Sustainability Assessment of Greenhouse Pepper Production Scenarios in Southeastern Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript represents a profound and comprehensive investigation on the sustainability of greenhouse pepper cultivation in the most important pepper-producing area in Europe, located in the southeast of Spain. Different scenarios were evaluated for a specific system with high productivity, using different irrigation sources. Much attention has been paid to the components of the system that contribute to the environmental impacts.

In this relation, many researchers and scholars have spoken about the importance of policies looking for sustainable land management by innovations to preserve Earth’s natural resources, whether by protecting forests and grasslands or by regenerating soil. I haven’t found in this work any comment on including in the scheme the soil improvement by composting, in that way closing the circle with composting of the plant residues after harvest. Recently, recycling becomes a main strategy to face the problem of waste disposal. Please, comment addressing relevant references.

Author Response

Authors. Thank you very much for your revision work.

Reviewer. In this relation, many researchers and scholars have spoken about the importance of policies looking for sustainable land management by innovations to preserve Earth’s natural resources, whether by protecting forests and grasslands or by regenerating soil. I haven’t found in this work any comment on including in the scheme the soil improvement by composting, in that way closing the circle with composting of the plant residues after harvest. Recently, recycling becomes a main strategy to face the problem of waste disposal. Please, comment addressing relevant references.

Authors. In this case study, the incorporation into the soil of the crushed crop was applied at the end of the crop cycle. It is described in the Material and Methods, in section 2.2.2. It is not a topic that we have highlighted as it is not the subject of the work. However, we agree that it is an important issue. So that, in the Introduction, after the fifth paragraph, we have added the following:

“The practice of incorporating the crushed remains of the crop into the soil, once the cycle has finished, has been included in the environmental actions within the scope of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union for a number of years. Specifically, Action 7.5, regarding the use of remains generated on the farm as green manure in greenhouse horticultural crops, is applied through the National Rural Development Plan for this crop (MAPA, 2017). The advantages (increase in organic matter, improvement of soil structure, microbial activity for humidification) of the incorporation of crop remains have been described in some crops including greenhouse pepper (Bakht et al., 2009; Moreno Cornejo, 2013).”

In the Material and Methods, section 2.2.2., in “Crop removal”, we have added a sentence (“ “, below)

Crop removal. The plastic elements (double chamber plastic and the plastic threads for guiding and trellising the plants) are removed manually; subsequently, the crop is incorporated into the soil by means of two tractor tasks (one crusher pass and one rotavator pass). “It is a recently introduced practice, but already very common, which aims to incorporate the plant remains of the crop, to increase the organic matter of the soil and the advantages that derive from this.”

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript contains interesting research results. Needs some corrections.

Comments:

Title. Agronomy 2022 ?

Line 29, please give in t and not in kg

Line 29,30,  (www.hor-29 toinfo.es) → References

Line 50, correct 8,750 m³ ha^-1

Line 51, correct kg m³

Line 132, what years do the data come from?

Line 135, please state what years are you talking about?

Line 140, please specify the soil organic carbon content

Line 141, pH in KCl or H₂O?

Line 149, correct plants ha^-1

Line 150 correct 2 dm³ h^-1

Table 1, the doses of nutrients should be given in the elemental form (kg ha^-1), and pesticides in the active substance (g ha^-1)

Table 1, correct plants ha^-1

Line 162, correct 25 m³ h^-1

Line 163, correct 2 dm³ h^-1

Line 178, correct 15 t ha^-1

Line 199, (Monserrat, 2012; 199 García García, 2020)?

Line 245, correct € kg^-1

Line 247, correct kg ha^-1

Line 249, correct AWU ha^-1

Line 253, correct € ha^-1

Line 300, correct seedlings m²

Line 303, please provide full details of the manufacturer of the computer software

Table 3, correct kWh m³, water price € m³, € unid^-1

Line 353, correct € m³,

Line 389, correct AWU ha^-1

Table 4 correct € ha^-1, € kg^-1

Table 5, correct € ha^-1, € kg^-1, AWU ha^-1

Line 407, correct AWU ha^-1

Line 475, correct 761 kWh t^-1 and of natural gas 3.866 m³ t^-1

Line 484-487, kg CO₂-eq t^-1

Conclusions are too long, please cut short

References, please remove the oldest publications from before 2010 (9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,20,23,28,53,55)

Author Response

Authors. Thank you very much for your revision work.

Authors. We have made all the corrections in relation to the units of measure

Reviewer 2. Line 29,30, → References

Authors. OK

Reviewer. Line 132, what years do the data come from?

Authors. The data es from 2020 and 2021. We have put in the text between parentheses.

Reviewer: Line 135, please state what years are you talking about?

Authors. We have added in the text, between parentheses, 2001-2021. The text is now:

“Over the last 20 years (2001-2021), the average annual ...”

 

Reviewer. Line 140, please specify the soil organic carbon content.

Authors. We have added in the text: 10.0-15.8 g C kg^-1

 

Reviewer. Line 141, pH in KCl or H₂O?

Authors. H₂O

 

Reviewer. Table 1, the doses of nutrients should be given in the elemental form (kg ha^-1), and pesticides in the active substance (g ha^-1).

Authors. Ok. “cyprodinil + fludioxonil, pirimicarb, and glyphosate”

 

Reviewer. Line 199, (Monserrat, 2012; 199 García García, 2020)?

Authors. It's a mistake, we've removed it.

 

Reviewer. Line 303, please provide full details of the manufacturer of the computer software

Authors: We have included the developer of the software. The text is now like this:

“SimaPro 9.0.1 software developed by Pré Sustainability was used.”

 

Reviewer. Conclusions are too long, please cut short

Authors. Although we believe that the length of the conclusions is adequate, we have shortened them somewhat

 

- References, please remove the oldest publications from before 2010 (9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,20,23,28,53,55)

Authors. We do not agree with the elimination of publications prior to 2010. In this work they are relevant insofar as they are related to the evolution of greenhouse pepper cultivation in Campo de Cartagena; specifically, in relation to the implementation of biological control to minimize phytosanitary treatments and the disinfection of soils by biosolarization. Without referring to these advances, the current situation, which is clean production in line with the demand of European markets, could not be understood. References 53 and 55 provide specific global warming data that are of interest for comparison with those obtained in this work.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper Sustainability Assessment of Greenhouse Pepper Production 2 Scenarios in Southeastern Spain tries to establish a greenhouse pepper cultivation model in Campo de Cartagena; to analyze the model economically and environmentally through LCC and LCA, identifying the "hot spots" of the production system; and to evaluate the repercussions of the foreseeable future increase in desalinated sea-water use in the irrigation mix. I have a few suggestions to be considered to improve the manuscript:

In the introduction, the authors should also make reference to the strengths and weakness of  LCA and LCC considering the procedural perspective  (i.e. Nita A., Fineran S., Rozylowicz L. (2022) Researchers’ perspective on the main strengths and weaknesses of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 92, 106690.

In the methodology section, at 2.1. Description of the case study: greenhouse pepper cultivation, the authors could add a map of the case study for a proper localization No reference in the text about the 6 scenarios presented in table 3 (not scenary I suppose).- if you refere to them as S1, S2, try to put this info in the heading of the table (i.e. Scenario 1 (S1), etc.).

The authors should better indicate what YES and NO mean in Table 3 In table 4 – the authors should make reference to the total considered to calculate the % If the authors, refer in table 5 to the same 6 scenarios, the column headings – for an easy understanding of the results - be consistent.

Please check the total column and normalization row in table 6 – make sure you formatted the cells in number format and 2 decimals. – Also please better explain what these totals represent.

In the conclusion section, the authors should better explain the importance of their findings at in the scientific literature from an international point of view (i.e. Nita A. (2019) Empowering impact assessments knowledge and international research collaboration – a bibliometric analysis of Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78:106283)..

Author Response

Authors. Thank you very much for your revision work.

 

Reviewer. In the introduction, the authors should also make reference to the strengths and weakness of LCA and LCC considering the procedural perspective (i.e. Nita A., Fineran S., Rozylowicz L. (2022) Researchers’ perspective on the main strengths and weaknesses of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 92, 106690.

Authors. We have added the following text (between “ ”)

In this sense, the combined use of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) has been shown to be a very useful tool, both in agricultural production [40-43] and in aquaculture [44]. “However, the results of LCA can be variable in terms of their quality due to numerous factors (Nita et al., 2022), which are ultimately related to the interpretation of how to apply it in each case as well as the rigor of the data that are used. However, different scientific works have analyzed the weaknesses and strengths of LCA, based on the review of numerous published studies, in order to provide recommendations that improve the quality and efficacy of the procedure so that robust results and conclusions can be obtained. These studies may be aimed at very specific activities (Torres Pineda et al., 2021) or may have a more general nature (Nita et al., 2022).”

Reviewer. In the methodology section, at 2.1. Description of the case study: greenhouse pepper cultivation, the authors could add a map of the case study for a proper localization

Authors. We have added a map (Figure 1).

 

Reviewer. No reference in the text about the 6 scenarios presented in table 3 (not scenary I suppose).- if you refer to them as S1, S2, try to put this info in the heading of the table (i.e. Scenario 1 (S1), etc.).

Authors: The scenarios are justified and described in section 2.4. To avoid confusion, we have included in the table heading: Scenario 1 (S1), etc.

 

Reviewer: The authors should better indicate what YES and NO mean in Table 3.

 

Authors. We could indicate in the table footnotes the following:

Yes: soil fumigant is applied. No: soil fumigant is not applied.

However, we believe that it is not necessary; as it is, the meaning of Yes and No is clear. However, if the reviewer believes that it is really necessary, we would add that table footnote or another that the reviewer suggests.

 

Reviewer. In table 4 – the authors should make reference to the total considered to calculate the %

Authors. In the Total cost (€ ha^-1) row the value of the “%” column is 100. However, for the avoidance of doubt, we have done the following. In the table header we put:

Absolute cost (€ ha^-1) and Relative cost (%).

And in the table footer: Relative cost = 100 × Absolute cost / Total cost.

 

Reviewer. If the authors, refer in table 5 to the same 6 scenarios, the column headings – for an easy understanding of the results - be consistent.

Authors. We have put the same table header in tables 3, 6 and 7 (Scenario 1 (S1), etc.).

 

Reviewer. Please check the total column and normalization row in table 6 – make sure you formatted the cells in number format and 2 decimals. – Also please better explain what these totals represent.

Authors. We’ve made all the changes (number format and 2 decimals) requested, and also in table 7.

Indeed the term “Total” here is confusing. We have replaced it with “Values”.

 

Reviewer. In the conclusion section, the authors should better explain the importance of their findings at in the scientific literature from an international point of view (i.e. Nita A. (2019) Empowering impact assessments knowledge and international research collaboration – a bibliometric analysis of Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78:106283).

Authors. One reviewer understands that the conclusions are well stated as they are. Another reviewer has suggested that we shorten the conclusions, and we think he's right. To introduce new considerations would be to increase the length of the conclusions. On the other hand, the work that is suggested by the reviewer to be relevant is undoubtedly very interesting, but we sincerely believe that it does not fit with the conclusions we have reached in this work, or with its specific purposes.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The ms is much improved, I only have one minor comment - in the conclusion section there are some sentences marked as deleted and the authors should erase them (see lines 640 - 641, 649 - 650, 661 - 663.