Spatial Association Network and Driving Factors of Agricultural Eco-Efficiency in the Hanjiang River Basin, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments on “Spatial Association Network and Driving Factors of Agricultural Eco-efficiency in the Hanjiang River Basin, China”

This research is an interesting attempt in which authors studied the Agricultural Eco-efficiency in the Hanjiang Region from 2020 to 2020. This study provides readers with detailed insights through the super-SBM model and driving factor analysis. However, the research questions and results were not explained thoroughly, and the discourses in the “Introduction and Literature Review” are not accurate enough. What’s worse, there are many many mistakes in the format of academic English writing, especially in the format of references, the authors should know that these basic mistakes make this manuscript seem it maybe written in a hurry, and very unprofessional.

Besides, There are only 28 references in this study, and it seems that more than 20 of them are Chinese Journal papers, the Journal of Agriculture (SCI) is an international Journal, the authors should understand that the readers may don't understand Chinese.

Therefore, it is necessary to expound on the results and explain why the authors chose this method, what research questions were deduced from the literature review on Agricultural Eco-efficiency and the gaps in the agricultural development of Hanjiang region.

Because of the authors’ outstanding efforts in their data and model, I will “Reconsider after major revision (control missing in some experiments)”. But the authors must re-write the “Introduction and Literature Review”, need another English editing service (if hurry, the author can consider MDPI Language Editing Services-Rapid).

I have several comments and queries about this study as follows:

Firstly, some place of academic writing in English is hard to understand, and some terms seem to translate directly from Chinese to English without modification (Line 48, “the basin's water and soil resources face significant pressure”, and Line 61-66, Line 113-127, etc.). In addition, so are the style of references, the bibliographic format at the end of the article is wrong. These problems are unacceptable for a scholar after submitting the manuscript. The authors must remember this rule.

Secondly, there are only 28 references in this paper, and the number and depth of the papers are not enough. As I know, there are many research articles and master thesis about agricultural eco-efficiency from 1990-2020s, the authors need to expand the literature review to carry out their innovative research. Then, the influence driving mechanism/factors on agricultural eco-efficiency can be more exciting and convincing. Besides, the  format  of academic writing is wrong. Such as Line 77-87, Line 92, “Huang et al.[9] , Ji et al. [6] , Zheng et al.[9] , Zhang et al. [10]” the wrong presentation of the academic English writing make readers worried about the authors, if the data is also like this unprofessional, the authors must remember this again.  

In terms of the “Introduction”, The author needs to reorganize the preface. Why did the author do this research? How to do this research? What is the significance of this research to academics and practice?

1. Line 31, “The achievement of carbon peak and carbon neutrality is constituting a far-reaching and profound economic and social systemic transformation.” This sentence is like empty talk.

2. According to Line 32-35, and Line 41-43, these two sentences make me more confused, what is the research question of this paper? Where is the research niche? What is the supplement and help to the existing academic research?Line 35-39, this is the policy document of June 2022, the research data of this paper comes from 2010-2020, and China's central policy affects local implementation, which itself is lagging behind. Is this sentence meaningful? Maybe the author delete it.

3. Line 45-46, “confronted with an entanglement of old and new challenge ”, what is the old and new challenge ? If it refers to old problems and new problems (line 46-52), on the one hand, the author needs to reorganize this paragraph, on the other hand, the authors should identify the old and new challenge, the old and new questions.

In terms of the “Literature Review ”, the authors discussed three aspects： (1) agricultural ecological efficiency（AEE）, the method of DEA; (2) influencing factors, (3) regional heterogeneity,but the author ignored many existing research. Research niche in Line 113-127 is not accurate enough. There are many research articles and master thesis about agricultural eco-efficiency from 1990-2020s, the authors need to expand the literature review to carry out their innovative research. The authors should reorganzed and rewirte the literature review.

I am looking forward the revised versions.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate editing of English language

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1 Comments for Manuscript agriculture-2395157

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Spatial Association Network and Driving Factors of Agricultural Eco-efficiency in the Hanjiang River Basin, China” submitted to Agriculture. Your comments have been very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript.

We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions and have made the following revisions to our manuscript:

1.Some place of academic writing in English is hard to understand. In addition, so are the style of references, the bibliographic format at the end of the article is wrong.

Response: Thanks for your invaluable suggestion and comments. We have carefully considered your feedback and have made significant revisions to the Introduction and Literature Review sections, taking into account the logical organization you have outlined. In order to enhance coherence and readability, we have merged the two parts (see pages 1-5, lines 33-214). Additionally, the author has corrected the format of the references (see pages 18-20, lines 645-768).

2. There are only 28 references in this paper, and the number and depth of the papers are not enough. the authors need to expand the literature review to carry out their innovative research. Then, the influence driving mechanism/factors on agricultural eco-efficiency can be more exciting and convincing. Besides, the format of academic writing is wrong.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback on the number and depth of references in our paper. In response to this comment, we have expanded the literature review section and included an additional 30 references, bringing the total number of references to 58. This expansion has allowed us to provide a more comprehensive review of the relevant literature, supporting the innovative nature of our research and enhancing the mechanism analysis of AEE influencing factors in the next step. Regarding the format of academic writing, we apologize for any errors in the initial submission. We have thoroughly reviewed and corrected the format to ensure compliance with academic writing conventions.

3.In terms of the “Introduction”, The author needs to reorganize the preface. Why did the author do this research? How to do this research? What is the significance of this research to academics and practice?

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on the "Introduction" section of our paper. We appreciate your suggestion to reorganize the preface and provide clearer explanations regarding the motivation, methodology, and significance of our research (see pages 1-5, lines 33-214). We kindly request that you review the revised "Introduction" section once again. Your expertise and feedback are invaluable to us, and we greatly appreciate your time and effort in evaluating our paper.

4. In terms of the “Literature Review”, the authors discussed three aspects (1) agricultural ecological efficiency (AEE), the method of DEA; (2) influencing factors, (3) regional heterogeneity, but the author ignored many existing research. Research niche in Line 113-127 is not accurate enough.

Response: In response to this comment, we have thoroughly reviewed the existing literature and have expanded our discussion to include additional relevant studies that were initially overlooked. We have ensured that our literature review now encompasses a more comprehensive range of research on agricultural ecological efficiency (AEE), the DEA method, influencing factors, and regional heterogeneity. By including these additional studies, we believe that our paper now provides a more robust and comprehensive analysis of the research landscape in this field (see pages 2-4, lines 61-184).We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality and rigor of our literature review. Thank you for your guidance, and we are confident that our revised "Literature Review" section now provides a more comprehensive and accurate overview of the relevant research in the field.

 

We hope that these revisions have addressed your concerns and have improved the quality of our manuscript. Please let us know if there are any further suggestions or comments you may have.

Once again, thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your contributions to the field.

 

Sincerely,

Rui Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled ‘Spatial Association Network and Driving Factors of Agricultural Eco-efficiency in the Hanjiang River Basin, China’ authored by Zhang et al. reports findings on SBM-3E model to calculate the agricultural ecological efficiency of 17 cities in the Hanjiang River basin (HRB) by using agricultural carbon emissions and comprehensive non-point source pollution index as undesirable outputs. The content of MS falls within the scope and aims of the journal, however there are numerous ambiguities and deficiencies which may render article confusing for the readers of AGRICULTURE.

Readers do expect problem statement as the starting phrase of abstract but generalized statements have been added instead of consolidated problem statement.

There are numerous ambiguous statements like;

‘We further applied the modified gravity model to identify the 15 spatial correlation of the agricultural ecological efficiency’ in what terms?

‘Lastly, we used the quadratic assignment program method to identify the driving factors behind the efficiency changes’ it remains unclear wheat wee the driving factors?

‘Our results demonstrate a decreasing trend in the overall agricultural ecological efficiency value within the HRB, with efficiency values showing a spatial distribution of upstream > middle reaches > down-stream. Additionally, our findings indicate the presence of interconnectivity within the whole network of spatial correlation of agricultural ecological efficiency, with heterogeneity observed in individual network spillover absorption capacity’ these findings have been described in a highly generalized manner with no concrete differential values and thus give no scientific based conclusions.

Moreover, we found that the planting and water use structures significantly affect the agricultural ecological efficiency network within the HRB. Is it not something already known?

Introduction section does not provide sufficient information on the subject matter rather too obvious stuff have been uselessly added, for instance,  ‘The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a literature review. Section 3 proposes the methodology and data. Section 4 details the results and analysis. Section 5 describes the driving factors of the spatial correlation network for agricultural eco-efficiency in the HRB. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the research conclusions and policy enlightenment of this paper’

Review of literature in no way presenting the critical analysis of different models being used for determining the eco-efficiency of agricultural resources. Moreover, authors have skipped the establishment of study rationale by highlighting the valid research gaps.

Again, results have been described as generalized statements without appropriate comparison of response variables under study in terms of integral values difference or percentile differences in order to give readers an explicit idea of variations. Moreover, interpretation of recorded findings and correlation with peer-findings also need to be further strengthened.

Likewise, conclusion and policy implications are too generalized and written in excessive details without adding meaningful information, while all these points could have been summarized in a single paragraph.  

See the comments to authors.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #2 Comments for Manuscript agriculture-2395157

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Spatial Association Network and Driving Factors of Agricultural Eco-efficiency in the Hanjiang River Basin, China” submitted to Agriculture. Your comments have been very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript.

We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions and have made the following revisions to our manuscript:

1. ‘We further applied the modified gravity model to identify the 15 spatial correlation of the agricultural ecological efficiency’ in what terms?

Response: Thank you for providing feedback on the methodology in the abstract. We have carefully considered your comments and made revisions accordingly. In the revised abstract, we have specified the methods used in our research, stating that "The modified Gravity model and social network analysis methods were used to analyze the evolution characteristics of the network structure of agricultural ecological efficiency" (see page 1, lines 15-17).

2. ‘Lastly, we used the quadratic assignment program method to identify the driving factors behind the efficiency changes’ it remains unclear wheat wee the driving factors?

Response: Thank you for your feedback on the abstract. We have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions. In the revised abstract, we have provided additional information about the driving factors, stating that "the secondary assignment procedure method was used to identify the driving factors from the planting structure, water use structure, and resource endowment" (see page 1, lines 17-18).

3. these findings have been described in a highly generalized manner with no concrete differential values and thus give no scientific based conclusions.

Response: Thank you for your feedback on the findings in the abstract. We appreciate your comment regarding the need for more specific and scientifically based conclusions. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the abstract to provide more concrete and differential values for the findings obtained in our research, stating that " …First, from 2010 to 2020, the overall agricultural ecological efficiency in the HRB demonstrates a declining trend, with efficiency values of 12.15, 9.40, and 6.67 in the upper, middle, and lower reaches, respectively. Second, the spatial correlation network density of agricultural ecological efficiency in the HRB is 0.17, with a network efficiency of 0.89. The correlation among units within the basin is relatively low, but stability is high… " (see page 1, lines 19-23).

4. We found that the planting and water use structures significantly affect the agricultural ecological efficiency network within the HRB. Is it not something already known?

Response: Thank you for your feedback on the findings in the abstract. In the revised abstract, we have refined the conclusion and added the following: " …total water consumption and corn cultivation have a positive impact on the agricultural ecological efficiency network in the HRB, whereas agricultural water use and rice cultivation negatively in-fluence the network." (see page 1 Lines 25-27).

5.Introduction section does not provide sufficient information on the subject matter rather too obvious stuff have been uselessly added, for instance,  ‘The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a literature review. Section 3 proposes the methodology and data. Section 4 details the results and analysis. Section 5 describes the driving factors of the spatial correlation network for agricultural eco-efficiency in the HRB. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the research conclusions and policy enlightenment of this paper’.

Response: Thank you for your very useful feedback on the introduction section. In response, we have removed this section to focus more on the topic.

6.Review of literature in no way presenting the critical analysis of different models being used for determining the eco-efficiency of agricultural resources. Moreover, authors have skipped the establishment of study rationale by highlighting the valid research gaps.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback on the literature review. We have carefully considered your comments and made significant revisions to address the mentioned concerns. In the revised version, we have included a critical analysis of various models used for determining the eco-efficiency of agricultural resources. (see pages 2-3 Lines 78-111) Additionally, we have carefully considered your feedback and have made significant revisions to the Introduction and Literature Review sections, in order to enhance coherence and readability, we have merged the two parts. We highlighted the research gaps and established a clear study rationale to emphasize the significance of our research. (see pages 2-5, lines 61-214)

7. Again, results have been described as generalized statements without appropriate comparison of response variables under study in terms of integral values difference or percentile differences in order to give readers an explicit idea of variations. Moreover, interpretation of recorded findings and correlation with peer-findings also need to be further strengthened.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion of providing more specific and comparative information. In response, we have modified some of the content to include a detailed comparison of the response variables in terms of integral values and percentile differences, so that readers can have a clearer understanding of the changes. In addition, we have strengthened our interpretation of recorded findings and established stronger correlations with relevant peer discoveries. For example, Line 320, Lines 347-350, Lines 354-355, Lines 360-361, Lines 544-555, Lines 559-563. and the Policy implications section, lines 605-644.

8. Likewise, conclusion and policy implications are too generalized and written in excessive details without adding meaningful information, while all these points could have been summarized in a single paragraph.

Response: Thank you for your feedback on the conclusion and policy implications. In response, we have revised 4.4. We have added numerical information to the main survey results and provided a more focused summary of the conclusions and policy implications. 4.4.2. Regarding the modification of the Policy implications section, we mainly considered three points: 1. Propose suggestions for spatial collaborative development in the study of spatial correlation of agricultural ecological efficiency. 2. Based on the analysis of driving factors, propose adjustment suggestions for corn and rice planting in the planting structure. 3. Based on the analysis of driving factors, propose control suggestions for agricultural water consumption and total water consumption in the water use structure. (see pages 1718, lines 605-644)

We hope that these revisions have addressed your concerns and have improved the quality of our manuscript. Please let us know if there are any further suggestions or comments you may have.

Once again, thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your contributions to the field.

Sincerely,

Rui Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Thank you for the authors’ efforts to revise the manuscript, but I am sorry that I will still have the author continue to work hard to revise and improve it because of the existing unaddressed problems and mistakes.

Firstly, how to write the introduction? The introduction is a window and should be put to the readers and reviewers very briefly and forcibly. It may include: (1) what is known (our understanding of agricultural ecological efficiency)? (2) What is unknown ( what’s the gap in the agricultural ecological efficiency we want to fill)? (3) How and why should we fill the gap (your rationale and purpose/hypothesis )? (3) Methods, what did you do (including innovative methods )? (4) Results: what results did you get? (5) Discussion: how do the results fill the gap? (6) Conclusion: what does this mean for us going forward? Besides, this part can not be too long.

 

Detailed comments are as follows:

 

1. Lines 37-38, “Agriculture is a significant contributor “is inappropriate. I prefer “Agriculture is a major contributor to global carbon emissions”.

2. Line 37-38, and lines 39-42,  the connection between agricultural emissions and agricultural non-point source pollution disrupts agricultural land is very weak and far-fetched.

3. Line 47-51, English writing is inappropriate.

4. Line 54-55, “demonstrating a strong determination to contribute to global climate governance”

5. International journals generally don't talk about policies that haven't happened yet and are still in the planning stage (except semantic interpretation of policy texts). 

6. Agricultural non-point source pollution is an important term in this paper, the authors should identify what is “agricultural non-point source pollution”. what the factors of this term is?

7. Lines 58-61,  “ensuring...transforming...establishing...” is Chinese English.

8. Line62-63, “faced with..., improving...”is a Chinese English.

9. Line 67-70, “However, as research progressed, scholars realized that this approach only considered the output side of production, neglecting the more critical input side........ As a result, this method gradually faded from scholars' focus.“Chinese English.

10. Line 75-78, Line 80-82, Line 91-92, Line 92-96, Line 105-106, Line 116, Line 121, Line 154-155, Line 160, Line 321, Line 356, et al., there are many academic English writing problems, they seem to translate directly from Chinese to English without moderate editing.

11. From the authors’ agreement, the research niche is that “ However, as research progressed, scholars realized that this approach only considered the output side of production, neglecting the more critical input side.......” (Line 67-74). This is also inaccurate.

12. The authors lost the title of the Literature Review.

13. The relationship between the author's research questions and the literature review is very weak, and the preface and literature review are written in a hurry. For example, some analysis of different models for determining the agricultural eco-efficiency seems to be simple descriptions and piling up.

14. Section Results and Analysis, many unclear statements, and some statements are too generalized and too lengthy, which make the credibility of this research weaken.

15. Section Conclusion and Implication, the sample problems as No.13.

16. Line 349 “The financial subsidy policy of agricultural means of production for farmers”, What is the specific policy of this? What has it brought to farmers? and what is the effect in different cities in the Han River Basin?

17. Line 368-372, “The green development of agriculture requires the formation...the establishment and improvement of regional integration development mechanisms, and the matching of agricultural development with resource and environmental carrying capacity, as well as coordination with production and living conditions [23].” The author seems to have said everything but said nothing. In this article, this kind of problem has appeared many times.

18. Section 4.2.1， the same question as No.17, Line 416-418, Does data analysis have anything to do with the conclusion? If the two have little to do with each other, it will not help the analysis of this paper. What is the role of the “Whole Network Structure”? An excellent research paper is not the more methods, the better. The analysis and conclusions are supported by the results.

Secondly, this research is interesting but has some ambiguities and unclear places. The author maybe feels troubled or angry. We all hope that this article can be presented to readers in the English-speaking world with a better look and show China's efforts in the era of climate change.

 

Last but not least, The author's reference format is still problematic, please refer to it. the Journal of Agriculture. Many times, editors and reviewers will directly reject the manuscript because of some common-sense mistakes. Please remember this.

 

Overall, this manuscript has been appropriately improved by the authors. I also looking forward to the revised version.

Best wishes.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

See the comments to authors.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1 Comments for Manuscript agriculture-2395157

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Spatial Association Network and Driving Factors of Agricultural Eco-efficiency in the Hanjiang River Basin, China” submitted to Agriculture. During this revision process, we have carefully incorporated your recommendations into the manuscript. We have addressed each specific point raised. We are grateful for your invaluable input and appreciate your efforts in thoroughly reviewing our work. Your expertise and guidance have been instrumental in the refinement of our research, and we are confident that the overall strength of the manuscript has been significantly enhanced as a result of these revisions. We have made the following revisions to our manuscript after carefully considering each of your comments and suggestions:

1.Firstly, how to write the introduction? The introduction is a window and should be put to the readers and reviewers very briefly and forcibly. It may include: (1) what is known (our understanding of agricultural ecological efficiency)? (2) What is unknown ( what’s the gap in the agricultural ecological efficiency we want to fill)? (3) How and why should we fill the gap (your rationale and purpose/hypothesis )? (3) Methods, what did you do (including innovative methods )? (4) Results: what results did you get? (5) Discussion: how do the results fill the gap? (6) Conclusion: what does this mean for us going forward? Besides, this part can not be too long.

Response: We would like to express our sincere appreciation for the patience and professionalism you have shown throughout the entire review process. Your expertise and dedication were truly inspiring. In response to your guidance, we have diligently revised the introductory section, following the writing approach you suggested (see pages 1-2, lines 33-85). The changes are redlined in the revised version, with the following details:

• Lines 37-38, “Agriculture is a significant contributor “is inappropriate. I prefer “Agriculture is a major contributor to global carbon emissions”.

Re: We appreciate your suggestion to revise the statement to "Agriculture is a major contributor to global carbon emissions." We have made the necessary adjustment in the revised version of the manuscript (see page 1, line 34).

• Line 37-38, and lines 39-42, the connection between agricultural emissions and agricultural non-point source pollution disrupts agricultural land is very weak and far-fetched.

Re: We agree with you and have modified the wording: “Agriculture is a major contributor to global carbon emissions, with emissions from the agricultural sector accounting for 13.5% of the global total. Non-point source pollution from agricultural activities is highly detrimental to the water environment, soil quality and ecosystems, and also poses a range of environmental and human health risks.” (see page 1, lines 34-38)

• Line 47-51, English writing is inappropriate.

Re: We replaced an appropriate expression, "At the same time, a particularly striking contradiction between China's agricultural development and the environment is the problem of non-point source pollution from agriculture.” (see page 1, lines 41-43)

• Line 54-55, “demonstrating a strong determination to contribute to global climate governance”

Re: We have deleted this sentence.

• International journals generally don't talk about policies that haven't happened yet and are still in the planning stage (except semantic interpretation of policy texts).

Re: We have deleted this sentence.

• Agricultural non-point source pollution is an important term in this paper, the authors should identify what is “agricultural non-point source pollution”. what the factors of this term is?

Re: We add a definition of agricultural non-surface source pollution and point out that it is one of the indispensable indicators for measuring agroecological efficiency. The research gap for this indicator is also highlighted. (see page 2, lines 52-60)

• Lines 58-61, “ensuring...transforming...establishing...” is Chinese English. Line62-63, “faced with..., improving...”is a Chinese English. Line 67-70, “However, as research progressed, scholars realized that this approach only considered the output side of production, neglecting the more critical input side........ As a result, this method gradually faded from scholars' focus. “Chinese English. Line 75-78, Line 80-82, Line 91-92, Line 92-96, Line 105-106, Line 116, Line 121, Line 154-155, Line 160, Line 321, Line 356, et al., there are many academic English writing problems, they seem to translate directly from Chinese to English without moderate editing.

Re: The authors have changed all of the elements mentioned by the reviewer, and have also re-edited the entire text.

• From the authors’ agreement, the research niche is that “However, as research progressed, scholars realized that this approach only considered the output side of production, neglecting the more critical input side.......” (Line 67-74). This is also inaccurate.

Re: We introduce the research niche in focus to the reader in a rewritten introduction, (see page 2, lines 52-64) while the discussion in the third paragraph again mentions how the results of this study fill in the gaps. (see page 2, lines 77-81)

• The authors lost the title of the Literature Review.

Re: Thanks to the reviewer, the authors have added the title of the literature review.

• The relationship between the author's research questions and the literature review is very weak, and the preface and literature review are written in a hurry. For example, some analysis of different models for determining the agricultural eco-efficiency seems to be simple descriptions and piling up.

Re: The authors have rewritten these two parts in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions and request the reviewer to review them. The research questions of this paper are three: what is the current status of agroecological efficiency development in the Han River Basin; what are the spatial structure and interaction of efficiency; and what factors drive the spatial relationship of efficiency. The above is in the third natural paragraph of the rewritten introduction section (see page 2, lines 68-81). The literature review is also developed in three areas, namely, the measurement of agroecological efficiency, regional heterogeneity, and the analysis of influencing factors (see pages 2-3, lines 87-142). There is a strong link between the research questions and the literature review.

• Section Results and Analysis, many unclear statements, and some statements are too generalized and too lengthy, which make the credibility of this research weaken.

Re: The Results and Analysis sections were substantially modified by the authors and are highlighted in red in the paper (see page 8, lines 273-291; page 9, lines 297-301; lines 309-324). Please review the article.

• Section Conclusion and Implication, the sample problems as No.13.

Re: The Conclusions and Implications sections have been streamlined by the authors. They are highlighted in red in the paper (see pages 14-15, lines 476-513). Please review the article.

• Line 349 “The financial subsidy policy of agricultural means of production for farmers”, What is the specific policy of this? What has it brought to farmers? and what is the effect in different cities in the Han River Basin?

Re: In page 8, lines 273-291, we point out specific policies and analyze the effects of the policies in the upper, middle and lower reaches of the HRB and in different cities.

• Line 368-372, “The green development of agriculture requires the formation...the establishment and improvement of regional integration development mechanisms, and the matching of agricultural development with resource and environmental carrying capacity, as well as coordination with production and living conditions [23].” The author seems to have said everything but said nothing. In this article, this kind of problem has appeared many times.

Re: We apologize for the vagueness of the wording. We have made every effort to avoid such errors in the current round of revisions. For revisions to this paragraph, see page 9, lines 297-301.

• Section 4.2.1 the same question as No.17, Line 416-418, Does data analysis have anything to do with the conclusion? If the two have little to do with each other, it will not help the analysis of this paper. What is the role of the “Whole Network Structure”? An excellent research paper is not the more methods, the better. The analysis and conclusions are supported by the results.

Re: The analysis in section 4.2.1 is directly related to the conclusions. This subsection is about the analysis of the overall network structure of agroecological efficiency in the Han River basin, first of all this analysis is necessary because it is a global observation of the agroecological efficiency of the basin, it is a presentation and analysis of the macro-structure, which is able to express rules and resources, which in the spatial network of agricultural eco-efficiency in the HRB refers to the rules used by urban as actors to reproduce social relations in a longer space and time period, and the re-source dominance of cities in authoritative positions. In addition, after the analysis and discussion of the overall network, the study can further develop the analysis of the interaction of each municipality, it provides the basis for the next step of the study. Finally, the analysis and results are summarized in the conclusion, in the second article of subsection 4.4.

2. The author's reference format is still problematic, please refer to it. the Journal of Agriculture.  Many times, editors and reviewers will directly reject the manuscript because of some common-sense mistakes. Please remember this.

Response: Thanks to the reviewer's patient guidance, we have had a revision of the reference format. We would like to apologize for this oversight and take the advice of our reviewers to heart.

 

Thank you once again for your invaluable contribution. We genuinely appreciate your support and the opportunity to enhance the quality of our manuscript based on your expertise. We look forward to receiving your feedback on the revised version and remain at your disposal for any further inquiries or clarifications.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Best regards,

Rui Zhang

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have gone through the revised version of article entitled “Spatial Association Network and Driving Factors of Agricultural Eco-efficiency in the Hanjiang River Basin, China” authored by Zhang et al. for publication consideration in AGRICULTURE. Its satisfying to glance at the improvements made by authors in response to suggestions forwarded previously. However, there are still few concerns which need appropriate redressal before further consideration of the ms.

Line 113-174 represent too detailed information while readers do expect summarized findings presented a consolidated phrases, while such lengthy details are bound to distract the focus and interest of the readers.

It is perhaps better to omit too glamouring statements which in no way provide useful information, for instance “The existing research has achieved rich and valuable results, laying a solid theoretical foundation for this study”

Once again, I shall suggest to omit too generalized statements like

 “As a major agricultural production area and commodity grain base in China, the 1HRB ranks among the top in terms of planting production scale in the country. However, after 2010, the efficiency of land use in the region has gradually declined due to improper use of agricultural inputs such as sewage irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, and agricultural films, as well as the intensive livestock and poultry farming, which are the main causes of pollution” as these are too obvious factors and research article needs to be written in a concise way to present useful information to readers.

Line 79, key aspects in measuring agricultural ecological efficiency must be described in summarized manner e.g., in conclusive statement rather adding too generalized lengthy phrases.

Within text, authors need to amend reference formatting as per journal’s style, for instance Moretti et al. must have reference number right after “al.” so rest of the ms needs to be rechecked again in this context.

“For instance, Moretti et al. conducted a comprehensive assessment of the agricultural ecosystem in the "Alta Murgia" National Park in Italy, highlighting the significant contribution of life cycle assessment in environmental impact evaluation” what sort of significant contribution? Needs clarification

Overall, I strongly suggest to reduce the introduction section at least by one-third by transforming information into consolidated statements.

Methodology has been appropriately improved by authors.

Once again, my prime concern stands regarding conclusion and implication section which is too generalized and too lengthy. In the previous review report, I had suggested to shorten this section but it has remained unaddressed.    

Only minor corrections needed.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #2 Comments for Manuscript agriculture-2395157

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Spatial Association Network and Driving Factors of Agricultural Eco-efficiency in the Hanjiang River Basin, China” submitted to Agriculture. During this revision process, we have carefully incorporated your recommendations into the manuscript. We have addressed each specific point raised. We are grateful for your invaluable input and appreciate your efforts in thoroughly reviewing our work. Your expertise and guidance have been instrumental in the refinement of our research, and we are confident that the overall strength of the manuscript has been significantly enhanced as a result of these revisions. We have made the following revisions to our manuscript after carefully considering each of your comments and suggestions:

1.Line 113-174 represent too detailed information while readers do expect summarized findings presented a consolidated phrases, while such lengthy details are bound to distract the focus and interest of the readers.

Response: Thanks very much for your suggestions, taken them into consideration and made changes. We have tried to make the article more concise and accurate, so we have rewritten the section and please review it again. (see page 3, lines 110-142).

2. It is perhaps better to omit too glamouring statements which in no way provide useful information, for instance “The existing research has achieved rich and valuable results, laying a solid theoretical foundation for this study”

Response: We think this proposal is very valuable and have removed the redundant content.

3. “As a major agricultural production area and commodity grain base in China, the 1HRB ranks among the top in terms of planting production scale in the country. However, after 2010, the efficiency of land use in the region has gradually declined due to improper use of agricultural inputs such as sewage irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, and agricultural films, as well as the intensive livestock and poultry farming, which are the main causes of pollution” as these are too obvious factors and research article needs to be written in a concise way to present useful information to readers.

Response: We think this proposal is very valuable and have removed the redundant content.

4. Line 79, key aspects in measuring agricultural ecological efficiency must be described in summarized manner e.g., in conclusive statement rather adding too generalized lengthy phrases.

Response: We modified the sentence, “One of the key aspects in measuring agricultural ecological efficiency is methods.” (see page 2, lines 89-90) Simultaneously, the author streamlined the passage.

5. Within text, authors need to amend reference formatting as per journal’s style, for instance Moretti et al. must have reference number right after “al.” so rest of the ms needs to be rechecked again in this context.

Response: Thank you very much for your patient guidance on this paper, and we have made corrections to the reference formatting throughout.

6. “For instance, Moretti et al. conducted a comprehensive assessment of the agricultural ecosystem in the "Alta Murgia" National Park in Italy, highlighting the significant contribution of life cycle assessment in environmental impact evaluation” what sort of significant contribution? Needs clarification.

Response: The authors have rewritten the literature review section with more concise and precise language, see pages 2-3, lines 94-96.

7.Overall, I strongly suggest to reduce the introduction section at least by one-third by transforming information into consolidated statements.

Response: Thanks to the reviewers for suggestion, which the authors adopted and reduced introduction. For the introduction, see pages 1-2, lines 33-85.

8.Once again, my prime concern stands regarding conclusion and implication section which is too generalized and too lengthy. In the previous review report, I had suggested to shorten this section but it has remained unaddressed.  

Response: We are very sorry for the shortcomings of the last revision, this time we have reduced the section to a single paragraph, but without losing the intended message. Please see page 15, lines 500-513.

Thank you once again for your invaluable contribution. We genuinely appreciate your support and the opportunity to enhance the quality of our manuscript based on your expertise. We look forward to receiving your feedback on the revised version and remain at your disposal for any further inquiries or clarifications.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Best regards,

Rui Zhang

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx