Exploring the Climate and Topography of Olive Orchards in Extremadura, Southwestern Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review report on “Exploring the climate and topography of olive orchards in Extremadura, Southwestern Spain”

The study investigated the correlation between climate and topography and olive cultivation in Extremadura, southwestern Spain, which is a vital region for olive production in the Mediterranean. The authors’ main aim was to characterize the spatio-temporal topographic and climatic variables in the olive-growing regions at the orchard level to contribute to enabling the implementation of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures at the plantation level. The study’s main take-home finding is that olive groves are generally located at elevations between 200-600 meters, although favorable temperature conditions for olive cultivation are prevalent throughout most of Extremadura.

While the study presents a thorough characterization of climate and topography on olive cultivation in Extremadura, enhancements are needed for publication consideration.

For one, there is no data or discussion on actual olive production performance, i.e., the tonnage of production (and production change over time) in each of the olive-growing regions or nutritional variation across the area in relation to changing temperature, precipitation, and frost-days change over time. To me, this should have been the main focus of the work. Simply mapping the olive-growing areas versus climatic and geographical variables is plainly descriptive and fits the 'area of study description', doing little to inform the reader on the impacts of climate and geography on olive-growing. Regression tests with actual production (or other suitable production indices such as nutritional content) will significantly enhance the study’s scientific novelty and relevance for readers.

It could be helpful to average the variables into a single 'suitability index' defining conditions for olive oil production. This can then be ranked based on suitable cut-offs to quantify suitability-partitioned classes across the growing regions.

Also, despite the increasing adoption of irrigation-based options in farming Olive trees, the study does not touch on this. This could be useful for the authors to also analyze the groundwater resources and potential across the growing regions.

The Results and Discussion section currently needs to be more organized. I suggest the authors reorganize this section into variable-headed subsections such as:

·         3.1] Topographical Characterization [to include all elevation and slope related results and discussion],

·         3.2] Temperature Characterization [to include all temperature related variables’ descriptions – minimum, maximum, variability, …],

·         3.3] Precipitation Characterization [all precipitation related contents], and

·         3.4] Frost-days/Frost Characterization [for all frost related contents].

More generally, the rationale behind variable selection and a more critical engagement with literature, clearer methodological justifications, and a broader contextual discussion would elevate the manuscript's contribution and readiness for publication.

Other minor comments:

Line 31: ‘Olea europea’ should be in italics

Line 66: Delete ‘, particularly in rainfed crops’ and insert a citation for the sentence.

Line 156: The citation for the climatol package should be formatted from “Guijarro JA (2024). _climatol: Climate Tools (Series Homogenization and Derived Products). R package version 4.1.0,  <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=climatol>."

Line 177: Modify Table 2 by adding a column dedicated for variables’ sources/reference

Figures 4-7: Most of the analyses and reporting have been based on growing regions; therefore, to aid readers in better visually interpreting the distribution of the variables across the regions, add a part b of these figures depicting averaged variables distribution per olive-growing region

Line 333: ‘This range is optimal for olive growing. ’ The start of this paragraph seems out of place. Link with the previous paragraph if it is a continuation of it.

Line 380: I think ‘than 8 frosts per year’ should be ‘than 8 frost days per year’

There are several grammatically ambiguous words and sentences that could be improved for clarity and logic with careful revision.

The study requires moderate English language editing to improve clarity and logic for a wider audience.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I have had the pleasure of reviewing your manuscript and found it to be interesting and well-crafted. It is contextualized with a proper introduction and has a clear presentation of results. I have just some minor concerns that need to be addressed before publication.

One suggestion I have is related to the spatial scale of the study, which appears to be quite local. Of course, I understand why the study was especially focused on Extremadura, but to enhance the broader applicability and significance of your findings, I recommend considering the inclusion of suggestions for upscaling the study to encompass the entire Spain, or even illustrating the potential for extending your methods to other Mediterranean countries. This would provide valuable insights into the broader implications of your research and increase the significance of your contribution to the field.

Here follows some other minor details.

L. 31 Olea europaea should be written in italics

L. 116 km2 must be replaced with km² with proper superscript

L. 123 you used "hm3", however the correct unit of measure for Volume is L and its multiples

L. 185 do not capitalize the "W"

L. 277 Table 6: the column name should be "Equations", not "Ecuations"

Tables 7 - 10: can you please place the point (instead of the comma) as a decimal separator in the last column, where the surface in hectares is reported?

I guess the graphs have been produced through ArcGIS Geostatistical Analyst and Spatial Analyst extensions, right? If so, I recommend mentioning this in the figure captions. Since ArcGIS is commercial software and, unlike R or Python which are code-based programming languages, there might be concerns about the reproducibility of the analysis due to the inability to share the script.

Congrats on your work. 

The quality of the scientific English is fine. The text needs just minor adjustments due to a typo in table 6 (ref. to my previous comment)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx