A Regional Comparison of Factors Affecting Global Sorghum Production: The Case of North America, Asia and Africa’s Sahel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Journal: Sustainability.
Title: A regional comparison of factors affecting global sorghum production: The case of North America, Asia and Africa’s Sahel.
Comment/suggestion:
The manuscript is well written and the findings consistent with previous literature reporting in the subject matter. Perhaps it is conceivable for the authors to consider extending their discussion to cover sorghum production in Nigeria; in the context of the Sahel region. Discussion on factors affecting sorghum production in Africa’s Sahel may be considered less comprehensive without including Nigeria’s perspective in proper context.
Nigeria accounts for over 15% of the total population resident in the Sahel. The country is ranked the 3rd largest producer of sorghum worldwide and it contributes about 70% of total sorghum output in the West African region[1]. The northern region of Nigeria (particularly the northeast), covers over 60% of sorghum cultivation fields in Nigeria. However, over the past decades, Lake Chad (which forms part of the northeastern region of Nigeria) has shrunk by more than 90% of its area size thereby causing significant loss of lively hood to over 40 million people, which largely depends on subsistence farming for both consumption and income. This is even further exacerbated by increasing desert encroachment along with Boko Haram terrorist emergence in the region. A combination of these factors has led to grave food security crises and dwindling sorghum production[2,3]. Consequently, climate change impact, security concerns, unprecedented levels of population displacements, together with much-reduced access to farming activities is worsening food production security. For example, sorghum production dropped from about 9.38 million tons in 2008/2009 to less than 6.3 million tons by 2016/2017[4].
Reference:
FAO. Food security assessment in the northeastern States of Nigeria. FAO Rapid seed system assessment report; FAO: Rome; Italy, 2016, 16-64.
FAO. Lake Chad basin crises: Response strategy (2017-2019); Mitigating the impact of the crisis and strengthening the resilience and food security of conflict-affected communities. FAO; Rome, Italy, 2017, 1-12.
Gourichon H., Analysis of incentives and disincentives for sorghum in Nigeria. Technical notes series, MAFAP, FAO, Rome, 2013,
https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Grain%20and%20Feed%20Annual_Lagos_Nigeria_4-6-2017.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The manuscript is well written and the findings consistent with previous literature reporting in the subject matter. Perhaps it is conceivable for the authors to consider extending their discussion to cover sorghum production in Nigeria; in the context of the Sahel region. Discussion on factors affecting sorghum production in Africa’s Sahel may be considered less comprehensive without including Nigeria’s perspective in proper context.
Nigeria accounts for over 15% of the total population resident in the Sahel. The country is ranked the 3rd largest producer of sorghum worldwide and it contributes about 70% of total sorghum output in the West African region[1]. The northern region of Nigeria (particularly the northeast), covers over 60% of sorghum cultivation fields in Nigeria. However, over the past decades, Lake Chad (which forms part of the northeastern region of Nigeria) has shrunk by more than 90% of its area size thereby causing significant loss of lively hood to over 40 million people, which largely depends on subsistence farming for both consumption and income. This is even further exacerbated by increasing desert encroachment along with Boko Haram terrorist emergence in the region. A combination of these factors has led to grave food security crises and dwindling sorghum production[2,3]. Consequently, climate change impact, security concerns, unprecedented levels of population displacements, together with much-reduced access to farming activities is worsening food production security. For example, sorghum production dropped from about 9.38 million tons in 2008/2009 to less than 6.3 million tons by 2016/2017[4].
Reference:
FAO. Food security assessment in the northeastern States of Nigeria. FAO Rapid seed system assessment report; FAO: Rome; Italy, 2016, 16-64.
FAO. Lake Chad basin crises: Response strategy (2017-2019); Mitigating the impact of the crisis and strengthening the resilience and food security of conflict-affected communities. FAO; Rome, Italy, 2017, 1-12.
Gourichon H., Analysis of incentives and disincentives for sorghum in Nigeria. Technical notes series, MAFAP, FAO, Rome, 2013,
https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Grain%20and%20Feed%20Annual_Lagos_Nigeria_4-6-2017.pdf
Response 1: The authors substituted the narrative on Mali with a new Nigeria section to address this comment. Figure 5 was also redone to reflect this change.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments:
1. This paper addresses an interesting topic; it aimed to examine the major factors affecting sorghum production in three major producing regions.
2. Line 16 “Understanding the dynamics of food…” is rather long and it should be split in two sentences.
3. Line 19 “We focus on sorghum, the fifth…”; the authors should avoid the use of personal pronouns within the body of the manuscript (e.g. "this paper investigates..." is correct; "I/we investigate..." is incorrect). Please revise the whole manuscript.
4. The authors should indicate the main methods used in the abstract in 1-2 sentences.
5. The keywords should be improved; the authors should avoid using the keywords which have already appeared in the title (e.g. sorghum, production factors, agriculture, North America, Asia, Sahel).
6. There is no reference to support the information of the first paragraph of the Introduction section.
7. Lines 41-43 “Food production per capita over recent…”; the cited reference is rather old since the sentences are discussing the current time with an old reference.
8. I suggest moving Figure 1 and the relevant description to the end of the Introduction section.
9. Line 42 “The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) gauges that…”; the authors should replace the cited reference with the latest report of FAO (i.e. 2018).
10. The main objectives are not clearly highlighted; the authors should add a paragraph and clearly discuss the main objectives at the end of the Introduction section.
11. The main contribution of the current study compared to similar studies should be highlighted; it could be done in the Introduction section in one paragraph.
12. Overall, the Introduction section should be enriched; the authors should add a few relevant/recent studies along with their approaches and outcomes and indicate the main contribution of the current study by comparing it with previous ones.
13. The authors should carefully check the line spacing adjustment throughout the manuscript (e.g. lines 47-72).
14. The authors have put too much unnecessary information under the sub-section “2.1. Crop growth requirements”, which simply could be summarized in a Table.
15. There are many descriptive inputs with no real analysis under section of “2. Sorghum”. The current analysis seems a bit naive from comparison perspective, which could be improved at the least with some added discussion or tables.
16. Adding a few sub-headings might improve the overall structure of the Discussion section.
17. The discussion of the results according and compared to existent literature is missing. The authors should outline how the main findings are in line with previous studies in the Discussion section.
18. The authors have failed to highlight the main implications of their findings in the Conclusion section. The author should add 1-2 paragraphs indicating the main implications (mainly policy implications) of the study.
19. The future research directions are not highlighted. It should be done in one paragraph in the Conclusion section.
20. The English grammar and style should be checked throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: This paper addresses an interesting topic; it aimed to examine the major factors affecting sorghum production in three major producing regions.
Response 1: We thank the reviewers for their very thoughtful and constructive comments.
Point 2: Line 16 “Understanding the dynamics of food…” is rather long and it should be split in two sentences.
Response 2: The sentence was split into two and other sentence and grammatical corrections were made: “Understanding the dynamics of food production is critical to improving food security. This is particularly important in regions that rely on subsistence agriculture with little adaptive capacity to climate change.”
Point 3: Line 19 “We focus on sorghum, the fifth…”; the authors should avoid the use of personal pronouns within the body of the manuscript (e.g. "this paper investigates..." is correct; "I/we investigate..." is incorrect). Please revise the whole manuscript.
Response 3: The pronouns were removed with further reconstruction of the corresponding sentences, where necessary.
Point 4: The authors should indicate the main methods used in the abstract in 1-2 sentences.
Response 4: The existing sentence was modified, and one was added: “This article reviews the literature to identify and examine the major factors affecting sorghum production in three major producing regions. Factors were not categorized ex ante but rather determined from the review.”
Point 5: The keywords should be improved; the authors should avoid using the keywords which have already appeared in the title (e.g. sorghum, production factors, agriculture, North America, Asia, Sahel).
Response 5: The keywords were changed to “food insecurity, global agricultural, sorghum, climate change, adaptation, subsistence production”.
Point 6: There is no reference to support the information of the first paragraph of the Introduction section.
Response 6: The authors decided to delete the first paragraph due to the reviewer’s comment.
Point 7: Lines 41-43 “Food production per capita over recent…”; the cited reference is rather old since the sentences are discussing the current time with an old reference.
Response 7: The citation was edited to reflect most recent FAO Pocketbook (2018), most specifically Chart 36.
Point 8: I suggest moving Figure 1 and the relevant description to the end of the Introduction section.
Response 8: The figure was moved as suggested.
Point 9: Line 42 “The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) gauges that…”; the authors should replace the cited reference with the latest report of FAO (i.e. 2018).
Response 9: The reference was replaced with a recent article on rising food demand from Harvard Business Review:
Elferink, M.; Schierhorn, F. Global demand for food is rising. Can we meet it? [Online]; Harvard Bus. Rev. 2016. https://hbr.org/2016/04/global-demand-for-food-is-rising-can-we-meet-it (accessed Mar 16, 2019).
Point 10: The main objectives are not clearly highlighted; the authors should add a paragraph and clearly discuss the main objectives at the end of the Introduction section.
Response 10: The last paragraph of the introduction was modified, and one was added after that to address this comment.
Point 11: The main contribution of the current study compared to similar studies should be highlighted; it could be done in the Introduction section in one paragraph.
Response 11: See comment above, this comment was addressed as well in the modified and added paragraphs at the end of the introduction.
Point 12: Overall, the Introduction section should be enriched; the authors should add a few relevant/recent studies along with their approaches and outcomes and indicate the main contribution of the current study by comparing it with previous ones.
Response 12: A paragraph (lines 63-74) was added in the introduction to address this comment.
Point 13: The authors should carefully check the line spacing adjustment throughout the manuscript (e.g. lines 47-72).
Response 13: The line spacing and initial indents were all corrected.
Point 14: The authors have put too much unnecessary information under the sub-section “2.1. Crop growth requirements”, which simply could be summarized in a Table.
Response 14: Text reduced to 2 paragraphs on the main growth requirements.
Point 15: There are many descriptive inputs with no real analysis under section of “2. Sorghum”. The current analysis seems a bit naive from comparison perspective, which could be improved at the least with some added discussion or tables.
Response 15: To address this comment, we have added a discussion of the global challenges going forward in this section (lines 202-213).
Point 16: Adding a few sub-headings might improve the overall structure of the Discussion section.
Response 16: Added two subheadings (4.1. Influence of Factors; 4.2. Overall Ranking of Factors).
Point 17: The discussion of the results according and compared to existent literature is missing. The authors should outline how the main findings are in line with previous studies in the Discussion section.
Response 17: Added a paragraph to the end of the discussion section to address existing literature (lines 498-507)
Point 18: The authors have failed to highlight the main implications of their findings in the Conclusion section. The author should add 1-2 paragraphs indicating the main implications (mainly policy implications) of the study.
Response 18: A paragraph was added to address this comment (lines 534-542).
Point 19: The future research directions are not highlighted. It should be done in one paragraph in the Conclusion section.
Response 19: A paragraph was added to address this comment (lines 5439-542).
Point 20: The English grammar and style should be checked throughout the manuscript.
Response 20: The manuscript was thoroughly checked for grammar and style.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No further comments.
