Assessing the Impacts of Climate Variations on the Potato Production in Bangladesh: A Supply and Demand Model Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript "Assessing the Impacts of Climate Variations on the Potato Production in Bangladesh: A Supply and Demand Model Approach" uses climate and socio-economic projections to assess potato production and consumption in Bangladesh. Although the topic is relevant and merits publication, the authors should address the following issues before the manuscript is ready for publication:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
- The organization of the manuscript has to be improved;
- The model description has to be expanded. For example, how were the trends used in the model estimated? How were the model parameters estimated? The current description does not allow the reader to fully understand how the model was developed and applied;
- The assumptions of the model have to be better supported. For example, the estimated parameters (which were identified as an issue in the bullet above) were assumed to be fixed. Is this reasonable? Why? Also, the GDP deflator and exchange rate were assumed, which makes them subjective. If the model is sensitive to those variables, as I presume it is, the results can be very subjective as well;
- The discussion session has to be improved. It repeats the results and, the actual discussion is short and does not contextualize the results in light of the literature. It also needs to discuss the findings in light of the international market dynamics. For example, in-natura potato exports may not be very expressive due to high water content and spoilage risk. However, I think the authors refer to in-natura potato in the manuscript. These aspects have to be clarified.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Please see annotated PDF file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors gave full consideration of making the corrections advised after thoroughly reading the comments. The point-to-point questions and answers are given below. Besides, please note that the changed areas are based on the reviewer's comments (marked with red color in the revised manuscript).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Assessing the Impact of Climate Variations on the Potato Production in Bangladesh: A Supply and Demand Model Approach” by Jannat et al. Authors have investigated the Impact of climate variations on the potato production in Bangladesh. This work is an exciting research topic, but many aspects of the manuscript are not satisfactory. Some of the results presented here are speculative in terms of very advanced studies which need strong relevant reasonings. This issue dramatically reduces the scientific value of the manuscript. According to the authors, mostly the results are ascertained by environment or location factors but they did not talk about any environmental parameters which may be interestingly involved to support their results. The discussion of some results is an over-interpretation of experimental data.
There are many grammatical errors throughout the manuscript that should be addressed. There are a few words that are extensively repeated in the manuscript. So, I suggest extensive changes for language editing.
The purpose of the study is well defined. The authors explained what they wanted to achieve in their research.
Abstract adequately summarizes the manuscript.
The organization of the introduction is clear and relevant topics are included. However, in the Materials and Methods section, I think there is a need to include annual temperature, annual rainfall, and solar radiation data as well.
A significant weakness of this manuscript is the Discussion part. It is not comprehensively described. In the discussion, some conclusions are too exaggerated.
Avoid using abbreviations in keywords. The keywords must be different from the title
The introduction section should be revised properly as there are many irrelevant statements in this section. At the end of the introduction section, mention the significance of the experiment for future prospects as well.
Why the authors have studied the data from 1988-2013? What about the recent data after 2013?
Figure 2: what are the correlations of “exogenous” and “endogenous” tabs with the other factors mentioned in this diagram?
Statistical analysis: provide separate details of statistical analysis performed for the studied parameters
Tables: what about the statistical significance statement in the caption? Moreover, all the abbreviations should be explained in the caption statement. It seems there are many abbreviations missing details
The abbreviations should be explained when coming first throughout the manuscript or it's better to provide a list of all abbreviations.
There are some efforts needed in the conclusions section as the authors should relate their results to how they achieved their study's objectives.
The references are not properly formatted please refer to the author’s guidelines provided by the journal.
To sum up, the manuscript can find interest among specialists when the comments will be taken into account. However, in the present form, I cannot recommend the work for acceptance because this manuscript's significant weakness is the discussion part.
Good Luck!
Author Response
The authors gave full consideration of making the corrections advised after thoroughly reading the comments. The point-to-point questions and answers are given below. Besides, please note that the changed areas are based on the reviewer's comments (marked with red color in the revised manuscript).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for accepting my corrections. Your valuable suggestions and comments improved my manuscript. We express our sincere gratefulness to you for your valuable time during the review process.
Thank you.
Best wishes to you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate the efforts put by the authors to address all my comments.
But I still feel there are some minor language checks needed.
There are still some mistakes in the references section as well.
I feel the manuscript should be accepted after these minor changes incorporated.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your observations regarding the revised manuscript. In the revised manuscript, your observations were considered and corrected as needed.
Thank you for appreciating our efforts.
Regarding your comments about some minor language checks and references section, please find the revised manuscript in the attached file, and corrections were changed using gradient green color.
Thank you.
Best wishes to you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
