Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in Legume Crops: A Case Study of PGI White Bean Production in Southern Europe

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “The challenge of sustainability in legume crops: a case study of producing a PGI white bean in South Europe” is very interesting and useful. Its content is important when considering the future development of agriculture, as well as consumption trends based on the sustainable development concept. The authors' thoughts and research make a certain contribution to understanding the issues discussed in the article. They are also valuable, considering proposed scenarios involving the use of renewable sources for electricity production in agriculture or implementing good agricultural practices. Table 2 should start on a new page. There is a typo in line 23 - “removable”. The purpose of the work was not adequately described (line 76). An analysis is a research method, so can’t be indicated as a purpose.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

Comment 1:    The manuscript “The challenge of sustainability in legume crops: a case study of producing a PGI white bean in South Europe” is very interesting and useful. Its content is important when considering the future development of agriculture, as well as consumption trends based on the sustainable development concept. The authors' thoughts and research make a certain contribution to understanding the issues discussed in the article. They are also valuable, considering proposed scenarios involving the use of renewable sources for electricity production in agriculture or implementing good agricultural practices.

Response 1:    Thank you very much for your comments.

 

Comment 2:    Table 2 should start on a new page.

Response 2:    This has been modified, but, please, take into account that the final format of the work will be corrected by the Editorial Office during the manuscript processing.

 

Comment 3:    There is a typo in line 23 - “removable”.

Response 3:    This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 4:    The purpose of the work was not adequately described (line 76). An analysis is a research method, so can’t be indicated as a purpose.

Response 4:    This has been clarified in the Introduction section (please see pages 2-3, lines 90-108).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer’s comments to Editor & Authors:

Review of “The challenge of sustainability in legume crops: a case study of producing a PGI white bean in Southern Europe”

 

The manuscript contains very interesting and timely information and will help growers to be encouraged (even policy makers for crafting policy) in adapting and expanding legumes production not only to produce this important protein reach crop economically, sustainably and environmentally friendly using limited inputs but also to contribute in the reduction of GHG emissions with perhaps positive impact on climate change. The manuscript is well written; and most of my suggestions/comments about the manuscript are within the file for the author’s consideration.

Thank you & All the best!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Comment 1:    The manuscript contains very interesting and timely information and will help growers to be encouraged (even policy makers for crafting policy) in adapting and expanding legumes production not only to produce this important protein reach crop economically, sustainably and environmentally friendly using limited inputs but also to contribute in the reduction of GHG emissions with perhaps positive impact on climate change. The manuscript is well written; and most of my suggestions/comments about the manuscript are within the file for the author’s consideration. Thank you & All the best!

Response 1:    Thank you very much for your comments. The corrections indicated in the attached pdf have been included in the revised version, in addition, we discuss below your comments.

 

Comment 2:    What makes “Faba Asturiana” PGI? What are the elements considered as PG Indicators?

Response 2:    According to the MAPA (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of Spain), the PGI “Faba Asturiana” refers to dried, shelled beans from the traditional “Granja Asturiana” cultivar (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) that originates from the particular region of Asturias. This legume, with organoleptic characteristic including a creamy albumen and a buttery consistency on the palate, was recognised as PGI in the EU in 1996 by means of Commission Regulation (EC) 1107/96. As indicated the PGI “Faba Asturiana” Regulatory Council, the beans are creamy white in colour, long and flat (with minimum length of 18 mm, a maximum width of 11.5 mm and a maximum thickness of 8.5 mm), kidney-shaped, and large in size (1000-1100 beans per kg). This information is included in the Material and Methods section.

 

Comment 3:    Specify type and amount and time of application.

Response 3:    This information has been included in the manuscript (please see page 3, lines 129-130 and page 5, lines 184-186).

 

Comment 4:    Is this per ha? If so, mention it

Response 4:    The total number of plants was 2,900, i.e., 2,788 plants per ha, whereas the total production of the system was 919 kg of commercialised beans and 210 kg of discarded beans. This has been clarified in the text (please see page 4, lines 143-146).

 

Comment 5:    Why not include this? Isn’t this considered as part of LCA?

Response 5:    As a perspective “from cradle to gate” was considered in the analysis, phases of packaging, labelling and distribution to the points of sale have not been included in the LCA.

 

Comment 6:    Why not use as organic fertilizer instead of burning to generate GHG?

Response 6:    As you point out, employing crop wastes as organic fertilizer would be a good alternative to reduce CF and this was corroborated by the results obtained in scenario 4 (which considered that all the organic wastes are composted). Unfortunately, crop residue open burning is still a traditional practice in this region.

 

Comment 7:    Why? Don’t these facilities require energy to maintain them?

Response 7:    The energy employed in all the phases of the beans production process has been included in the analysis (please see Table 2), but the evaluation of the impacts derived from the construction of infrastructures, buildings and facilities existing in the crop production site is out of the boundaries of the study. This has been clarified in the text (please see page 5, lines 178-182).

 

Comment 8:    Of what?, specify (1%)

Response 8:    Some minor fertiliser ingredients includes for example vitamins, enzymes, cellulose, starch… This has been clarified in the text (please see page 5, lines 180-182).

 

Comment: 9:  Why CF value of this study is more than 2x the value of other studies. With the exception of CF value reported by Adom et al. Maybe some of the higher value is associated with the energy required for irrigation since the other legumes production is most likely under rainfed condition because of region being temperate. Maybe good to add a sentence or so about this point in your R&D section.

Response 9:    Some additional information regarding this point has been included in the text (please see page 11, lines 349-353 and Table 3).

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research questions or hypotheses could be stated more explicitly. This would help in guiding the reader through the paper and making the aims of the study clearer.

Consider expanding the literature review to include more recent studies, especially those from the last 3-5 years, to ensure that the research is grounded in the most current knowledge. The review could be more critical, discussing gaps in the existing literature that this study aims to fill.

Ensure that the methodology is reproducible by providing more specific details about the statistical tools or models used. For example, explain why certain methods were chosen over others. It would be beneficial to discuss any limitations of the methodology, such as potential biases in data collection or analysis, and how they were mitigated.

Ensure that all figures and tables are properly labeled and referenced in the text. Each should be able to stand alone, with a clear caption explaining what is being shown. Discuss the practical significance of the results, not just the statistical significance. This could involve considering the implications of the findings for policy or practice in agricultural economics.

The discussion could be expanded to explore the broader implications of the findings. For example, what do these results mean for stakeholders in agricultural economics, such as policymakers, farmers, or agribusinesses? Consider addressing any unexpected results and providing possible explanations for them.

The conclusion could be more forward-looking. For example, suggest areas for future research or discuss how the findings could be applied in practice.

Ensure that the writing is concise and free of jargon, making it accessible to a broad audience. This might involve simplifying complex sentences or providing definitions for technical terms. Proofreading for grammatical errors and typos would improve the overall readability of the manuscript.

Double-check that all citations in the text have corresponding entries in the reference list and vice versa. Ensure that the referencing style is consistent throughout the manuscript.

 

Highlight more explicitly what is novel about this research compared to previous studies. This could involve a more detailed discussion of how the findings advance the current understanding of the topic.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English needs to be moderately improved, i.e further proofreading for coherence and flow

Author Response

Comment: 1:  The research questions or hypotheses could be stated more explicitly. This would help in guiding the reader through the paper and making the aims of the study clearer.

Response 1:    The entire manuscript has been revised; additionally, the abstract, introduction and conclusions have been rewritten in order to make the text clearer.

 

Comment 2:    Consider expanding the literature review to include more recent studies, especially those from the last 3-5 years, to ensure that the research is grounded in the most current knowledge. The review could be more critical, discussing gaps in the existing literature that this study aims to fill.

Comment 2:    Additional studies have been included in the manuscript (please see references and Table 3). In addition, the gaps in the existing literature on this topic has been discussed (please see pages 9-10, lines 302-330).

Comment 3:    Ensure that the methodology is reproducible by providing more specific details about the statistical tools or models used. For example, explain why certain methods were chosen over others. It would be beneficial to discuss any limitations of the methodology, such as potential biases in data collection or analysis, and how they were mitigated.

Response 3:    This information is detailed in the manuscript (please see the Material and Methods section). In addition, it is well known that when the life cycle inventory (LCI), which includes the compilation and quantification of all inputs and outputs within the system boundaries, is obtained, primary data should always be favoured over secondary data when accessible (Saavedra-Rubio, 2022: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132903) and this was the procedure employed in the present work. This information has been included in the text (please see page 5, lines 163-169).

 

Comment4:    Ensure that all figures and tables are properly labeled and referenced in the text. Each should be able to stand alone, with a clear caption explaining what is being shown.

Response 4:    This has been reviewed and corrected when necessary.

 

Comment 5:    Discuss the practical significance of the results, not just the statistical significance. This could involve considering the implications of the findings for policy or practice in agricultural economics.

Response 5:    This information has been included in the manuscript (please see the Introduction and the Conclusions sections).

 

Comment 6:    The discussion could be expanded to explore the broader implications of the findings. For example, what do these results mean for stakeholders in agricultural economics, such as policymakers, farmers, or agribusinesses? Consider addressing any unexpected results and providing possible explanations for them.

Response 6:    Some additional information regarding this point has been included in the Results and Discussion and the Conclusions sections (please see page 10, lines 337-353, pages 12-13, lines 364-395 and the Conclusions section).

 

Comment 7:    The conclusion could be more forward-looking. For example, suggest areas for future research or discuss how the findings could be applied in practice.

Response 7:    Conclusions has been modified according to Reviewer’s comments.

 

Comment 8:    Ensure that the writing is concise and free of jargon, making it accessible to a broad audience. This might involve simplifying complex sentences or providing definitions for technical terms. Proofreading for grammatical errors and typos would improve the overall readability of the manuscript.

Response 8:    The entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 10:  Double-check that all citations in the text have corresponding entries in the reference list and vice versa. Ensure that the referencing style is consistent throughout the manuscript.

Response 10:  This has been revised and corrected when necessary.

 

Comment 11: Highlight more explicitly what is novel about this research compared to previous studies. This could involve a more detailed discussion of how the findings advance the current understanding of the topic.

Response 11: This information has been included in the Introduction section (please see pages 2-3, lines 90-108).

 

Comment 12:  Comments on the Quality of English Language. The English needs to be moderately improved, i.e further proofreading for coherence and flow.

Response 12:  The entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Reviewer 4

 

Comment 1:    As a researcher in the field of agriculture, I am very interested in your work. I have read your article carefully and I see that you have done a lot of work on it. However, if I understand your description correctly, there are a large number of issues in the article that need to be addressed. The bulk of the changes required are listed below.

Response 1:    Thank you very much for your indications. The comments listed are discussed below.

 

Comment 2:    Title. The scope of sustainability is too broad, and it is recommended to readjust it.

Response 2:    The title has been modified according to Reviewer’s indications (please see the Title).

 

Comment 3:    Abstract. In the abstract, only the research results are explained, the research conclusions are not accurately explained, the overall summary is lacking, and it is suggested to be revised.

Response 3:    The abstract has been modified according to Reviewer’s comments (please see the Abstract).

 

Comment 4:    Line 8. Are common beans and white beans the same crop?

Response 4:    Yes, white beans are common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.).

 

Comment 5:    Line 9, you should use the past tense.

Response 5:    This has been corrected (please see the abstract). In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 6:    Line 10, “PGI” should explain, not in line 72 first.

Response 6:    This has been corrected (please see the Abstract).

 

Comment 7:    Line 10, add ‘the’ before ‘life’.

Response 7:    This has been corrected (please see the abstract). In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 8:    Line 23, ‘has’ should be changed to ‘have’.

Response 8:    This has been corrected (please see the abstract). In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 9:    Lines 24-26, It is suggested to revise the conclusion again. It is not suitable for the words hypothesis and possibility.

Response 9:    This has been modified according to Reviewer’s suggestions (please see the Abstract).

 

Comment 10:  Line 26, “in suit” does not need italics.

Response 10:  This has been corrected (please see the Abstract).

 

Comment 11:  Line 27, full name of keywords used.

Response 11:  This has been corrected (please see the keywords).

 

Comment 12:  Conclusions are missing from the abstract.

Response 12:  The abstract has been modified including conclusions (please see the Abstract).

 

Comment 13:  More statistical data is suggested for the results of the study.

Response 13:  As in the present work a case study has been assessed as model, a statistical study is not the best strategy to analyse the data obtained. Additionally, the effect of the most relevant parameters (i.e. electricity and waste management) has been evaluated.

 

Comment 14:  Line 39-42, you should add reference to prove better.

Response 14:  The corresponding reference has been included in the Introduction (please see page 1, line 40).

 

Comment 15:  Line 43, What exactly is the objective here?

Response 16: The Introduction has been rewritten in order to clarify this point (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 16: Line 47, “are” should delete.

Response 16:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 17: Line 53, ‘in’ should be changed to ‘on’.

Response 17:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 18:  17. Line 68, “achieve” should read “achieves”.

Response 18:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 19:  Line 69, ‘el at’ should be changed to ‘et al’.

Response 19:  This has been corrected.

 

Comment 20: The preface lacks logic, the individual concepts are not clear enough, and the problem is not well drawn out.

Response 20: The Introduction has been rewritten in order to make clear the state of the art of the topic (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 21:  Line 76-81, The environmental impact and harm mentioned here are not well explained in the previous article, which makes it difficult to understand the purpose of this experiment.

Response 21:  This has been clarified (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 22:  There are too many paragraphs.

Response 22:  The paragraphs of the Introduction has been reorganised (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 23: The content is very scattered without logic and coherence, and does not highlight the main content of the article.

Response 23:  The Introduction has been rewritten according to Reviewer’s comments (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 24:  It is recommended to add more content and references about the life cycle method.

Response 24:  More information and references regarding this point has been included in the Introduction (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 25:  In the last paragraph, the variety of common bean does not represent the leguminous family, so it is not advisable to cover all of them.

Response 25:  As this specie is one of the most important cultivated legumes (Borromeo et al., 2024: 10.3390/seeds3020018), it has been employed as model in a case study with the aim to broad the knowledge in leguminous crops. This text has been rewritten in order to avoid misunderstandings (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 26:  This article lacks a reasonable assumption.

Response 26:  The Introduction has been rewritten according to Reviewer’s indications (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 27:  The objectives of the study are clear, but there is no relevant literature data support addressed in the above.

Response 27: The objectives of the work have been reviewed according to the relevant literature (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 28:  Leguminosae plays an important role in soil nitrogen fixation and soil improvement, but is there no limitation in planting Leguminosae?

Response 28: According to Abobatta et al. (2022) (10.26420/annagriccropsci.2022.1107), there are many factors that limit production of legume crops, such as genetic, socio-economic, soil and climatic constraints. Most authors, see for example Zhao et al. (2022) (10.1038/s41467-022-32464-0), Tzemi et al. (2024) (10.1080/14735903.2024.2335085) and Weiner et al. (2024) (10.1016/j.eja.2024.127267) indicated that legume-based rotations offer a critical strategy for enhancing global crop production.

 

Comment 29:  The purpose and significance of the research in the preface need to be summarized again.

Response 29:  This text has been revised and modified according to Reviewer’s comments (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 30:  The headers and tables in Table 1 should be aligned in the middle.

Response 30:  Table 1 has been modified according to Reviewer’s comments.

 

Comment 31:  Line 85. What's the rainfall?

Response 31: The rainfall is the quantity of rain falling within a given area in a given time.

 

Comment 32:  Line 90 and 126, “has” should read “had”.

Response 32: This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 33:  Line 112, you should delete.

Response 33: This has been corrected.

 

Comment 34:  Line117, “m2” should be changed to“m²”.

Response 34: This has been corrected.

 

Comment 35:  In line 119, ' 1.04 Ha with a density of 2,900 plants ', are the units ' Ha ' and ' plants ' used incorrectly ? Suggested modification.

Response 35:  The total number of plants was 2,900, i.e., 2,788 plants per ha. This has been clarified in the text (please see page 4, lines 143-144).

 

Comment 36:  Line 121. Is it scientific to study only one year?

Response 36:  In this work, it was considered a period of one year with the aim to cover all the phases of legume production. Additionally, it is very common in LCA studies employing a timeline of one year; see for example Pérez et al. (2022) (10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130594), Rama et al. (2021) (10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143133), Vatsanidou et al. (2020) (10.3390/su12176978) and Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2012) (10.1016/j.tifs.2012.07.003).

 

Comment 37:  The graph in Figure 1 should be centered, and it is recommended to modify.

Response 37: Figure 1 has been justified.

 

Comment 38:  Line 146. Are herbicides as well as labor costs factored in?

Response 38:  Herbicides were not employed in the crop.

 

Comment 39:  The input and output lack of header factors in table 2.

Response 39:  The inputs and outputs included in Table 2 were obtained through detailed farmer surveys and correspond to the amount of resources used and the wastes generated, whereas emissions were calculated from this primary data employing reliable literature sources. This has been detailed in the Materials and Methods section.

 

Comment 40:  The ' 2 ' in ' CO2 ' in lines 192 and 193 should be in the table below, with suggested modifications.

Response 40:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 41:  You can make table 2 clearer and better, especially in outputs.

Response 41: The outputs shown in Table 2 include the wastes generated (wastewater and solid wastes), this information were directly obtained from the farmer, whereas emissions were calculated from this primary data employing reliable literature sources. This has been detailed in the Materials and Methods section.

 

Comment 42: Table 2, “(m2/y)” should be changed to“(m²/y)”.

Response 42:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 43:  Geographical orientation coordinates are suggested for the region.

Response 43:  This information has been included in the text (please see page 4, line 141).

 

Comment 44:  The text expression is very colloquial, it is recommended to adjust.

Response 44:  The entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 45:  It is recommended to add the data of basic physical and chemical properties of soil.

Response 45:  The physical and chemical analysis of the soil is out of the scope of the work; however, some additional information has been included in the Materials and Methods section (please see page 4, line 139).

 

Comment 46:  It is recommended to add specific information about the amount of fertilizer irrigation.

Response 46:  This information has been included in the manuscript (please see page 5, lines 184-186).

 

Comment 47:  Table 2 is suggested to be re-adjusted and can be divided into multiple tables.

Response 47:  Table 2 has been revised.

 

Comment 48:  Didn't calculate the relevant formula?

Response 48:  No equations or mathematical formulas were used. The emission factors employed were obtained from reliable literature sources and are indicated in the Material and Methods section (please see page 5, lines 186-198).

 

Comment 49:  In table 2,“Wastewater (to treatment) (m3)”should be modified “Wastewater (to treatment) (m3)”.

Response 49:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 50:  It is mentioned in the preface that leguminous crops have an influence on improving soil structure, so soil conditions should be added to the materials, and a part about the improvement of soil conditions should be added to the results.

Response 50:  In this work the environmental performance of a establish system was analysed by means of LCA methodology. The analysis of the soil properties and the effect of legumes on it is out of the scope of the work.

 

Comment 51:  Line 201 and 263, you should delete.

Response 51:  This has been corrected.

 

Comment 52:  Line 207, ‘know’ should be changed to ‘known’.

Response 52:  This error has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 53:  Line 208, “impact” should read “impacts”.

Response 53:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 54:  Line 226 and 230, “this” should read “it”.

Response 54:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 55:  Line 228-230, “Fertiliser consumption is also an important contributor to human carcinogenic toxicity (67%) and freshwater ecotoxicity categories, 67% and 40%, respectively. ”should be changed“Fertiliser consumption is also an important contributor to human carcinogenic toxicity (67%) and freshwater ecotoxicity categories(40%), respectively.”

Response 55:  This has been corrected as indicated.

 

Comment 56:  The CO2 in Figure 3 is misrepresented.

Response 56:  Figure 3 has been corrected accordingly.

 

Comment 57:  Two tables 2 appear in the article.

Response 57:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 58:  Line 233,“since legumes are able to fix N2”should be changed “since legumes are able to fix N₂”.

Response 58:  This has been corrected.

 

Comment 59:  Line 241-251,N2O should be changed N₂O.

Response 59:  This has been corrected.

 

Comment 60:  Line 244,“N2O” There is a mistake in writing, so it is changed to a corner mark.

Response 60:  This has been corrected.

 

Comment 61:  In figure 3,all the abbreviation for carbon dioxide is wrong, please modify it.

Response 61:  Figure 3 has been corrected.

 

Comment 62:  Please add comments to the letters of the acronyms in Figure 2.

Response 62:  Acronyms have been included in the figure caption.

 

Comment 63:  Line 248, N2O is misrepresented.

Response 63:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 64:  Line 254, determinant’ should be changed to ‘determinants’.

Response 64:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 65:  Line 256-259. Please add the source of the reference.

Response 65:  This information can be obtained from Figure 3, i.e., corresponds with the results obtained in the present work. This has been clarified in the text to avoid misunderstandings (please see page 9, line 285).

 

Comment 66:  Line 264. The first occurrence of an abbreviation in the text should be preceded by the full name.

Response 66:  This has been corrected.

 

Comment 67:  Line 266, “1.20 kgCO2eq” There is a mistake in writing. There should be a space after the unit.

Response 67:  This has been corrected in the entire manuscript.

 

Comment 68:  Line 276,The format of carbon dioxide corner mark in the picture is wrong.

Response 68:  Figure 3 has been corrected.

 

Comment 69:  Line 280, you have two table 2.

Response 69:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 70:  Line 308. What are the factors?

Response 70:  Some additional information regarding this point has been included in the text (please see page 12, lines 3789-381).

 

Comment 71:  Line 316, ‘at’ should be changed to ‘in’.

Response 71:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 72:  Line 327, ‘has’ should be changed to ‘have’.

Response 72:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 73:  Line 348. Please check the correct writing of CO2.

Response 73:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 74:  We should compare other people's content with our own research content.

Response 74:  Some additional references have been included in Results and Discussion (please see the Results and Discussion section and references).

 

Comment 75:  The conclusions are not concise enough to summarize the key issues.

Response 75:  The conclusions have been rewritten according to Reviewers’s comments (please see the Conclusions section).

 

Comment 76:  I suggest that the last two paragraphs be reorganized.

Response 76:  The last two paragraphs have been modified according to Reviewers’s indications (please see the Conclusions sections).

 

Comment 77:  In the conclusion, mention the most significant output with a possible recommendation or limitations.

Response 77:  The Conclusions have been modified accordingly (please see the Conclusions section).

 

Comment 78:  None of the paragraphs are first indented.

Response 78:  This has been corrected (please see the Conclusions section).

 

Comment 79:  The conclusion is that reducing electricity consumption and avoiding crop burning will reduce gas emissions and thus increase bean production. What about the impact of reduced electricity consumption?

Response 79:  Reducing electric consumption could also be a good option to decrease the carbon footprint. This has been demonstrated in scenario 3 when solar electricity produced in situ was considered as unique supply (solar panels do not produce emissions while generating electricity.

 

Comment 80:  Please note the format in which this section is written.

Response 80:  The format has been corrected.

 

Comment 81:  Are the proposed measures too limited? Suggested revised.

Response 81:  The Conclusions has been rewritten according to Reviewer’s comments, please take into account that the improvement actions suggested aim to propose viable options to the system from an economical and technical point of view (please see the Conclusions section).

 

Comment 82:  The result part needs to be condensed again.

Response 82:  The Conclusions have been modified accordingly (please see the Conclusions sections).

 

Comment 83:  Line 383, ‘others’ should be changed to ‘other’.

Response 83:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 84:  The reference format is inconsistent, some have a URL, some do not, it is recommended to modify into a consistent.

Response 84:  The reference format has been reviewed and corrected when necessary.

 

Comment 85:  Line 400, authorship and intergenerational symbols differ from others.

Response 85:  This has been revised and corrected when necessary.

 

Comment 86:  Individual references are followed by paces.

Response 86:  This has been revised and corrected.

 

Comment 87:  Line 449,262 change to 262?

Response 87:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 88:  Some figures in the literature are not bolded.

Response 88:  The reference format has been revised and corrected.

 

Comment 89:  The abbreviations of names in the references are inconsistent, please revise it.

Response 89:  The reference format has been revised and corrected.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Specific comments

As a researcher in the field of agriculture, I am very interested in your work. I have read your article carefully and I see that you have done a lot of work on it.

However, if I understand your description correctly, there are a large number of issues in the article that need to be addressed. The bulk of the changes required are listed below:

Title

1. The scope of sustainability is too broad, and it is recommended to readjust it.

Abstract

2. In the abstract, only the research results are explained, the research conclusions are not accurately explained, the overall summary is lacking, and it is suggested to be revised.

3. Line 8. Are common beans and white beans the same crop?

4. Line 9, you should use the past tense.

5. Line 10, “PGI” should explain, not in line 72 first.

6. Line 10，add ‘the’ before ‘life’.

7. Line 23, ‘has’ should be changed to ‘have’.

8. Lines 24-26, It is suggested to revise the conclusion again. It is not suitable for the words hypothesis and possibility.

9. Line 26, “in suit” does not need italics.

10. Line 27, full name of keywords used.

11. Conclusions are missing from the abstract.

12. More statistical data is suggested for the results of the study.

Introduction

13. Line 39-42, you should add reference to prove better.

14. Line 43, What exactly is the objective here?

15. Line 47, “are” should delete.

16. Line 53, ‘in’ should be changed to ‘on’.

17. Line 68, “achieve” should read “achieves”.

18. Line 69, ‘el at’ should be changed to ‘et al’.

19. The preface lacks logic, the individual concepts are not clear enough, and the problem is not well drawn out.

20. Line 76-81, The environmental impact and harm mentioned here are not well explained in the previous article, which makes it difficult to understand the purpose of this experiment.

21. There are too many paragraphs.

22. The content is very scattered without logic and coherence, and does not highlight the main content of the article.

23. It is recommended to add more content and references about the life cycle method.

24. In the last paragraph, the variety of Common bean does not represent the leguminous family, so it is not advisable to cover all of them.

25. This article lacks a reasonable assumption.

26. The objectives of the study are clear, but there is no relevant literature data support addressed in the above.

27. Leguminosae plays an important role in soil nitrogen fixation and soil improvement, but is there no limitation in planting Leguminosae ?

28. The purpose and significance of the research in the preface need to be summarized again.

Materials and Methods

29. The headers and tables in Table 1 should be aligned in the middle.

30. Line 85. What's the rainfall?

31. Line 90 and 126, “has” should read “had”.

32. Line 112, you should delete.

33. Line117, “m2” should be changed to“m²”.

34. In line 119, ' 1.04 Ha with a density of 2,900 plants ', are the units ' Ha ' and ' plants ' used incorrectly ? Suggested modification.

35. Line 121. Is it scientific to study only one year?

36. The graph in Figure 1 should be centered, and it is recommended to modify.

37. Line 146. Are herbicides as well as labor costs factored in?

38. The input and output lack of header factors in table 2.

39. The ' 2 ' in ' CO2 ' in lines 192 and 193 should be in the table below, with suggested modifications.

40. You can make table 2 clearer and better, especially in outputs.

41. Table 2, “(m2/y)” should be changed to“(m²/y)”.

42. The graph in Figure 1 should be centered, and it is recommended to modify.

43. The input and output lack of header factors in table 2.

44. Geographical orientation coordinates are suggested for the region.

45. The text expression is very colloquial, it is recommended to adjust.

46. It is recommended to add the data of basic physical and chemical properties of soil.

47. It is recommended to add specific information about the amount of fertilizer irrigation.

48. Table 2 is suggested to be re-adjusted and can be divided into multiple tables.

49. Didn't calculate the relevant formula?

50. In table 2,“Wastewater (to treatment) (m3)”should be modified “Wastewater (to treatment) (m³)”.

51. It is mentioned in the preface that leguminous crops have an influence on improving soil structure, so soil conditions should be added to the materials, and a part about the improvement of soil conditions should be added to the results.

Results and discussion

52. Line 201 and 263, you should delete.

53. Line 207, ‘know’ should be changed to ‘known’.

54. Line 208, “impact” should read “impacts”.

55. Line 226 and 230, “this” should read “it”.

56. Line 228-230, “Fertiliser consumption is also an important contributor to human carcinogenic toxicity (67%) and freshwater ecotoxicity categories, 67% and 40%, respectively. ”should be changed “Fertiliser consumption is also an important contributor to human carcinogenic toxicity (67%) and freshwater ecotoxicity categories(40%), respectively.”

57. The CO2 in Figure 3 is misrepresented.

58. Two tables 2 appear in the article.

59. Line 233,“since legumes are able to fix N2”should be changed “since legumes are able to fix N2”.

60. Line 241-251,N2O should be changed N2O.

61. Line 244,“N2O” There is a mistake in writing, so it is changed to a corner mark.

62. In figure 3,all the abbreviation for carbon dioxide is wrong,please modify it.

63. Please add comments to the letters of the acronyms in Figure 2.

64. Line 248, N2O is misrepresented.

65. Line 254, ‘determinant’ should be changed to ‘determinants’.

66. Line 256-259. Please add the source of the reference.

67. Line 264. The first occurrence of an abbreviation in the text should be preceded by the full name.

68. Line 266, “1.20 kgCO2eq” There is a mistake in writing. There should be a space after the unit.

69. Line 276,The format of carbon dioxide corner mark in the picture is wrong.

70. Line 280, you have two table 2.

71. Line 308. What are the factors?

72. Line 316, ‘at’ should be changed to ‘in’.

73. Line 327, ‘has’ should be changed to ‘have’.

74. Line 348. Please check the correct writing of CO2.

75. We should compare other people's content with our own research content.

Conclusions

76. The conclusions are not concise enough to summarize the key issues.

77. I suggest that the last two paragraphs be reorganized.

78. In the conclusion, mention the most significant output with a possible recommendation or limitations.

79. None of the paragraphs are first indented.

80. The conclusion is that reducing electricity consumption and avoiding crop burning will reduce gas emissions and thus increase bean production. What about the impact of reduced electricity consumption?

81. Please note the format in which this section is written.

82. Are the proposed measures too limited? Suggested revised.

83. The result part needs to be condensed again.

84. Line 383, ‘others’ should be changed to ‘other’.

References

85. The reference format is inconsistent, some have a URL, some do not, it is recommended to modify into a consistent.

86. Line 400, authorship and intergenerational symbols differ from others.

87. Individual references are followed by paces.

88. Line 449,262 change to 262?

89. Some figures in the literature are not bolded.

90. The abbreviations of names in the references are inconsistent,please revise it.

Author Response

Comment 1:    As a researcher in the field of agriculture, I am very interested in your work. I have read your article carefully and I see that you have done a lot of work on it. However, if I understand your description correctly, there are a large number of issues in the article that need to be addressed. The bulk of the changes required are listed below.

Response 1:    Thank you very much for your indications. The comments listed are discussed below.

 

Comment 2:    Title. The scope of sustainability is too broad, and it is recommended to readjust it.

Response 2:    The title has been modified according to Reviewer’s indications (please see the Title).

 

Comment 3:    Abstract. In the abstract, only the research results are explained, the research conclusions are not accurately explained, the overall summary is lacking, and it is suggested to be revised.

Response 3:    The abstract has been modified according to Reviewer’s comments (please see the Abstract).

 

Comment 4:    Line 8. Are common beans and white beans the same crop?

Response 4:    Yes, white beans are common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.).

 

Comment 5:    Line 9, you should use the past tense.

Response 5:    This has been corrected (please see the abstract). In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 6:    Line 10, “PGI” should explain, not in line 72 first.

Response 6:    This has been corrected (please see the Abstract).

 

Comment 7:    Line 10, add ‘the’ before ‘life’.

Response 7:    This has been corrected (please see the abstract). In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 8:    Line 23, ‘has’ should be changed to ‘have’.

Response 8:    This has been corrected (please see the abstract). In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 9:    Lines 24-26, It is suggested to revise the conclusion again. It is not suitable for the words hypothesis and possibility.

Response 9:    This has been modified according to Reviewer’s suggestions (please see the Abstract).

 

Comment 10:  Line 26, “in suit” does not need italics.

Response 10:  This has been corrected (please see the Abstract).

 

Comment 11:  Line 27, full name of keywords used.

Response 11:  This has been corrected (please see the keywords).

 

Comment 12:  Conclusions are missing from the abstract.

Response 12:  The abstract has been modified including conclusions (please see the Abstract).

 

Comment 13:  More statistical data is suggested for the results of the study.

Response 13:  As in the present work a case study has been assessed as model, a statistical study is not the best strategy to analyse the data obtained. Additionally, the effect of the most relevant parameters (i.e. electricity and waste management) has been evaluated.

 

Comment 14:  Line 39-42, you should add reference to prove better.

Response 14:  The corresponding reference has been included in the Introduction (please see page 1, line 40).

 

Comment 15:  Line 43, What exactly is the objective here?

Response 16: The Introduction has been rewritten in order to clarify this point (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 16: Line 47, “are” should delete.

Response 16:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 17: Line 53, ‘in’ should be changed to ‘on’.

Response 17:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 18:  17. Line 68, “achieve” should read “achieves”.

Response 18:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 19:  Line 69, ‘el at’ should be changed to ‘et al’.

Response 19:  This has been corrected.

 

Comment 20: The preface lacks logic, the individual concepts are not clear enough, and the problem is not well drawn out.

Response 20: The Introduction has been rewritten in order to make clear the state of the art of the topic (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 21:  Line 76-81, The environmental impact and harm mentioned here are not well explained in the previous article, which makes it difficult to understand the purpose of this experiment.

Response 21:  This has been clarified (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 22:  There are too many paragraphs.

Response 22:  The paragraphs of the Introduction has been reorganised (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 23: The content is very scattered without logic and coherence, and does not highlight the main content of the article.

Response 23:  The Introduction has been rewritten according to Reviewer’s comments (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 24:  It is recommended to add more content and references about the life cycle method.

Response 24:  More information and references regarding this point has been included in the Introduction (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 25:  In the last paragraph, the variety of common bean does not represent the leguminous family, so it is not advisable to cover all of them.

Response 25:  As this specie is one of the most important cultivated legumes (Borromeo et al., 2024: 10.3390/seeds3020018), it has been employed as model in a case study with the aim to broad the knowledge in leguminous crops. This text has been rewritten in order to avoid misunderstandings (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 26:  This article lacks a reasonable assumption.

Response 26:  The Introduction has been rewritten according to Reviewer’s indications (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 27:  The objectives of the study are clear, but there is no relevant literature data support addressed in the above.

Response 27: The objectives of the work have been reviewed according to the relevant literature (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 28:  Leguminosae plays an important role in soil nitrogen fixation and soil improvement, but is there no limitation in planting Leguminosae?

Response 28: According to Abobatta et al. (2022) (10.26420/annagriccropsci.2022.1107), there are many factors that limit production of legume crops, such as genetic, socio-economic, soil and climatic constraints. Most authors, see for example Zhao et al. (2022) (10.1038/s41467-022-32464-0), Tzemi et al. (2024) (10.1080/14735903.2024.2335085) and Weiner et al. (2024) (10.1016/j.eja.2024.127267) indicated that legume-based rotations offer a critical strategy for enhancing global crop production.

 

Comment 29:  The purpose and significance of the research in the preface need to be summarized again.

Response 29:  This text has been revised and modified according to Reviewer’s comments (please see the Introduction section).

 

Comment 30:  The headers and tables in Table 1 should be aligned in the middle.

Response 30:  Table 1 has been modified according to Reviewer’s comments.

 

Comment 31:  Line 85. What's the rainfall?

Response 31: The rainfall is the quantity of rain falling within a given area in a given time.

 

Comment 32:  Line 90 and 126, “has” should read “had”.

Response 32: This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 33:  Line 112, you should delete.

Response 33: This has been corrected.

 

Comment 34:  Line117, “m2” should be changed to“m²”.

Response 34: This has been corrected.

 

Comment 35:  In line 119, ' 1.04 Ha with a density of 2,900 plants ', are the units ' Ha ' and ' plants ' used incorrectly ? Suggested modification.

Response 35:  The total number of plants was 2,900, i.e., 2,788 plants per ha. This has been clarified in the text (please see page 4, lines 143-144).

 

Comment 36:  Line 121. Is it scientific to study only one year?

Response 36:  In this work, it was considered a period of one year with the aim to cover all the phases of legume production. Additionally, it is very common in LCA studies employing a timeline of one year; see for example Pérez et al. (2022) (10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130594), Rama et al. (2021) (10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143133), Vatsanidou et al. (2020) (10.3390/su12176978) and Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2012) (10.1016/j.tifs.2012.07.003).

 

Comment 37:  The graph in Figure 1 should be centered, and it is recommended to modify.

Response 37: Figure 1 has been justified.

 

Comment 38:  Line 146. Are herbicides as well as labor costs factored in?

Response 38:  Herbicides were not employed in the crop.

 

Comment 39:  The input and output lack of header factors in table 2.

Response 39:  The inputs and outputs included in Table 2 were obtained through detailed farmer surveys and correspond to the amount of resources used and the wastes generated, whereas emissions were calculated from this primary data employing reliable literature sources. This has been detailed in the Materials and Methods section.

 

Comment 40:  The ' 2 ' in ' CO2 ' in lines 192 and 193 should be in the table below, with suggested modifications.

Response 40:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 41:  You can make table 2 clearer and better, especially in outputs.

Response 41: The outputs shown in Table 2 include the wastes generated (wastewater and solid wastes), this information were directly obtained from the farmer, whereas emissions were calculated from this primary data employing reliable literature sources. This has been detailed in the Materials and Methods section.

 

Comment 42: Table 2, “(m2/y)” should be changed to“(m²/y)”.

Response 42:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 43:  Geographical orientation coordinates are suggested for the region.

Response 43:  This information has been included in the text (please see page 4, line 141).

 

Comment 44:  The text expression is very colloquial, it is recommended to adjust.

Response 44:  The entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 45:  It is recommended to add the data of basic physical and chemical properties of soil.

Response 45:  The physical and chemical analysis of the soil is out of the scope of the work; however, some additional information has been included in the Materials and Methods section (please see page 4, line 139).

 

Comment 46:  It is recommended to add specific information about the amount of fertilizer irrigation.

Response 46:  This information has been included in the manuscript (please see page 5, lines 184-186).

 

Comment 47:  Table 2 is suggested to be re-adjusted and can be divided into multiple tables.

Response 47:  Table 2 has been revised.

 

Comment 48:  Didn't calculate the relevant formula?

Response 48:  No equations or mathematical formulas were used. The emission factors employed were obtained from reliable literature sources and are indicated in the Material and Methods section (please see page 5, lines 186-198).

 

Comment 49:  In table 2,“Wastewater (to treatment) (m3)”should be modified “Wastewater (to treatment) (m3)”.

Response 49:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 50:  It is mentioned in the preface that leguminous crops have an influence on improving soil structure, so soil conditions should be added to the materials, and a part about the improvement of soil conditions should be added to the results.

Response 50:  In this work the environmental performance of a establish system was analysed by means of LCA methodology. The analysis of the soil properties and the effect of legumes on it is out of the scope of the work.

 

Comment 51:  Line 201 and 263, you should delete.

Response 51:  This has been corrected.

 

Comment 52:  Line 207, ‘know’ should be changed to ‘known’.

Response 52:  This error has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 53:  Line 208, “impact” should read “impacts”.

Response 53:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 54:  Line 226 and 230, “this” should read “it”.

Response 54:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 55:  Line 228-230, “Fertiliser consumption is also an important contributor to human carcinogenic toxicity (67%) and freshwater ecotoxicity categories, 67% and 40%, respectively. ”should be changed“Fertiliser consumption is also an important contributor to human carcinogenic toxicity (67%) and freshwater ecotoxicity categories(40%), respectively.”

Response 55:  This has been corrected as indicated.

 

Comment 56:  The CO2 in Figure 3 is misrepresented.

Response 56:  Figure 3 has been corrected accordingly.

 

Comment 57:  Two tables 2 appear in the article.

Response 57:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 58:  Line 233,“since legumes are able to fix N2”should be changed “since legumes are able to fix N₂”.

Response 58:  This has been corrected.

 

Comment 59:  Line 241-251,N2O should be changed N₂O.

Response 59:  This has been corrected.

 

Comment 60:  Line 244,“N2O” There is a mistake in writing, so it is changed to a corner mark.

Response 60:  This has been corrected.

 

Comment 61:  In figure 3,all the abbreviation for carbon dioxide is wrong, please modify it.

Response 61:  Figure 3 has been corrected.

 

Comment 62:  Please add comments to the letters of the acronyms in Figure 2.

Response 62:  Acronyms have been included in the figure caption.

 

Comment 63:  Line 248, N2O is misrepresented.

Response 63:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 64:  Line 254, determinant’ should be changed to ‘determinants’.

Response 64:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 65:  Line 256-259. Please add the source of the reference.

Response 65:  This information can be obtained from Figure 3, i.e., corresponds with the results obtained in the present work. This has been clarified in the text to avoid misunderstandings (please see page 9, line 285).

 

Comment 66:  Line 264. The first occurrence of an abbreviation in the text should be preceded by the full name.

Response 66:  This has been corrected.

 

Comment 67:  Line 266, “1.20 kgCO2eq” There is a mistake in writing. There should be a space after the unit.

Response 67:  This has been corrected in the entire manuscript.

 

Comment 68:  Line 276,The format of carbon dioxide corner mark in the picture is wrong.

Response 68:  Figure 3 has been corrected.

 

Comment 69:  Line 280, you have two table 2.

Response 69:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 70:  Line 308. What are the factors?

Response 70:  Some additional information regarding this point has been included in the text (please see page 12, lines 3789-381).

 

Comment 71:  Line 316, ‘at’ should be changed to ‘in’.

Response 71:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 72:  Line 327, ‘has’ should be changed to ‘have’.

Response 72:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 73:  Line 348. Please check the correct writing of CO2.

Response 73:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 74:  We should compare other people's content with our own research content.

Response 74:  Some additional references have been included in Results and Discussion (please see the Results and Discussion section and references).

 

Comment 75:  The conclusions are not concise enough to summarize the key issues.

Response 75:  The conclusions have been rewritten according to Reviewers’s comments (please see the Conclusions section).

 

Comment 76:  I suggest that the last two paragraphs be reorganized.

Response 76:  The last two paragraphs have been modified according to Reviewers’s indications (please see the Conclusions sections).

 

Comment 77:  In the conclusion, mention the most significant output with a possible recommendation or limitations.

Response 77:  The Conclusions have been modified accordingly (please see the Conclusions section).

 

Comment 78:  None of the paragraphs are first indented.

Response 78:  This has been corrected (please see the Conclusions section).

 

Comment 79:  The conclusion is that reducing electricity consumption and avoiding crop burning will reduce gas emissions and thus increase bean production. What about the impact of reduced electricity consumption?

Response 79:  Reducing electric consumption could also be a good option to decrease the carbon footprint. This has been demonstrated in scenario 3 when solar electricity produced in situ was considered as unique supply (solar panels do not produce emissions while generating electricity.

 

Comment 80:  Please note the format in which this section is written.

Response 80:  The format has been corrected.

 

Comment 81:  Are the proposed measures too limited? Suggested revised.

Response 81:  The Conclusions has been rewritten according to Reviewer’s comments, please take into account that the improvement actions suggested aim to propose viable options to the system from an economical and technical point of view (please see the Conclusions section).

 

Comment 82:  The result part needs to be condensed again.

Response 82:  The Conclusions have been modified accordingly (please see the Conclusions sections).

 

Comment 83:  Line 383, ‘others’ should be changed to ‘other’.

Response 83:  This has been corrected. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

 

Comment 84:  The reference format is inconsistent, some have a URL, some do not, it is recommended to modify into a consistent.

Response 84:  The reference format has been reviewed and corrected when necessary.

 

Comment 85:  Line 400, authorship and intergenerational symbols differ from others.

Response 85:  This has been revised and corrected when necessary.

 

Comment 86:  Individual references are followed by paces.

Response 86:  This has been revised and corrected.

 

Comment 87:  Line 449,262 change to 262?

Response 87:  This error has been corrected.

 

Comment 88:  Some figures in the literature are not bolded.

Response 88:  The reference format has been revised and corrected.

 

Comment 89:  The abbreviations of names in the references are inconsistent, please revise it.

Response 89:  The reference format has been revised and corrected.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript describes a case study that analyses the environmental impacts of common bean crop production in Spain using the Life Cycle assessment methods.

I highly recommend reanalyzing the system to calculate the environmental impact per unit area rather than per FU of 1 kg dry beans. The agricultural practices are usually performed per unit area (Acer or hectare) since the production is influenced by several biotic and abiotic factors. This case study is reporting less than optimum, around 40-60% less production per hectare compared to other reports. Therefore, one could conclude that such an analysis does not reflect the actual environmental impact of bean production.   

Table 2: Should be revised according to the unit area and specify the source of each parameter in a separate column in the table. For example; measured, based on farmers’ interviews or reliable literature sources (citation should be included).

The submitted manuscript involves conducting a survey and interview with farmers therefore the authors should refer to the “Research Involving Human Subjects” (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions) and submit the required IRB form for the article to be considered. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

- Line 106: Add “dry” after air to read “air dry”.

 Line 225: please rephrase the first sentence.  

Line 234: Please correct “Peoples et al., 2019”.

Author Response

Comment 1:    The manuscript describes a case study that analyses the environmental impacts of common bean crop production in Spain using the Life Cycle assessment methods. I highly recommend reanalyzing the system to calculate the environmental impact per unit area rather than per FU of 1 kg dry beans. The agricultural practices are usually performed per unit area (Acer or hectare) since the production is influenced by several biotic and abiotic factors.

Response 1:    Certainly, the selection of the functional unit is key when conducting LCA analysis, especially when comparing various alternatives. Recently, we have published a paper on this topic (Pérez et al., 2024: 10.1007/s11356-024-32540-6), which has been included in the text with the aim to expand the discussion on this issue (please see page 12, lines 357-363). In addition, it should be taken into account that, in this work, no comparison is made, so that the conclusions obtained from the characterization results would be the same, whether expressed per kg or per ha. On the contrary, differences can be appreciated in terms of the carbon footprint value, and, therefore, CF was expressed per kg, but also per ha in order to compare the results obtained here with those reported in literature (please see pages 12-13, lines 364-395).

 

Comment 2:    This case study is reporting less than optimum, around 40-60% less production per hectare compared to other reports. Therefore, one could conclude that such an analysis does not reflect the actual environmental impact of bean production.

Response 2:    This case study is a typical agriculture system of PGI “Faba Asturiana”, so the results can be considered representative of this type of crop. In addition, the PGI Regulatory Council (2024) (https://faba-asturiana.org/) indicates that the vast majority of the systems included in this protected geographical indication usually obtain yields between 600 and 1000 kg/ha·y and the value obtained in the case study is within this range. This has been clarified in the text (please see page 12, lines 364-371). Moreover, the lower production obtained in comparison with literature data can be due to different factors, for example, genetic, socio-economic, soil and climatic constraints. In addition, it is well known that productivity in organic farming (as it happens in the case study) is lower than in conventional crops. This information is discussed in the manuscript (please see pages 12-13, lines 372-395).

 

Comment 3:    Table 2: Should be revised according to the unit area and specify the source of each parameter in a separate column in the table. For example; measured, based on farmers’ interviews or reliable literature sources (citation should be included).

Response 3:    This information has been clarified in the Material and Methods section (please see page 5, lines 163-169).

 

Comment 4:    The submitted manuscript involves conducting a survey and interview with farmers therefore the authors should refer to the “Research Involving Human Subjects” (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions) and submit the required IRB form for the article to be considered.

Response 4:    This information has been included in the manuscript (please see page 14, lines 485-487).

 

Comment 5:    Comments on the Quality of English Language. - Line 106: Add “dry” after air to read “air dry”. - Line 225: please rephrase the first sentence. - Line 234: Please correct “Peoples et al., 2019”.

Response 5:    This has been revised and modified according to Reviewer’s comments. In addition, the entire text has been reviewed and corrected by a native speaker.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully reviewed the manuscript and recommend accept.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately responded to the previous comments. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.