Drivers and Consequences of Land Degradation on Livestock Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Literature Review

Reviewer 1

Comment

Response

The manuscript provides a comprehensive insight into land degradation on livestock productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa. The content is substantial, but still needs to be revised.

1) The name of Figure 1 should indicate the meaning of n. Clearly define the meaning represented by font size in Figure 2.

We have revised the caption of Figure 1 to clearly indicate that “n” refers to the number of articles included in each stage of the PRISMA flow diagram.

In Figure 2, we have added a note explaining that the font size of the words in the word cloud represents their frequency of occurrence in the abstracts of the included articles. Words appearing in larger type were used more frequently.

2) It would be more convincing to add a literature supported reason for using Bibliometrix for a bibliometric analysis in section 2.6.

In section 2.6, we have included a literature-supported rationale for using the Bibliometrix R package for our bibliometric analysis. Bibliometrix is widely recognized for its robust and comprehensive capabilities in performing detailed bibliometric analyses, allowing for the exploration of intellectual structures within scientific domains through network analysis and co-occurrence mapping (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017). This tool was specifically chosen because of its ability to reveal patterns and trends in scientific literature, which are critical for understanding the scope and depth of research on land degradation and livestock productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa.

3) Whether a more specific location for land degradation in sub-Saharan Africa - a more precise scope than the country scale - could be added to the results.

We acknowledge the importance of providing more detailed geographical information. In the revised manuscript, we have included a more specific discussion of the locations within Sub-Saharan Africa where land degradation impacts are most significant. This includes references to specific regions and ecosystems within the countries mentioned in our study, offering a more precise scope than the country scale.

4) As a review, the number of references cited is a bit less. More articles with useful information may need to be added. For example, other studies related to this topic can serve as arguments or comparisons.

We have reviewed additional literature on the subject and have incorporated several more relevant studies into the manuscript. These new references serve to enrich the discussion and provide broader context and comparisons for our findings. This enhancement strengthens the manuscript’s contribution to the field and aligns with your suggestion for a more comprehensive review of the existing literature.

（5）Land degradation is a complex process, and there should be some improvement in the text of the manuscript.

We agree that the complexity of land degradation requires clear and precise language. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve the clarity and readability of the text. These revisions include refining the discussion of the multifaceted nature of land degradation and its impacts on livestock productivity, ensuring that the manuscript accurately reflects the complexity of the issues addressed.

Reviewer 2

Comment

Response

1) The terms "resilience" and "sustainability" appear repeatedly throughout the text of the article. Given that both terms are highly polysemic and therefore have very different meanings, it would be very useful if the authors made clear from the beginning of the article what they mean by such terms, and also tried to make explicit the socio-economic, environmental and human implications that a more comprehensive and integral way of understanding such terms should not fail to take into account.

We have added a section in the Introduction that clearly defines the terms "resilience" and "sustainability" as used in the context of our study. We emphasized that in this paper, "resilience" refers to the capacity of rangeland ecosystems and livestock-dependent communities to withstand and recover from land degradation impacts. "Sustainability" is framed as the ability to manage rangeland resources in a manner that maintains ecological balance while ensuring the long-term viability of livestock farming. The socio-economic, environmental, and human implications of these terms are also discussed, highlighting the importance of an integrated approach to land management that addresses ecological health, economic stability, and social well-being.

2) In the Introduction, one or two paragraphs should be added in which the authors explain the reasons why, in order to analyze the problem under study, they decided to carry out a systematic review of the existing literature and not to rely, for example, on a study of the socioeconomic and environmental or climatic, demographic, etc. characteristics of the study area. Therefore, an attempt should be made to assess the advantages in terms of understanding and analyzing the problem by studying what has been done or the alternative I have just suggested to the authors.

We have expanded the Introduction to include one to two paragraphs that justify our choice of conducting a systematic review. The addition explains that a systematic review allows for a comprehensive synthesis of existing research, which is crucial for understanding the diverse factors contributing to land degradation and its impacts on livestock productivity. Unlike a single empirical study, the systematic review approach provides a broader perspective by integrating findings from multiple studies, thus offering more robust conclusions that can inform policy and practice across different contexts in sub-Saharan Africa.

3) The analysis of the sources mentioned in the paragraph between lines 118 and 134 should have been made and clearly differentiated in the Introduction, for example by including it in a kind of first sub-section entitled something like "Pertinence and state of the matter studied here".

The analysis of the sources mentioned in the paragraph between lines 118 and 134 has been relocated to a new subsection in the Introduction titled "Pertinence and State of the Matter." This section now clearly differentiates the various sources of data and literature used in the study and explains their relevance to the research questions.

4) Between lines 162 and 163 it says: "Articles had to be fully accessible through the University of Fort Hare library subscription. Papers that were not fully available were excluded due to access limitations." In this regard, I am fully aware of the difficulties the authors must have had in finding literature on the problem under study. However, I am also aware that many references are available in the online catalogs of other universities in the world, which, even if only their abstracts and keywords can be accessed, constitute a very valuable source of sufficient information to make a typology of the topics covered by the references on the area and subject studied here. Such a typology, if it had consulted these sources from all over the world, would have taken into account numerous scientific works published by various other researchers with a more global scope and dissemination.

We acknowledge the importance of including a wider range of literature, even those only accessible through abstracts and keywords. However, due to the constraints mentioned, our analysis primarily relied on fully accessible articles. To address your concern, we have included a discussion in the methodology section about the limitations of our literature access and how this might affect the comprehensiveness of our typology. We have also suggested in the "Limitations and Future Research" section that future studies could benefit from broader access to global research repositories.

5) I would clearly separate the Results and Discussion sections. After all, both sections need to deal with different issues that require separate analysis. Thus, in the Results section, I would focus on the analysis of the research results. The Discussion section, on the other hand, would be devoted to discussing and evaluating these results in the light of the work done and the theoretical foundations available.

Following your recommendation, we have separated the Results and Discussion sections. The Results section now focuses solely on the analysis of the research findings, while the Discussion section interprets these findings in light of existing theories and literature. This separation has allowed for a more detailed and structured analysis, enhancing the clarity and depth of our arguments.

6) In relation to Table 3, it would be very useful to include a map, or rather a kind of sketch map, showing the location of the areas of sub-Saharan Africa mentioned in the table

The manuscript already includes a detailed and comprehensive figure that illustrates the geographic distribution of study areas in Sub-Saharan Africa. Adding additional sketch maps for each table might lead to redundancy and cluttering the manuscript with excessive visuals that do not add significant new information. The existing map effectively captures the spatial distribution of the studies, allowing readers to understand the regional focus. Including more maps may distract from the overall narrative and analysis presented in the paper.

7) Similarly, in relation to Table 4, it would also be very convenient to add another sketch map including the location of the Sub-Saharan African countries referred to in this table. The idea of including this sketch map in the manuscript is to allow the reader to see at a glance the greater or lesser degree of spatial continuity with which the phenomenon studied in this research develops and manifests itself.

The primary focus of the research is on the impact of land degradation on livestock productivity, not necessarily on the spatial distribution of these impacts across the continent. While geographic context is important, the manuscript aims to highlight thematic and analytical findings rather than provide a detailed geographic analysis. The current map sufficiently provides context for the regions studied, without the need for additional maps.

8) Regarding the section "Gaps and Future Directions", the truth is that what is said here should be included in a separate, clearly differentiated section, whose title should be something like "Recommendations for policy makers in charge of these problems and future lines of research on them".

We have created a new section titled "Recommendations for Policy Makers and Future Research," as suggested. This section includes actionable recommendations based on our findings, aimed at policymakers responsible for addressing land degradation and its impacts. It also outlines future research directions that could fill existing knowledge gaps and contribute to more effective intervention

9) Between lines 484 and 485 it says: "More gender-sensitive and youth-focused research is needed to explore these dynamics and develop targeted strategies that address the unique challenges faced by these groups.”. I suggest that the authors better explain what they mean by this statement, with which, by the way, I fully agree, given the essential role of women in the societies studied here, as well as the crucial importance of sensitizing and/or raising awareness among youth to address all these land degradation problems.

We have created a new section titled "Recommendations for Policy Makers and Future Research," as suggested. This section includes actionable recommendations based on our findings, aimed at policymakers responsible for addressing land degradation and its impacts. It also outlines future research directions that could fill existing knowledge gaps and contribute to more effective interventions.

In response to your suggestion, we have elaborated on the statement regarding the need for more gender-sensitive and youth-focused research. We clarified that such research is crucial for understanding the unique challenges faced by women and youth in managing rangelands and livestock. Women are often key players in livestock management, yet their roles and needs are underrepresented in policy discussions. Similarly, engaging youth is vital for ensuring the long-term sustainability of rangeland management practices. We have expanded this section to emphasize the importance of inclusive research that takes into account the diverse needs of all community members.

10) Regarding the "Potential Limitations" section, this should be a separate section and not a subsection of Section 3.

We have moved the "Potential Limitations" subsection into a new, standalone section titled "Limitations and Future Research." This separation allows for a more focused discussion on the limitations of our study and how they might influence the interpretation of our findings.

11) Related to the above, the "Conclusions" section should no longer be numbered as Section 3.9, but as a separate section. In summary, and in line with what I have suggested in the previous points, I would include a section 3 dedicated to the analysis of the Results, then a section 4 focused on the Discussion, followed by a section 5 on Recommendations for policy makers and future lines of research. Next a section 6 on Limitations and future research. And finally, section 7 would be the Conclusion. In this last section, I would choose to speak of Conclusions in the plural, and I would try to number and distinguish between several conclusions.

The manuscript has been reorganized as follows:

Section 3: Analysis of Results

Section 4: Discussion

Section 5: Recommendations for Policy Makers and Future Research

Section 6: Limitations and Future Research

Section 7: Conclusions (renamed "Conclusions" to "Conclusions" and numbered appropriately)

This reorganization improves the logical flow of the manuscript and clearly distinguishes between different types of content.

12) The Conclusions section should mainly focus on highlighting the main findings of the research that led to the writing of this article

We have revised the Conclusions section to focus more clearly on the main findings of the research. The section now highlights the key outcomes of our systematic review, emphasizing the drivers and consequences of land degradation on livestock productivity in sub-Saharan Africa. We have removed any extraneous content to ensure that the conclusions are concise and directly tied to the evidence presented in the manuscript