The Role of Precision Agriculture Technologies in Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: 1 Abbreviations appearing for the first time in the abstract need to be given full English names, such as FADN and NPV.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have included the full meanings of FADN and NPV in the abstract. The full meanings can be found on page 1, lines 13 and 19.

Comments 2:  It is suggested that the proportional data in the manuscript be represented by a percentage sign, such as adding a percentage sign on the ordinate of Figure 1. Line 373 of the manuscript should be expressed as Figure 1, while the manuscript error is expressed as Figure 2.

Response 2:. We have modified the figure to show the percentage on the ordinate.

We have added a new figure as Figure 1 (page 5). Therefore, Figure 2 maintains its number.

Comments 3:  IRR is not introduced in the manuscript, so it is suggested to add a description of the calculation method and the meaning of parameters of IRR.

Response 3:  The importance of NPV is defined in the methodology section (lines 141-152). The mathematical formula used is indicated (line 153-158). In addition, the assumed values of the initial investment are described (lines 159-163).

Comments 4:  The Initial Investment is not introduced in line 145, so it is suggested to add a description of the calculation method and parameter significance of the Initial Investment.

Response 4:. The correction has been made and can be found on page 4, line 159-163.

Comments 5:   It is suggested that the meaning of parameters should not be introduced repeatedly in lines 145-176.

Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion. However, the meanings of the parameters were provided for each formula used. We believe that explaining the parameters is crucial for easy understanding.

Comments 6: PATs appears in line 243, and it is suggested to add the full name.

Response 6: The full name has been added. It can be found on page 10, line 297-298

Comments 7:  ‘No of farms’ in table 4 is suggested to be modified to ‘No. of farms’ or ‘Number of farms’.

Response 7: The No of farms in table 4 has been changed to ‘Number of farms’.

Comments 8:  Large values appear in tables 1 and 4, so it is suggested to use scientific and technological method to express them.

Response 8: We left Table 1 unchanged. The numbers there are very different: from small to large, depending on the economic size class. In Table 4, we converted hectares to thousands of hectares and euros to millions of euros.

5. Additional clarifications

We have no additional comments.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:  study is too general

Response 1:  The reason for the general nature of the research is explained in the introduction (lines 104-110)

Comments 2: what was the period studied (this also applies to an economic journal)

Response 2: The year 2021 was studied for the research. This is stated in the results (line 201) It has also been mentioned in the abstract (line 14).

Comments 3: what were the study areas in each of the 4 countries?

Response 3: We made use of the whole countries region. We actually made use of FADN and Eurostat data for our research. This made it easier for us to get the necessary data for the countries studied. In the introduction (lines 104-110) we supplemented that the farms from the FADN database are representative of the country, type of farming and economic size classes.

Comments 4: what were the cultures studied (specifically) in each of the 4 countries

Response 4: We made use of the whole countries. We actually made use of FADN and Eurostat data for our research. This made it easier for us to get the necessary data for the countries studied. The research concerned farms belonging to the field crops type (page 3, line 131), not particular cultures.

Comments 5: The results must show us how precision agricultural technologies improving sustainable agriculture

Response 5:  The correction has been made (lines 403-408).

Comments 6: The results must show/demonstrate how precision agriculture has improved sustainable agriculture.

Response 6:  The correction has been made (lines 403-408).

Comments 7: Highlight the role of precision agricultural technologies in improving sustainable agriculture (at the conclusions)

Response 7:  The correction has been made (lines 403-408).

5. Additional clarifications

We have no additional comments.

Comments 1: The research background of the paper is clear and the motivation is reasonable, but it can further elaborate on why Poland, Germany, France, and Romania were chosen as research subjects and how these countries are representative in precision agriculture.

Response 1:  In the Study area section (lines 118-125) the reasons for choosing countries with a diversified agrarian structure are explained.

Comments 2: The paper includes multiple charts that, while informative, could benefit from more detailed titles and explanations to ensure readers can accurately understand the information each chart conveys.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. The paper has a single chart and it is well explained. The chart correction (axis description) has been made. We believe it is now more understandable to the reader.

Comments 3: In lines 49-50 of the paper, where "advanced technologies" are mentioned, please specify which technologies are being referred to.

Response 3: It has been corrected. It can be found on page 2, line 49-52.

Comments 4: The paper emphasizes the positive environmental impact of precision agriculture but could further quantify these impacts by providing specific data or case studies to enrich the expression of the paper.

Response 4: The correction has been made. The conclusion was also adjusted. (page 14, line 403 - 408).

Comments 5: Although the results section analyzes the costs and benefits of farms of different economic scales, it is recommended to further break down the components of each cost to more comprehensively assess the economic feasibility of precision agriculture technologies.

Response 5: This is not possible because this is the level of data aggregation in FADN.

Comments 6: The current literature review section provides relevant background but lacks a critique of existing studies. It is suggested to add a comparative analysis of existing research.

Response 6: In lines 221-256 review the literature on the production and economic effects of precision agriculture were conducted. It was intended to be a comparative analysis of existing research.

Comments 7: The results section details the economic benefits of adopting precision agriculture technologies for farms of different scales in various countries but lacks an in-depth analysis of the reasons behind the results. For instance, why do certain countries or scales of farms perform better?

Response 7: We stated on page 16, line 450-453, that, ‘Due to the high value of precision agriculture equipment investment, larger farms profit more from the reduction in chemical usage in crop production than smaller farms. The amount saved rises with the economic farm size’.

In lines 464-466 we also added that “the profitability of using precision agriculture depends on the economic size class and is independent of the country. The difference is that in some countries there are more farms capable of implementing precision agriculture and in others there are fewer.”

5. Additional clarifications

We have no additional comments.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The article's summary lacked a better description of the methodology used. How was the data obtained and analyzed? What types of data are contained in the databases analyzed?

Response 1: The summary (line 436-447) describes the data sources and methods used.

Comments 2: I recommend separating the paragraph that starts on line 41 and is too long. I suggest creating a paragraph between lines 46 and 47 when the subject changes. I also propose creating a paragraph starting at line 54, in the section that begins with "Precision agriculture according to...".

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestions. They have been effected in the manuscript.

Comments 3: The introduction lacked more definitions and concepts about small farmers, as well as the difficulties in accessing the Precision Agriculture suffered by these farmers.

I recommend the article "How can precision farming work on a small scale? A systematic review of the literature", which can provide more data to support the concepts of using PA on small farms.

It would also be important to contextualize the use of precision agriculture in the countries analyzed. How does access to and use of PA technologies differ in these different countries?

Response 3:  We have included information on the possibilities of using precision agriculture on small farms (lines 471-473).

Comments 4: The equation in line 145 is out of order.

Response 4: The equation has been corrected in line 153.

Comments 5:  It is not clear from the methodology which data was actually used in the study and how it was accessed. More detail is needed, showing the different values. I recommend including a flowchart showing the research step-by-step.

Response 5:  In the methodology section, we have added a research scheme (fig. 1).

Comments 6: The discussion that begins on line 200 is inappropriate, as it discusses the results of table 1 (which discusses the monetary values of the reduction in inputs) based on a discussion of the percentage reduction in the use of fertilizers and crop protections. The most appropriate thing in this case would be to discuss the results on the basis of monetary data as well. I recommend that the authors find and use papers that discuss the monetary reduction following the adoption of BP. This would result in a more appropriate discussion of the data in table 1.

Response 6: Thank you. The manuscript has been modified and the corrections can be found on page 8, line 245 -256.

Comments 7: In the paragraph beginning on line 367, it would be interesting to show the impact that adopting PA in these areas would have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The authors can present this data based on the area of input use reduction?

Response 7: Thank you for the suggestion. The paragraph has been modified and it can be found on Page 14, line 403 – 408.

Comments 8: This statement: "In the present study, it was found that the application of PA allows farmers to increase their financial performance and, at the same time, potentially reduce the environmental impact associated with the reduction of chemical application" made in the conclusion is not adequate. This conclusion is not from the specific work, but from data in the literature. What the paper concluded, and demonstrates, is the value required for the investments. The paper did not analyze the environmental impact per se. I suggest modifying this passage.

Response 8: On lines 403-408 we have supplemented the text with the results of studies on the environmental impact of precision agriculture.

Comments 9: I suggest standardizing the use of precision agriculture, which is sometimes referred to as precision agriculture itself and others as precision farming.

Response 9: Thank you for your suggestion. The use of precision agriculture has been standardized in the paper.

Comments 10: The article clearly presents the results on the use of subsidies for the adoption of PA by some farmers. However, it does not discuss whether subsidies exist in the countries analyzed. It would be interesting to deepen the discussion on this aspect by looking at other texts in the literature on the use of subsidies for this purpose.

5. Additional clarifications

We have no additional comments.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Materials and methods. Some aspects should be presented more clearly and underlined. The period in which the research / experiment is carried out, must mentioned and here. Also must mentioned that is about for whole countries region.

Response 1: We have supplemented the information in lines 174-175

Comments 2. The method / methods applied should be better highlighted. In the current presentation, there is confusion as to which is the actual research contribution and which are the FADN data.

Response 1: We have supplemented the information in lines 183 – 185

Comments 3. Page 3 line 117 - "Study area" better rename it to "2.1 Materials" with the related additions. Page 3 line 126 - "Materials and methodology" you better rename it to "2.2 Methodology" Or delete the lines of May 117 and 126 - to make confusion with what you want to present.

Response 1: We have made corrections in lines 163 and 176

Comments 4. Results and discussions Add at table 1, both in the text and in the table "economics size" (as presented in table 3). Page 7 line 222 - The expression "In [20] studied" is wrong. The citation is placed at the end of the phrase/expression/paragraph. Likewise with the line "[21] Also used the plantation's". Page 8 line 245 "by [27]" by ? Should be corrected in "by Bora, G.C.; Nowatzki, J.F.; Roberts, D.C." or "by Bora, G.C. et all" All such citations must be corrected. Page 8 lines 258-259 "Analysis of the investment efficiency of precision agriculture (PA) with the use of the net present value (NPV) method" is it a subchapter or? It looks like a separate chapter that is not part of the results chapter. It should be moved to the "Methods" chapter. Page 11 lines 310-311 "Share of farms in total numbers of holdings and agricultural area in the examined countries that can implement precision agriculture" is its subchapter? Page 12 line 348 "Need for support for precision agriculture (PA) from public funds" is its subchapter? Page 15 line 429 - should be corrected in figure 2.

Thank you for the suggestions. The economic size has been added to the table 1 on line 275.

All citations have been corrected.

They are all sub-chapters under the result. And they have been demarcated.

”Analysis of the investment efficiency of precision agriculture (PA) with the use of the net present value (NPV) method" - can be found on page 9, line 315-316.

"Share of farms in total numbers of holdings and agricultural area in the examined countries that can implement precision agriculture" – can be found on page 12, line 369 – 370.

“Need for support for precision agriculture (PA) from public funds" – can be found on page 14, line 410

5. Additional clarifications

We have no additional comments.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The methodology is not mentioned in the article's abstract. The authors replied that they had included it in lines 436-447, but the suggestion was to include it in the abstract and not throughout the text. 

Response 1: The methodology was mentioned in the abstract. Because of limited space, it was summarized. It is on line 13 – 17.

Comments 2: This suggestion has not been complied with:

I recommend separating the paragraph that starts on line 41 and is too long. I suggest creating a paragraph between lines 46 and 47 when the subject changes. I also propose creating a paragraph starting at line 54, in the section that begins with “Precision agriculture according to...”.

I still recommend separating the paragraph, as the text is too long.

Response 2: The suggestions has been done. Thank you.

Comments 3: The introduction lacked more definitions and concepts about small farmers, as well as the difficulties in accessing the Precision Agriculture suffered by these farmers.

I recommend the article “How can precision farming work on a small scale? A systematic review of the literature”, which can provide more data to support the concepts of using PA on small farms.

Response 3: Thank you for the suggestions. We have rectified it as suggested. And can be found on page 2 – 3, lines 96 – 128.

Comments 4: It would also be important to contextualize the use of precision agriculture in the countries analyzed. How does access to and use of PA technologies differ in these different countries? The suggestion in this case is to add to the introduction. The response from the authors of the text was that excerpts were included in the discussion. The suggestion to include it in the introduction is so that the problem to be analyzed can be better understood.

Response 4: Thank you for the suggestions. It has been added and can be found on Page 3, line 129 – 140.

Comments 5: In addition, the authors go on to conclude that their work has found results on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with the use of precision agriculture. However, these results are not those of the authors, but of the existing literature. I therefore recommend amending this question. The main contribution of the paper is the amount of subsidies needed to adopt precision agriculture, which should be included in the conclusion. Regarding emission reductions, the authors can conclude that they were able to gather information in the literature about this (which is also good for the article) and not that it was the result of the analysis carried out.

Response 5: The conclusion has been corrected. The correction can be found on page 17, line 525 - 529.

5. Additional clarifications

We have no additional comments.