Zoning of Potential Areas for the Production of Oleaginous Species in Colombia under Agroforestry Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The data in your study reflect the agricultural potential of your country . In this context, I must say that it is a clear and understandable article. Interpretations and evaluations can be developed on how this potential will change or be managed in the future and what it will mean for the world as a result.

I think that the data of the article is completely local and does not make any sense at the international level. The subject discussed and the data presented are of course very valuable for Colombia. However, what is the meaning of these data at the international level? This issue is not clear. On the other hand, the cultivation of a plant cannot be determined only by altitude, precipitation and temperature. These data are of course preliminary and decisive. However, many factors such as slope, soil structure, mechanization, cultural habits and agricultural industry are also the main determinants. Therefore, the current evaluation will not be sufficient to reflect the real potential. In addition, the potential to grow these plants with the agroferestry system is mentioned. This makes the job much more complicated. For such a purpose, a lot of data will be needed such as allolapathy, the difference in maturation periods, the way of evaluation, the possibility of using mechanization and its effects, and of course, economic analysis. As a result, I think that the study is sufficient as a study aiming to determine the situation at the local level and to shed light on the future, but it has deficiencies in terms of its international validity and general evaluation. This is my assessment of the article. Because the article does not contain any trial, data collection or analysis. In the light of these data, the issue of whether to publish technically is the decision of the journal editor.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for your time reviewing this document.

Point 1. The data in your study reflect the agricultural potential of your country. In this context, I must say that it is a clear and understandable article. Interpretations and evaluations can be developed on how this potential will change or be managed in the future and what it will mean for the world as a result. I think that the data of the article is completely local and does not make any sense at the international level. The subject discussed and the data presented are of course very valuable for Colombia. However, what is the meaning of these data at the international level? This issue is not clear. 

Response 1: In response to your first comment, the international level of this research is based on the analysis of non-native (and non-invasive) species in Colombia with significant production and economic income in other countries, e.g., Spain with the olive tree, India with the moringa, Ukraine with the sunflower, jatropha in Brazil. In other words, this research provides the opportunity to zone a country with environmental characteristics and commercial opportunities for establishing other crops of predominant interest in other countries while allowing agricultural diversification.

Point 2. On the other hand, the cultivation of a plant cannot be determined only by altitude, precipitation and temperature. These data are of course preliminary and decisive. However, many factors such as slope, soil structure, mechanization, cultural habits and agricultural industry are also the main determinants. Therefore, the current evaluation will not be sufficient to reflect the real potential. In addition, the potential to grow these plants with the agroferestry system is mentioned. This makes the job much more complicated. For such a purpose, a lot of data will be needed such as allolapathy, the difference in maturation periods, the way of evaluation, the possibility of using mechanization and its effects, and of course, economic analysis.

Response 2. About your other comments, indeed, a crop cannot be determined solely by three agroclimatic criteria; other factors may need to be considered, such as the ones you mention. In that way, we extend this affirmation at the end of the discussion, where we suggest that other studies and analyses are required that allow greater precision and/or final zoning (Lines 290 – 295; 329 - 334).

Thank you again for your time and suggestions that will indeed allow the improvement of the document.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper uses a technological platform to process geographic information on areas with aptitude for the production of oilseeds, allows to provide results for the planning and decision making in the rural Agroforestry sector of the Colombian territory of each of the productive chains studied. The article needs major revision before it will be considered for acceptance, and the specific questions are as follows.

1. in the preface section, no specific scientific problem is found, please elaborate.

2. It is suggested that in the section 2.1. Spatial data processing, specific models and specific analysis methods for data analysis should be added.

3. The discussion section needs to be overhauled, and it is suggested to compare and analyze the results of the analysis in this paper with previous studies.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for your time reviewing this document.

Point 1. In the preface section, no specific scientific problem is found, please elaborate.

Response 1. About your first comment, we rephrase the scientific problem in the introduction and part of the discussion (Lines 45- 52; 246 - 256), emphasizing the large extensions of monoculture oil palm in Colombia and its impacts and the focused commercial and investigative enterprises to doing extensive research and analysis of this species in the last years, leaving aside other potential crops.

Point 2. It is suggested that in the section 2.1. Spatial data processing, specific models and specific analysis methods for data analysis should be added.

Response 2. Your suggestion about section 2.1 spatial data processing was taken into account. We added a diagram of the GIS geospatial method used in the research (Figure 1 in Line 100) and a brief explanation. Also, we made small changes in the item text to better comprehend the method.

Point 3. The discussion section needs to be overhauled, and it is suggested to compare and analyze the results of the analysis in this paper with previous studies.

Response 3. Finally, for the discussion, we added research and documents with significant scientific impact and with similar situations related to species zoning using GIS and agroclimatic variables (Lines 256-259; 286-295). It is important to emphasize that no other investigations or technical documents focused on the zoning of this kind of species; therefore, the comparison with previous and only Colombian research is limited.

Thank you again for your time and suggestions that will indeed allow the improvement of the document. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 17, 18 and 19 are too long, split it into 2-3 sentences

Line 21: SIAC put it inside the parenthesis

Line 23 cross check number and format is not correct

Line 25 and 26 explain basis for prediction

Line 26-28 Numbers within the parenthesis are confusing

Include conclusion part at the end of abstract

Rearrange key words according to alphabet

Modify introduction part including hypothesis and objectives

Line 65 delete Environmental 65 Information System of Colombia and abbreviated as SIAC

Line 69: IDEAM included in parenthesis

Line 92 use proper abbreviation for above sea level

Missing statistical analysis of the data 

Combine Fig. 1 to 6 into a single figure for comparison

Use Uniform format for Jatropha line- 196 and 236

Expand RC, PC, G, HAA, F, HSV, OA and include in table title line 257

Improve conclusion part, all are in general statements.

Rewrite table and figures captions for better understanding, most of them are incomplete. 

Mention data source for Table 2

Need technical improvement of the discussion section. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you very much for your time in reviewing this document.

Point 1. Line 17, 18 and 19 are too long, split it into 2-3 sentences

Point 2. Line 21: SIAC put it inside the parenthesis

Point 3. Line 23 cross check number and format is not correct

Point 4. Line 25 and 26 explain basis for prediction

Point 5. Line 26-28 Numbers within the parenthesis are confusing

Point 6. Include conclusion part at the end of abstract

Point 7. Rearrange key words according to alphabet

Response 1 - 7. The abstract was rephrased and also it was modified some sentences to be grammarly correct. 

Point 8. Modify introduction part including hypothesis and objectives

Response 8. In Lines 53-62 of the document, it was added the hypothesis and the objectives of the research, based on the zoned species will have an important area in the country to mark the beginning of new investigations that allow their establishment and diversification in the chain and agricultural production under agroforestry parameters.

Point 9. Line 65 delete Environmental 65 Information System of Colombia and abbreviated as SIAC

Point 10. Line 69: IDEAM included in parenthesis

Point 11. Line 92 use proper abbreviation for above sea level

Response 9 - 11. In the document, the grammatical and format errors were corrected.

Point 12. Missing statistical analysis of the data

Response 12. Due to the methods used and the results obtained, this research does not require the application of basic statistical processes. The following investigations have been accepted and recognized by the scientific audience without actually carrying out a direct statistical analysis on the zoning of agricultural areas.

• Parra, C.R.; Ramirez, A.D.; Navas-Gracia, L.M.; Gonzales, D.; Correa-Guimaraes, A. Prospects for Bioenergy Development Potential from Dedicated Energy Crops in Ecuador: An Agroecological Zoning Study. Agriculture 2023, 13, 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13010186
• Caldana, N.F.d.S.; Nitsche, P.R.; Martelócio, A.C.; Rudke, A.P.; Zaro, G.C.; Batista Ferreira, L.G.; Zaccheo, P.V.C.; Colucci de Carvalho, S.L.; Martins, J.A. Agroclimatic Risk Zoning of Avocado (Persea americana) in the Hydrographic Basin of Paraná River III, Brazil. Agriculture2019, 9, 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9120263
• Morgounov, A.; Abubakr, M.; Alhendi, A.; Alkhatran, A.; Alhuwaymil, H.; Ghosh, K. Zonas agroclimáticas y sistemas de cultivo en las regiones sudoccidentales del Reino de Arabia Saudita: caracterización, clasificación y potencial de mejora. Cultivos2022, 2, 186-201. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops2020014

Point 13. Combine Fig. 1 to 6 into a single figure for comparison

Response 13. We combined Figures 1 – 6 into a single figure (Figure 2 Line 173).

Point 14. Use Uniform format for Jatropha line- 196 and 236

Point 15. Expand RC, PC, G, HAA, F, HSV, OA and include in table title line 257

Response 14 and 15. In the document, the grammatical and format errors were corrected. 

Point 16. Improve conclusion part, all are in general statements.

Response 16. The conclusions item were paraphrased for better understanding. In addition, we added more specific statements according to our results.

Point 17. Rewrite table and figures captions for better understanding, most of them are incomplete.

Response 17. Legends and notes were reviewed of each table and figure guaranteeing completion.

Point 18. Mention data source for Table 2

Response 18. The data source in Table 2 is the result of the geoprocessing analysis performed by us; that is, it is our authorship, and therefore we do not consider it pertinent to specify.

Point 19. Need technical improvement of the discussion section.

Response 19. Discussion item were paraphrased for better understanding. It included other scientific articles related to the research to compare and explain the results.

Thank you again for your time and suggestions that will indeed allow the improvement of the document. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After careful and detailed revision, I agree to accept the paper in its present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

I am satisfied the address made by authors, It can be publishable in the present form.