 9:

What functional apply in this study 

Authors:

The authors thank the reviewer for stressing this important point. In this work, two functional units were determined in order to compare first the impact of the system itself and later, if the effects of the much compensated for the extra emissions (lines 94-99).

Comment 10:

Separate the figure 1

Authors:

The figures were separated and renumbered according to the suggestion (pages 3 and 4).

Comment 11:

Provide the justification why the area F1 and F2 not identical

Authors:

A more detailed explanation was included in the “2.1.2. System description and boundaries”, lines 106-108. The field was originally designed for evaluating the effects of a high-reflective mulch cover and several measurement points were required for this purpose. The smaller fraction of the site was a reference control section that didn’t require the same extension.

Comment 12:

Clearly explain the step in your experiment -methodology part

Authors:

The authors thank the reviewer and reframed part of section 2 for more clarity (lines 74-81). The methodology is detailed in subsections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 4.

Comment 13:

Add citation in Table 1 (lifespan of the system)

Authors:

The authors added the references. Those not specified were assumed by the team that designed the experiment considering the site conditions, as outdoor exposition for example.

Comment 14:

Add recent/latest references 

Authors:

The authors thank the suggestion and included the following literature:

• Edgerton, M.D. Increasing crop productivity to meet global needs for feed, food, and fuel. Plant Physiology 2009, 149, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.108.130195. 407 4.
• Eisenstein, M. Sustainable Nutrition: Outlook. Nature 2020, 588, S58–59.
• Alhashim, R.; Deepa, R.; Anandhi, A. Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production using lca: A review. Climate 2021, 9, 1–62. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9110164.
• Urbano, B.; Barquero, M.; González-Andrés, F. The environmental impact of fresh tomatoes consumed in cities: A comparative LCA of long-distance transportation and local production. 455 Scientia Horticulturae 2022, 301, 111126.,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2022.111126.

Comment 15:

Reduce the similarity index (currently 26%).

Authors:

The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable input. The manuscript was revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well written and the results are interesting. Yet the problem statement, research gap, and novelty are not clearly mentioned. 

For a better understanding, compare F1 and F2 inputs and outputs in a table format. 

How to extend the current results and discussions to a larger scale?

The comparison of F1 and F2 results is not clear (fig 2-5) Make two different results for better understanding.

Whether Figure 3 was obtained from the software? How accurate are the results? what are the uncertainties associated with these results? why did the authors select this software among other existing software? What is the new methodological advancement?

Section 4.1: what should be done to overcome these limitations?

Author Response

July 18^th, 2022

Response to the Reviewers’ and Editors’ comments

This statement concerns the authors' revision n.1 of the sustainability-1805028 paper, entitled “ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF AN INNOVATIVE HIGH-PERFORMANCE EXPERIMENTAL AGRICULTURE FIELD”, based on the reviewers' report.

The comments of the reviewers have been very useful and all of them have been addressed by the authors. Following up on the reviewers' suggestions, the authors restructured the paper, particularly focusing on the discussion, they also corrected all factual errors and minor forms of presentation that the reviewers brought to their attention. The major changes to the paper are directly implemented in the manuscript (in red characters), and each individual comment is dealt with in detail below.

The authors thank very much the reviewers for taking the time to carefully assess their contribution and providing useful insights for its improvement.

Reviewer #2

Comment 1:

The paper is well written and the results are interesting. Yet the problem statement, research gap, and novelty are not clearly mentioned.

Authors:

The authors thank very much this reviewer for taking the time to carefully assess their contribution and providing useful insights for its improvement. The manuscript was reviewed in order to better explain the research proposed.

Comment 2:

For a better understanding, compare F1 and F2 inputs and outputs in a table format. 

Authors:

The authors thank this reviewer for the suggestion. They produced two tables:

• Table 1 (page 4) was reframed and added information regarding the allocation fraction, number of life cycle considered for the two time frames analyzed;
• Table 2 (pages 6-8) was added summarizing the inputs detailed in section 2.2.

Comment 3:

How to extend the current results and discussions to a larger scale?

Authors:

The authors appreciate the interest in the project and included more details in Section 4.1. From the results, the solution could be implemented in an urban context with several benefits: superficial air temperature reduction, water management contribution, food safety increment, and reduction of food transportation (less fuel consumption and fewer waste losses).

Comment 4:

The comparison of F1 and F2 results is not clear (fig 2-5) Make two different results for better understanding.

Authors:

According to the suggestion, figures 2 and 5 were reformulated. The same data were presented in two tables: Table 3, page 4, and Table 4 page 11) pointing out each component’s contribution for higher clarity. The emissions obtained were calculated with SimaPro.

Comment 5:

Whether Figure 3 was obtained from the software? How accurate are the results? what are the uncertainties associated with these results? why did the authors select this software among other existing software? What is the new methodological advancement?

Authors:

The software used for calculation is SimaPro 8.4.0.0 with the ecoinvent v.3.3 database. The indicators results were exported as .xls, compatible with Microsoft Excel. The graphs were produced on Excel for better visualization.

The revised manuscript presents graphs 3, 4, and 5 revised. SimaPro, together with GaBi and Umberto, is one of the most reliable software available for life cycle assessment studies.

Comment 6:

Section 4.1: what should be done to overcome these limitations?

Authors:

The authors agree that this is a very relevant aspect of implementing such a methodology. The number of certified products available in the market increased substantially, with trends continuously growing. Since most of the limitations are related to data gaps, the development of projects specifying components that declare their impacts with more transparency can translate into a better understanding of the production supply chain, among others.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please check the format for Table 2

Author Response

July 29^th, 2022

Response to the Reviewer’s comments

This statement concerns the authors' revision n.2 of the sustainability-1805028 paper, entitled “ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF AN INNOVATIVE HIGH-PERFORMANCE EXPERIMENTAL AGRICULTURE FIELD”, based on the reviewers' report.

The comment of the reviewer was useful, and it was addressed by the authors. Following up on the suggestion, the authors restructured table 2. The major changes to the paper are directly implemented in the manuscript (underlined in red) pages 6 to 8.

The authors thank very much the reviewers for taking the time to carefully assess their contribution and providing useful insights for its improvement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf