Changes in Land Use and Food Security: The Case of the De La Vega Agrarian Shire in the Southern Spanish Province of Granada

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

This version of the manuscript looks better than the previous version. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. In the attached file you can find our reactions.
Sincerely yours.
The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Authors improved the revised version asper suggestion, but still needsd improvements in conclusion section, that needs only significant findings that will be more reader friendly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. In the attached file you can find our reactions.
Sincerely yours.
The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Reviewer #2: The paper entitled "Changes in land use and food security: the case of the De La 2 Vega agrarian shire in the southern Spanish province of Gra-3 nada" is a good paper. The language of the paper is at par with the international standards. The paper will certainly be a good addition to the journal, but it needs some minor modifications. I would suggest to make following changes in the paper.

 

1) Please add a paragraph that explains climatic characteristics of the study region.

2) In the literature review please cite works that have been done with respect to land use trends over the study area, and what were their results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. In the attached file you can find our reactions.
Sincerely yours.
The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. What about the temperature? IT is important foe the land use in the region.

2.Where are the methods? Qualitative and quantitative.

3. What about CAP? IS it important for the region.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We are sending you our responses to your comments in the attached pdf file. Thank you for your attention. Yours sincerely. The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

What is the main contribution of your paper?

The outcome of the paper should be highlighted in a more specific way

Where is the proposed concept?

More result analysis along with necessary figures are required.

The conclusion should be written according to the outcome.

More relevant references should be included in this work.

Mismatch of the grammar of different sentences

Table 3 should be in MDPI format.

The size and conclusion of the paper should be more specific. Highlight only the core description.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We are sending you our responses to your comments in the attached pdf file. Thank you for your attention. Yours sincerely. The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I read with much interest this research manuscript reporting on " Changes in land use and food security: the case of the De La Vega agrarian shire in the southern Spanish province of Granada". Overall, I found the manuscript to be interesting, therefore, I do not recommend accepting it in its present form.

Comments on the manuscript:

1) The title is good and clear in its message.

2) The language needs some improvement especially in terms of grammar, formatting, and clarity.

3) The abstract is well written and provides good summary of the manuscript, however, it is quite verbose now and does not carry any quantitative data. This should be added.

4) Materials and methods: The lines 121-124 should be removed and added in the las paragraph of the introduction.

5) The goals of the manuscript are not clearly defined.

6) Too many old references provided in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We are sending you our responses to your comments in the attached pdf file. Thank you for your attention. Yours sincerely. The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The submitted manuscript deals with Changes in land use and food security: the case of the De La

Vega agrarian shire in the southern Spanish province of Gra-nada, the overall area remains an interesting field of work. There are some shortfalls in the draft that must be corrected before acceptance.

Abstract

1.      Only general lines

2.      Add significant findings in percent increase and decrease form how much land is used for farming, livestock etc

3.      Conclusion did not support the objectives of the study. Please rewrite

4.      add the recommendations of your study based upon your findings how this study will be helpful for the common farmer

Introduction

1.      The introduction needs a lot of work, no need to mention the municipalities in the introduction part it should be in methodology. Provide specific challenges occur in your study area and then move with your argument

2.      Add more and latest information about the land use changes

3.      Add problem statement and hypothesis of the study

4.      Clarify the objectives of your study

Material Methods

1.      Why main objective in methodology?

2.      Totally rewrite the methodology again, it is not reader friendly and not understandable try to add data in the headings form  

3.      What about statistical analysis

Results and discussion

1.      Be consistent in explaining your results either use the abbreviations for treatments either full form better to add the abbreviation code in tabular form in methodology to avoid confusion

2.      Lot of typo graphical and grammatical mistakes please correct

3.      Add the axis line and axis titles of the graphs

4.      Just one poultry and pigs farm in last 11 years? Clarify

5.      Discussion is well organized but some grammatical mistakes

6.      Add more recent references not more than 5 years old

Conclusion

1.      Conclusion did not support your findings 

2.      Rewrite you conclusion again with significant findings

3.      Add recommendations of you study in relation with SDGs

4.      Better to add significant findings in percent increase and decrease form

5.      Also add one line about future studies

References

1.      Follow the journal guidelines for the references formatting

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We are sending you our responses to your comments in the attached pdf file. Thank you for your attention. Yours sincerely. The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. No more questions.

2. Can be shortened.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for reviewing our work again and for your comments in this second round. In these comments, you tell us:

1. No more questions.
2. Can be shortened.

On the one hand, we understand that you have no further questions about our work after the first in-depth review we have carried out by taking into account your comments and those of the other reviewers. In this regard, we thank you a lot for your judgement of the major review effort we made in response to the first round of your comments. On the other hand, in response to the second point of your comments, we have shortened the manuscript as much as possible, taking care not to affect any of the comments and paragraphs that we believe it is essential to maintain in order to keep the key ideas of our manuscript steadily reasoned. With this in mind, in response to your request, we have deleted the first sub-section of the Results section, while in the last sub-section within the Results section we have removed a series of comments regarding the "Salvemos la Vega" association that we have seen are not key for the reader to understand what the members of this association do.

Thank you once again for your suggestions that have helped us to improve our work.

Yours sincerely,

Francisco Entrena-Durán

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for reviewing our work again in this second round. You said to us:

Accept in present form.

In this regard, we greatly appreciate your acknowledgement of our thorough review of the paper following your comments and those of the other reviewers in the first round of review. These comments, particularly those from you, were of great help and encouragement to us in bettering our work.

Yours sincerely,

Francisco Entrena-Durán

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Methodology and Conclusion must be modified because it is not reader friendly

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript again in this second round. You say to us:

"Methodology and Conclusion must be modified because it is not reader friendly".

In relation to your comment, we have done an almost complete careful rewriting of the "Materials and Methods" and "Conclusions" sections. In both sections, while keeping the changes we made after the first round of revisions marked in yellow, we have marked in green the new changes we have made after this second round of revisions. We believe that these changes have significantly improved the readability and friendliness of the manuscript.

We thank you again for your detailed comments on the first version of this manuscript, which, together with your comments on this second version of our text, have been a great encouragement and a valuable help to us in carrying out this rewrite aimed at bettering our work.

Yours sincerely,

Francisco Entrena-Durán

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf