Last Decade Assessment of the Impacts of Regional Climate Change on Crop Yield Variations in the Mediterranean Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I have reviewed the both versions of the current manuscript (agriculture-1951122) and agriculture-1918430). The authors have adequately answered my queries and implemented the corrections well. I suggest accepting this manuscript in current form. Only minor language / syntax errors exists which should be corrected during production, if accepted.

   

Author Response

Thank you for your comment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

         The impacts of climate change on the region and the adaptation behaviors of different groups to climate change have always been the focus of academic and political circles. The author has done an interesting and meaningful job. However, the overall study is a bit rough. Here are some suggestions:

         (1) It is not clear what the key scientific questions are to be addressed. Now the whole manuscript is scattered and lacks systematic logic.

         (2) The marginal contribution of research is not clear. In fact, there are many, many studies that use long time series data to explore the regional impacts of climate change. So compared with these studies, what is the marginal contribution of this study? From a theoretical perspective? What is the research content? The research method? None of this is clear-cut.

         (3) The logic of the author's writing needs to stand higher. The current logic of writing is to talk about the region according to the region studied by the author. Agriculture is an internationally famous publication whose readers are people all over the world. Therefore, the author should talk about the current issue in the context of global climate change, and then step by step focus on the small scientific issues, and enlightening the rest of the world in a point-by-point way.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Reviewer 2

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:The impacts of climate change on the region and the adaptation behaviors of different groups to climate change have always been the focus of academic and political circles. The author has done an interesting and meaningful job. However, the overall study is a bit rough. Here are some suggestions:

 

• It is not clear what the key scientific questions are to be addressed. Now the whole manuscript is scattered and lacks systematic logic.

Response:

 

• Regarding the “scientific questions”, the authors agreed with you since there is no a separate paragraph (section) showing the question(s) of the theme of the manuscript. For this reason, the authors have added the following paragraph to the text:

 

Question-01: What are the current problems facing the Mediterranean region concerning crop production based on climate change?

Question-02: What is the possibility of developing a framework to deal with the influence of climate change to mitigate crop production?

• Regarding the “the whole manuscript is scattered and lacks systematic logic”, it seems that there is something missing showing the ‘coherency’ of the paper. Hence, a ‘flowchart’ was added showing the whole picture of the manuscript such the readers could look at paper and ‘understand’ the ‘logic’ of the paper.

 

As seen in Figure 1, the introduction discuses five-related issues to the title of the manuscript, "Last Decade Assessment of the Impacts of Regional Climate Change on Crop Yield Variations in Mediterranean Region". The first two topics provide a brief history and location of the study area to draw the readers' attention to that specific region. The other three topics are related to climate change as presented in literature: rainfall, climate, and ecology. The outcome of these five topics is to study the crop yield in the region to provide a good estimation or understanding of "food production and security".

Secondly, based on the details mentioned in the introduction, two main factors (water and temperature) represent the outcome of the climate change “Effects of Climate Change on Mediterranean Region”. These two factors, water and temperature, are commonly used in determining the Standard Precipitation Index (SPI).  

Thirdly, “sustainability” has to be discussed because this topic is commonly known as a prerequisite to any future study aiming to solve this type of problem. The authors found five domains to be considered pillars of any solution: food security, water resources, managing the ecosystem, human health, and human security.  

The rest of the paper includes the following topics: Crop yield security, Variation of crop production in the region, and the developing of a framework which has to consider introducing “Climate Smart”. The last two topics are the significance of the study and the conclusion.

The authors are convinced that the chronology of the paper is appropriate. This conclusion cannot be taken as a “fact” and, hence, they ready to hear from you any suggestion since the goal of all parties is to produce a very logical manuscript.

 

Point 2: The marginal contribution of research is not clear. In fact, there are many, many studies that use long time series data to explore the regional impacts of climate change. So compared with these studies, what is the marginal contribution of this study? From a theoretical perspective? What is the research content? The research method? None of this is clear-cut.

 

The marginal contribution of research is not clear. In fact, there are many, many studies that use long time series data to explore the regional impacts of climate change. So compared with these studies?

Response:  The manuscript is a “review” study focusing on climate developments and the consequences on crop production in the Mediterranean region. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this manuscript is the first study concerning the time frame (last decade) and the region under (the Mediterranean). This review is the first review paper; there is no benchmark paper to compare. However, the paper has adopted critical criticism from those discussing the same matter. I might provide many examples of such criticism throughout the paper if needed.

 

What is the marginal contribution of this study? From a theoretical perspective?

Response: In addition to choosing this topic to be the first review, Section 8 “Significance of the Review” have provided several other contributions or significance.

• This review made a concerted attempt to synthesise existing scientific knowledge across disciplines to understand better the risks posed by their combination.
• Opportunities to advance the multiscale crop modelling framework are identified.
• The analysis seeks to scale up and scale down the suitable solutions and draw lessons for policymakers at the local to international levels.
• Several technological, institutional, and regulatory initiatives have been proposed by experts to help farmers adapt to current and future weather variability and reduce green-house gas (GHG) emissions.
• A proposed framework showing a variety of variables of climate changes on crop production has been developed in which the most critical factors were highlighted

 

Point3:The logic of the author's writing needs to stand higher. The current logic of writing is to talk about the region according to the region studied by the author. Agriculture is an internationally famous publication whose readers are people all over the world. Therefore, the author should talk about the current issue in the context of global climate change, and then step by step focus on the small scientific issues, and enlightening the rest of the world in a point-by-point way.

Response: The trend of other papers with the same context shows that those authors discuss the country (region) under consideration without ignoring the global weather changes or conditions. This paper talks about the countries in the Mediterranean region, a vast region extending from the east (Syria, Turkey, and others) to the west, where some European countries are. From the north and south of the Mediterranean, there are more than 20 countries. Despite this fact, the paper never ignored the global effect. As examples:

• “Portugal was mentioned along with reference [31].”
• In another location, the following comments on weather-related issues were mentioned: “Mediterranean climatic is very similar to any of the following regions across the globe: California (United States), Central Chile, Cape Region (South Africa), and the southern most regions (Australia) [called Mediterranean climatic regions (MCRs)]. The five regions constitute 2% of the Earth's surface area, 20% of the world's plant species, and 5% of the world's population. However, just 6% of land in California is utilised for agriculture, whereas 37% of land in Australia and 55% in Chile's central valley are used for agriculture [40]”.
• “Unpredictability and difficulties in managing food security are exacerbated by rising populations, economic crises, and political issues such as sanctions, civil unrest, war, and social strife. Due to the civil war in 1994, countries such as Yemen, Rwanda, Afghanistan, and Ghana lost 60% of its crop, resulting in a famine that killed over a million people [98]. In another part of the world, flooding and a lack of trade in North Korea in the 1990s led to famine [99]. Insecurity in the area has led to the recent designation of food insecurity for 17 million Yemenis [100]. In the wake of recent events in Ukraine, more than half of the world's population might face famine [101]. Global food yields might benefit from a complete knowledge of the implications of CC, technology, and climatic variability on global food production. As a result, it has become imperative to develop procedures that can withstand the varying climates. Additionally, figuring out where to focus our efforts may help us achieve global food, water, and energy sustainability) [102]”.
• “A broad range of experts have studied climate, weather, and agricultural production [105]; [106]. On the contrary, Unganai and Kogan [105] used remote sensing data to moni-tor drought and analyze southern Africa's climate to predict grain production. In Zimba-bwe, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index could account for up to 60% of the variation in Zimbabwe's maize production. It could correctly forecast output with a year's lead time [108]. Strong teleconnections exist between the GPH's first four essential compo-nents and anomalies in European wheat output [115]. In Uganda, a cross-sectional data-base of 927 Ugandan households and a propensity matching score to examine the influ-ence of technological advancement (adoption of improved seeds) on agricultural yields and incomes [102]. Soybean yields in areas of the United States, Brazil, and China were studied using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) parameter estimate techniques by [104].”
• “According to the researchers, global agricultural yields might be reduced by growing CO2 levels, rising temperatures, and extreme occurrences. As CC affects the food supply, re-searchers provide a detailed study of the consequences [109]. Their meta-analysis shows that there will be between five million and one hundred and seventy million individuals at risk by 2080, depending on socioeconomic development situations.”
• “According to United Nations records dating back to 1961, 245 countries have produced and harvested crops yearly since then. Agricultural Organization of the United Nations [111]. Most countries established after 1961, except those formed after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, have this data readily accessible. For example, Russia's agricultural production data is only available for the years following 1992.”

 

In addition, the following references were chosen to either support or to highlight different experiences global wise:

Ref. 4 (USA)

Ref. 10 (Global)

Ref. 12 (Central Africa)

Ref. 15 (Sub-Sahara)

Ref. 18 (Kenya)

Ref. 29 (Global Yield)

Ref. 23 (Sea Level-Global)

Ref. 31 (Europe)

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

I have no other comments, thank you.

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

         The impact of climate change on grain yield has always been a hot topic in academia and politics. At first glance, I thought the author had chosen a good topic. However, looking closely at the content, it has to be said that this is a disaster. I don't understand the logic of what the author is trying to say. The author goes from one aspect to another without a clear logical thread.

         (1) The summary needs to be rewritten. The current summary does not see the significance of what the authors are trying to do, the core design of the research, the core conclusion of the research, or the policy implications of the research. It is suggested that the author rewrite it according to the logic of general abstract.

         (2) The introduction is too long and has no clear narrative logic to tell what the author is trying to do. From the title of the article, I thought it was a quantitative study using an econometric model. However, actually looking at the content, this study seems to be a review of the study. However, there is no clear logical thread.

         (3) I'm sorry I can't watch this anymore. I think if the author wants to make a complete review clearly. So, first of all, you should tell us what the overview looks like and what the core concepts involved are. Then, from different levels to its review. However, before the review, it is necessary to carefully introduce the source and processing of the data, so as to be convincing.

         (4) All of the pictures are not clear. I suggest the author to replace them with clearer ones.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the current review entitled “Assessing the Impacts of Regional Climate Change on Crops Yield Variation in Mediterranean Region” by Alrteimei et al., the influence of regional climate change is discussed as this region has seen financial and political instability. The review article described several factors such as floods, droughts, lousy management, expanding population, and an increase in the temperature of the Mediterranean Sea that created such instability. After a careful reading, I found this work interesting and timely. However, I have major concerns about the layout, writing, and structure of the paper which require extensive improvements, therefore, I suggest major revision. My specific comments are:

1.      Focus on the writing rule of using -s, -es, etc. In the title, “Crops Yield Variation” should be changed to “Crop Yield Variations”.

2.      Mention the observation period (years) in both title and abstract to be precise.

3.      Too much use of This study, in this study, etc. Avoid it.

4.      Affiliation details are missing for all authors. Only department names are provided?

5.      The manuscript needs thorough proofreading by a native English speaker.

6.      The whole manuscript has several statements which are not supported by valid references, etc. first sentence of the introduction, and many more.

7.      Rewrite the captions of all figures (Figure 1: Mediterranean countries?) I think the authors should draw an original map where all Mediterranean countries are clearly visible with different colors. Herein, many other countries are also visible which are not the part of the purpose. Correct accordingly.

8.      Line 182: 2. The Mediterranean Climate Change Effects? Change it to “2. Effects of Climate Change on Mediterranean Region”.

9.      Climate change (CC) abbreviation is used on line 192? Why not before it?

10.   Figures have very low resolution and are hard to understand.

11.   Citation for Equation 1?

12.   The conclusion can be shortened and major parts can be shifted to the previous heading.