Crop Diversification and Resilience of Drought-Resistant Species in Semi-Arid Areas: An Economic and Environmental Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This MS compared the environmental and economic issues among three orchards system using LCA and LCC methods. Results obtained in this MS is interesting and could help local farmers and governors shift traditional cropping systems to much healthy and sustainable development systems.

The followings comments and questions should be considered when revised MS.

(1)   In the abstract, the last sentence shows “deficit irrigation …yield and quality”. However, in the main text, this topic is not analyzed and discussed. Therefore, this conclusion should be removed. In another way, the deficit irrigation and regulated deficit irrigation methods can be considered in the LCA and LCC methods, then analyze the corresponding environmental and finical data.

(2)   Line 22, it is better to list the agricultural system with the high - low order based on the environmental load.

(3)   Lines 184-186, The method to calculate GWP, ODP, EP, AP and NRF should be presented in the M&M.

(4)   Line 225, shot term "IRR" should be defined before first use.

(5)   yield data in tables 2-4 should be the same to that in table 6. in this case, all data can be compared.

(6)   References in conclusion section should be deleted.

Author Response

The authors thank reviewer for the kind and useful suggestion. Please find attached as pdf file the aswers (in red) to your comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 The abstract needs to be condensed, such that the reader understands the basic foundations of this study (purpose, method, and results). Do not need to describe the background too much and discuss every single result in abstract, just the main takeaways.

The literature review is not goal-oriented. The process should be as follows: i) Critical evaluation of the literature; ii) identifying the research gap based on this critical evaluation of the literature; iii) answering the research question. Right now, the literature review section has no clear objective.

Author Response

The authors thank reviewer for the kind and useful suggestion. Please find attached as pdf file the aswers (in red) to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript Number 1799227_V1, Article Title: Crop diversification and resilience in semi-arid areas: an economic and environmental analysis supporting an efficient water management.

General comments:
Life cycle analysis (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) were used to assess three perennial cultivation options (pomegranate, almond and olive) for their environmental and economic performance in a semi-arid environment of southern Italy.

The study is based on the responses obtained from a sample of 20 farms suggested by key informants with expert knowledge about Mediterranean agriculture (6 farms for pomegranate, 6 for almonds and 8 farm for olives).

All technical and economic data used in the LCA and LCC modelling was provided by the cultivators of the 20 representative farms, including information on crop cycle characteristics, irrigation amounts, fertilization and pest control details, harvesting operations and yield.

LCC was used to produce economic indicators such as gross margin (GM), internal rate of return (IRR) and discounted payback time (DPBT). For the characterization of the environmental performance of different cropping options, LCA produced six indicators including water consumption (WC), Global Warming Potential (GWP), Ozone depletion potential (ODP) and Non-renewable fossil use (NRF).

The paper provides result tables listing for each cropping option and indicator the results of the life cycle assessment and costing during a reference period of 15 years.

The analysis concludes that all three crops are economically viable and none of them performs best for all economic indicators. Olive cultivation creates the lowest environmental burden for 5 out of 6 environmental indicators and pomegranate the highest environmental burden.

The paper has an adequate structure and describes quite clearly what has been done. Still, I have a few recommendations for improvement to which the authors should attend:

1) the title of the paper suggests more than what the paper can deliver and attempted to do;

2) there are several grammatical errors, poor formulations and other English language issues that require professional editing (see a few examples below);

3) there is a lack and no mention of a sensitivity analysis. Even for the rather small number of observations used in the study at least the range of key input parameters reported by the 20 farms should be discussed and used to assess the robustness of results. Same holds for input and output prices which are quite volatile (as recent events have shown) and management assumptions which will affect the crops differently;

4) Table 9 shows indicators for each crop per m3 of irrigation water. While this makes sense for water productivity expressed as gross margin/unit of irrigation or possibly value of output/unit of irrigation, I don’t think that GWP/m3 has any appreciable meaning or message for management and should be deleted;

5) the risk profiles of the three crops, both agronomically and financially, are different and may be important decision criteria in a semi-arid environment. Some discussion of differences in risk and role in decision making of farmers would enrich the story;

6) the paper lacks a discussion of the limitations of data and methodology; and

7) there is an extremely long list of references; I believe much more than needed for this article.

The study reported in the paper is interesting and relevant and should be considered for publication after addressing these existing gaps and weaknesses in a thorough and satisfactory way.

Specific comments:

Without trying to be exhaustive, below is a list of specific comments on the text:

Line 29: ‘… to answer the request of an increasing food demand …’; poor English

Line 32: ‘… constrains …’; change to ‘… constraints …’.

Line 71: ‘The aims of the study was …’; change to ‘The aim of the study was …’.

Line 79: ‘… assessment of a local intensive cropping systems …’; change to ‘… assessment of a local intensive cropping system …’.

Line 111, 112, 129: Correct number format, e.g. ‘3,200.000 t’ change to ‘3,200,000 t’.

Line 121: ‘… the almond tree cultivated in superintensive had been considered …’; change to ‘… the almond tree cultivated with superintensive management has been considered …’.

Line 131: ‘… water strategies has been …’; change to ‘… water strategies have been …’.

Line 174: ‘… was set of 15 years …’; change to ‘… was set to 15 years … …’.

Line 233: ‘… is equals zero.’; change to ‘… equals zero.’

Line 239-253: rather poor English; please correct.

Line 256: Acronym LCIA not defined.

Line 257-259: Revise sentence into better English.

Line 271: ‘… accounts …’; change to ‘… accounted …’.

Line 278: ‘… respect to …’; change to ‘… compared to …’.

Line 281: Yields shown in Table 6 are different from averages over 15-year production shown in Tables 2-4?

Line 287: ‘… for all scenarios …’; consider changing to ‘… for all three alternatives …’.

Line 290: ‘… had been considered …’; change to ‘… has been considered …’.

Line 292: ‘… had been assumed …’; change to ‘… has been assumed …’.

Line 304: ‘… Olive crop respect to …’; change to ‘… Olive crop with respect to …’.

Line 305: ‘… half than pomegranate …’; change to ‘… half the GM of pomegranate …’.

Line 305: ‘The gaps are …’; change to ‘The differences are …’.

Line 305: ‘The positive result in the event of …’; change to ‘The superior result despite of …’.

Line 314: ‘… critical issues respect to …’; change to ‘… critical issues with respect to …’.

Line 323: ‘… as a great contributor …’; consider changing to ‘… as a major contributor …’.

Line 331: ‘… progress against strategic goals …’; change to ‘… progress in meeting strategic goals …’.

Line 348: ‘… sustainable system is.’; change to ‘… sustainable a system is.’

Line 349: ‘As showed in the table 9, pomegranate gave the higher contribution to GWP as …’; change to ‘As shown in Table 9, pomegranate resulted in the highest contribution to GWP as …’. Note, I think the entire paragraph should be deleted because the discussion of kg CO2/m3 in my opinion does not say anything.

Line 364: ‘On overall, …’; change to ‘Overall, …’.

Line 366: ‘… lower of 35% and a GWP higher of 53% respect to …’; change to ‘… lower by 35% and a GWP higher by 53% compared to …’.

Line 367-368: ‘…; regarding to GWP results showed an …’; change to ‘…; regarding GWP the LCA for olive resulted in an …’.

Line 376: What do you mean by ‘… when the intensification of competitive pressure …’?

Author Response

The authors thank reviewer for the kind and useful suggestion. Please find attached as pdf file the aswers (in red) to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper, the authors propose a case study in the Apulia region of southern Italy. In particular, crop diversification is suggested as a means to increase biodiversity and achieve sustainable and resilient intensive agriculture.

A combined life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) was applied for the analysis in order to assess both the economic and environmental sustainability of a diversified management system on three species: pomegranate, almond and olive.

The authors also point out a greater vulnerability of farms specialised in monoculture than those with diversified management.

The results highlight a lower environmental load for olive cultivation and a higher profitability for almond cultivation, which is also in line with what can be found in the sector's bibliography.

The topic under investigation certainly appears interesting and topical; the study should be expanded geographically.

The article is well structured, but the abstract and conclusions lack clear and analytical information regarding the methodologies applied.

Among the weak points of the work is the fact that during the experimental phases, fields with different types of pruning and harvesting (manual in pomegranate and mechanised in olive and almond) were compared, leading to a certain lack of homogeneity in management between the various fields.

However, the subject is treated exhaustively with reference to the area under analysis and the time span identified.

The manuscript is clear, well structured and relevant in analysing crop diversification and resilience in semi-arid areas, both economically and environmentally.

There is a very good percentage of current (2017-2022) literature references, only a few are older.

The manuscript is scientifically sound and the experimental design is appropriate for testing the design hypotheses.

Figures/schedules/tables and images show the analysed data correctly and are easy to interpret.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

The study is clear, complete and relevant to the field being tested.

The objectives of the paper, as well as the method/approach used, were well addressed and there is good logical coherence between the different parts of the paper.

The paper could be improved from a syntactic-grammatical point of view.

However, the paper is easy to understand and pleasant to read.

The results are clearly stated and commented on, but should be referred to in the abstract and conclusions.

All in all, the article under review, in addition to having important bibliographical/dissemination properties, presents many points of scientific interest.

Author Response

The authors thank reviewer for the kind and useful suggestion. Please find attached as pdf file the aswers (in red) to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

This article presents the evaluation tools for investigating the environmental and economic sustainability of a differentiated system of cultivation in pomegranate, almond, and olive. The content of the manuscript is well-organized and well-articulated. It discusses in detail the main irrigation strategies for water-saving along with assessing environmental load and profitability. An extensive review of the literature has been conducted by the authors. The manuscript is well-written in general. The figures and tables are clearly presented. The topic is of interest to the journal and related readers. The use of the English language is fine but moderate changes are required throughout the manuscript to improve the readability and clarity for the readers. I would refrain the authors to use informal language in the manuscript and switch to using technical language. There are some minor comments related to the content of the paper which has been highlighted in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors thank reviewer for the kind and useful suggestion. Please find attached as pdf file the aswers (in red) to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to the author's efforts. This MS was well revised and I got a good response of all my comments.

Author Response

Thanks for helping us improve the work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript Number 1799227_V2, Article Title: Crop diversification and resilience of drought-resistant species in semi-arid areas: an economic and environmental analysis

General comments:
This is a brief review for a revised version of the article. The authors have tried to respond in an adequate and satisfactory way to the comments provided in the previous review.

Still, two issues remain and should be addressed:

11) While the previous text has been corrected for grammatical errors and English language weaknesses, the newly added text (in red in the revised manuscript) has introduced new language errors and needs to be carefully read and edited as well.

22) When scrutinizing the numbers provided in Table 9 I noticed that water consumption (the denominator for calculating the indicators) is provided in Table 2-4 and also in Table 5. However, values shown are different by about 5-10% (e.g., for olive the value given in Table 4 is 29,000 m3, but in Table5 is 26,000 m3). When calculating GWP/m3, the GWP value is taken from Table 5 but water consumption is taken from Tables 2-4. This is confusing and seems inconsistent and should be consolidated (or explained) by the authors.

 

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions. We provide a cover letter with comments.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf