Influence of Transfer Plot Area and Location on Chemical Input Reduction in Agricultural Production: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments Agriculture 2579921

The objective of the manuscript ‘Influence of transfer plots’ spatial characteristics on chemical input reductions: Evidence from China’ was not clearly stated. A general objective must to be added. Hypotheses must be improved and clarified. Do not say “specifically…” Only formulate the scientific hypotheses. Do not forget to indicate in the Conclusion section if the hypotheses are accepted or rejected.

The manuscript is not interesting; it has several mistakes, imprecisions, and the models are not adequately described. Therefore, some precisions and queries are required before acceptance.

This manuscript uses several acronyms throughout the manuscript, Tables, and Figures. Therefore, these must be indicated in Figures and Tables. Remember that Tables and Figures should be self-explicatory.

Table 1. If “Obs.” is the same data (1356) in each line, this data could be added to the title or in the footnote to the Table.

What does mean “Std”. Why are these values higher than “Mean” in several variables?

Table 1. What does mean “mu”. Tables’ and Figures’ captions and headings must be self-explanatory. Do not forget to indicate the meaning of each acronym or unit, and do not duplicate legends. Besides, names and units in the Figures' axes must always be added. Remember to add the name of the axis and indicate the units inside the parentheses.

More information is regarding to their Econometric model. What kind of pesticides and fertilizers were considered? According to the Eq. 1. How do you explain the addition between chemical input and area?

Line 187. What does “all others” mean?

Line 202. Why 1or 0 were assigned to large and small plots?

Table 2. What does “Total” mean? Total of what?

The addition of a map is necessary indicating the studied areas.

Additional information is required to understand how the data were analyzed and discussed.

 

Typographic mistakes in the manuscript and uncorrected use of punctuation marks.

Highlights. These are not shown.

The citations must be reviewed. There are some inconsistencies. Besides, the References section must be double-checked; it has several inconsistencies.

Do not use acronyms in Figure’s titles or in Table’s names. Besides, adequately state these titles or names so readers can read and understand the ideas and information shown without reading the entire manuscript.

Please read again and carefully throughout the manuscript. It has typography mistakes, inadequate use of capital letters, and some missing blanks. Use subscripts or superscripts appropriately, where appropriate, throughout the document.

Please do not use more than three citations for each statement. When you use more than three citations in a statement, please only retain the newest three.

Citations end in Section 2. Add citations in methodology, results, and discussion.

Information from Tables is not understandable without reading the text.

The conclusion is too extended, but not substance was found. This must be retyped.

 

The manuscript is not well-organized and typed. Besides, blunders of form and substance were found, while a scientific contribution was not found. Therefore, I suggest the rejection of this manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Many texts, but not necessary sentences.

Information in Tables should be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We appreciate your insightful review of our article titled “Influence of transfer plots’ spatial characteristics on chemical input reductions: Evidence from China” authored by Meiling Cui, Yang Guo, and Yueqing Ji. Your comments illuminated areas of improvement, and in response, we have made extensive revisions to our initial draft. The specific amendments, in line with your recommendations, are detailed below.

We are profoundly grateful to the editor and all reviewers for their constructive feedback, which was instrumental in enhancing the rigor of our manuscript. For clarity, the reviewers' comments are presented in italics, along with their enumerated concerns. Our responses are in standard font, and changes made to the manuscript are highlighted using the “Track Changes” feature.

Reviewer 1：

Q1: The objective of the manuscript ‘Influence of transfer plots’ spatial characteristics on chemical input reductions: Evidence from China’ was not clearly stated. A general objective must to be added. Hypotheses must be improved and clarified. Do not say “specifically…” Only formulate the scientific hypotheses. Do not forget to indicate in the Conclusion section if the hypotheses are accepted or rejected.

Response: We wholeheartedly agree with this recommendation. We have added the general objective in the Introduction section and clarified the hypotheses in the Framework and Hypotheses section. Additionally, we have supplemented the statement of hypothesis acceptance in the Conclusion section, in conjunction with the empirical analysis results. These revisions will clarify the research methodology. Thank you again for your wonderful comments!

Q2: The manuscript is not interesting; it has several mistakes, imprecisions, and the models are not adequately described. Therefore, some precisions and queries are required before acceptance.

① This manuscript uses several acronyms throughout the manuscript, Tables, and Figures. Therefore, these must be indicated in Figures and Tables. Remember that Tables and Figures should be self-explicatory.

② Table 1. If “Obs.” is the same data (1356) in each line, this data could be added to the title or in the footnote to the Table.

③ What does mean “Std”. Why are these values higher than “Mean” in several variables?

④ Table 1. What does mean “mu”. Tables’ and Figures’ captions and headings must be self-explanatory. Do not forget to indicate the meaning of each acronym or unit, and do not duplicate legends. Besides, names and units in the Figures' axes must always be added. Remember to add the name of the axis and indicate the units inside the parentheses.

Response: Thank you for your detailed review. We apologize for the indicated errors. Based on the comments, we have checked and revised the problems one by one.

① We have checked all acronyms throughout the manuscript, Tables, and Figures. We have modified the acronyms or added introductions to make the meaning expressed in Figures/Tables more straightforward and self-explanatory.

② We have deleted the "Obs" column in Table 1 and added the number of observations in the table note.

③ “Std” denotes the standard error. We have revised and rejected this acronym in the text. It is normal for the standard error to be greater than “Mean.”

④ We have included an explanation for mu at the first mention in the paper and included the conversion accordingly as follows “Mu is an area unit that is most commonly used in China. 15 mu equals one hectare in unit conversion.” Furthermore, we have added the names and units to all Figures axes inside the parentheses.

Q3: More information is regarding to their Econometric model. What kind of pesticides and fertilizers were considered? According to the Eq. 1. How do you explain the addition between chemical input and area?

①Line 187. What does “all others” mean?

②Line 202. Why 1or 0 were assigned to large and small plots?

③Table 2. What does “Total” mean? Total of what?

④The addition of a map is necessary indicating the studied areas.

⑤Additional information is required to understand how the data were analyzed and discussed.

 Response: We genuinely value your input. In the Materials and Methods section, we have added a description to explain the reason to not consider the kind of pesticides and fertilizers; that is,

“Considering the significant differences in fertilizer and pesticide application types between regions and crops, we mainly compared the value of chemical inputs.”

The econometric model of Eq. 1 was set up to verify the relationship, and the explanation of the relationships between chemical input and area are analyzed in the Framework and Hypotheses section (Line 146-157). Therefore, we have not supplied a discussion in the model setting part, because that will seem repetitive.

①In Line 187, “all others” means the plot non-adjacent to the original farmland of a farmer. We have revised it to “non-adjacent.”

②To compare the differences in the impact of different plot areas, we group the plots according to their area. Dummy variables 1 or 0 are set to represent large and small plot groups, respectively.

③In Table 2, the “Total” refers to all observations, which includes observations made in 2015 and 2018.

④We value this constructive suggestion. Upon reviewing the data survey area, we noticed that the regions surveyed were relatively small, making them challenging to display clearly on a country-wide map. As such, we have opted not to provide a schematic diagram of the data source area. Instead, we have provided a list of the surveyed cities. For clarity, we have enumerated the cities in a footnote, detailing: “The sample of cities list is as follows: Ning 'an, Tangyuan, Zhaodong and Longjiang (Heilongjiang provinces); Xiayi, Anyang, Xiping, Xuchang (Henan province); Shengzhou, Wuyi, Wenling, Xiuzhou (Zhejiang province); Zhongjiang, Nanbu, Yanjiang, Linshui (Sichuan province)”

⑤We have expanded our “Robust analysis” section to include a comprehensive discussion of the empirical analysis results. By interpreting and comparing empirical model parameters, we have now statistically validated our research hypothesis. For clarity, we have expanded the discussion, as follows:

“Similarly, in Columns (8) and (9), the estimated parameters of the plot area grouping dummy variable and the plot location dummy variable are negative and statistically significant at the 5% level or above. However, the parameter estimates of the cross-term of the plot area grouping and plot location were not statistically significant, indicating that in the large plot group, no significant difference existed between the fertilizer input intensity in the production of the adjacent and non-adjacent plots. These results verify Hypothesis 2. The results are consistent with the analysis presented in column (7), indicating that the location of the transferred plot has heterogeneity in the chemical input reduction effect of the different area plots. Therefore, the location of the transferred plot reduced the chemical input of agricultural production only for the small plot group, whereas the chemical reduction effect for the large plot group was not obvious. This is because, with the expansion of the plot area, the influence of the adjacent location in alleviating the constraints of the spatial characteristics of the block is gradually weakened.”

Q4: Typographic mistakes in the manuscript and uncorrected use of punctuation marks. Highlights. These are not shown.

Response: Thank you for your detailed review. Based on your comments, we have checked the context carefully and modified the standardization of the text in terms of punctuation marks, vocabulary, language, tables, and the reference formatting style. Furthermore, we have summarized the research highlights and added them to the introduction section.

Q5: ①The citations must be reviewed. There are some inconsistencies. Besides, the References section must be double-checked; it has several inconsistencies.

②Do not use acronyms in Figure’s titles or in Table’s names. Besides, adequately state these titles or names so readers can read and understand the ideas and information shown without reading the entire manuscript.

③Please read again and carefully throughout the manuscript. It has typography mistakes, inadequate use of capital letters, and some missing blanks. Use subscripts or superscripts appropriately, where appropriate, throughout the document.

④Please do not use more than three citations for each statement. When you use more than three citations in a statement, please only retain the newest three.

⑤Citations end in Section 2. Add citations in methodology, results, and discussion.

⑥Information from Tables is not understandable without reading the text.

Response: Thank you for your detailed review. We apologize for the errors you pointed out above. Based on the comments, we have checked and resolved the problems one-by-one; the changes/additions to the manuscript are accessible via the “Track Changes” feature of MS Word.

① We have conducted a thorough literature review and corrected any inconsistencies. Moreover, we have reviewed the literature format again and updated the literature list.

② We have checked all acronyms throughout the manuscript, Tables, and Figures. We have modified the acronyms or added introductions to make the meaning expressed in Figures/Tables more straightforward and self-explanatory.

③ We have checked the context carefully and modified the standardization of the text in terms of punctuation marks, vocabulary, language, tables, and the reference formatting style.

④ We have conducted a thorough literature review and corrected the in-text citations.

⑤ We have checked the literature review and added related references in the methodology, results, and discussion section.

⑥ We have modified the acronyms or added introductions to make the meaning expressed in Figures/Tables more straightforward and comprehensible.

Q6: The conclusion is too extended, but not substance was found. This must be retyped. The manuscript is not well-organized and typed. Besides, blunders of form and substance were found, while a scientific contribution was not found. Therefore, I suggest the rejection of this manuscript.

Response: Thanks for reviewers’ valuable comments and specific revision suggestions. They have been of immense help to us in improving the quality of our paper. According to the comments, we have made careful revisions, including retyping the conclusion, summarizing the research highlights, clarifying the hypotheses, reviewing the literatures and reference list, and standardizing the layout of the article format. We sincerely hope our modifications now meet your standards.

 

In addition, we have standardized the text in terms of vocabulary and language, tables, and reference formatting style. All changes/additions to the manuscript are accessible via the “Track Changes” feature.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Yang Guo

School of Management, Jiangsu University

301 Xuefu Road, Zhenjiang, China

[email protected]

(+86)15380777836

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study concerns an interesting and new issue of the impact of changes in the surface structure of farms on changes in the use of chemicals in agriculture.

The concept of the study is interesting, I consider the topic important, especially due to the large scale of agricultural crops in China and in the world, as well as due to both the economic and environmental impact of excessive use of fertilizers and plant protection products in agriculture.

From the substantive point of view (methodology used, method of presenting the research results), I have no objections to the structure of the manuscript. However, both the introductory part and the discussion are based on insufficient existing research. In particular, this applies to the introduction, which is definitely more Chinese-oriented. In particular, the problem of land fragmentation, changes in the area structure of farms and related economic, social and environmental factors are global problems. This broader Chinese approach in the introduction is missing.

The title requires some correction, the use of the phrase "spatial characteristics" suggests something more than the parameters actually used by the authors, which is confirmed in the sentence: "only the area and location of plots are considered and ignored some factors, such as the distance between plots, the shape of plots”. In practice, even the location is known with some approximation, real cadastral data are not analyzed. I recommend correcting the title to match the actual content of the research.
 
The abstract does not contain any key, numerical research results - they are presented only in a descriptive form. In addition, the abstract begins with a statement (“Market development and spatial characteristics of farmland transfer are crucial factors influencing chemical input reduction in agricultural production under fragmented agricultural land resource endowment.”), which could at best be one of the conclusions of the research. Also in the introduction there is no evidence of the content of this sentence based on existing research.

The authors rightly point to some weaknesses of the study, mainly related to the limited knowledge about the actual spatial arrangement of the surveyed lands. As well as other factors that could not be included in this study. I would also like to see some information on potential plans or opportunities to expand the research conducted in the future.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We appreciate your insightful review of our article titled “Influence of transfer plots’ spatial characteristics on chemical input reductions: Evidence from China” authored by Meiling Cui, Yang Guo, and Yueqing Ji. Your comments illuminated areas of improvement, and in response, we have made extensive revisions to our initial draft. The specific amendments, in line with your recommendations, are detailed below.

We are profoundly grateful to the editor and all reviewers for their constructive feedback, which was instrumental in enhancing the rigor of our manuscript. For clarity, the reviewers' comments are presented in italics, along with their enumerated concerns. Our responses are in standard font, and changes made to the manuscript are highlighted using the “Track Changes” feature.

Reviewer 1：

The study concerns an interesting and new issue of the impact of changes in the surface structure of farms on changes in the use of chemicals in agriculture. The concept of the study is interesting, I consider the topic important, especially due to the large scale of agricultural crops in China and in the world, as well as due to both the economic and environmental impact of excessive use of fertilizers and plant protection products in agriculture.

Q1：From the substantive point of view (methodology used, method of presenting the research results), I have no objections to the structure of the manuscript. However, both the introductory part and the discussion are based on insufficient existing research. In particular, this applies to the introduction, which is definitely more Chinese-oriented. In particular, the problem of land fragmentation, changes in the area structure of farms and related economic, social and environmental factors are global problems. This broader Chinese approach in the introduction is missing.

Response: We appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the context carefully and added the data on fertilizer applied per hectare of crops in China to the INTRODUCTION section. Furthermore, we have included the policies and practices on chemical reduction in China to supplement the Chinese approach.

Q2：The title requires some correction, the use of the phrase "spatial characteristics" suggests something more than the parameters actually used by the authors, which is confirmed in the sentence: "only the area and location of plots are considered and ignored some factors, such as the distance between plots, the shape of plots”. In practice, even the location is known with some approximation, real cadastral data are not analyzed. I recommend correcting the title to match the actual content of the research.

Response: We believe this to be an excellent suggestion. We have revised the title to “Influence of transfer plots’ area and location on chemical input reductions in production: Evidence from China”, which adequately matches the actual content of the research.

Q3: The abstract does not contain any key, numerical research results - they are presented only in a descriptive form. In addition, the abstract begins with a statement (“Market development and spatial characteristics of farmland transfer are crucial factors influencing chemical input reduction in agricultural production under fragmented agricultural land resource endowment.”), which could at best be one of the conclusions of the research. Also in the introduction there is no evidence of the content of this sentence based on existing research.

Response: We believe this is an excellent suggestion. We have rewritten the context of the results in the abstract to make it clearer. These changes are accessible via the “Track Changes” feature in the revised manuscript.

Q4: The authors rightly point to some weaknesses of the study, mainly related to the limited knowledge about the actual spatial arrangement of the surveyed lands. As well as other factors that could not be included in this study. I would also like to see some information on potential plans or opportunities to expand the research conducted in the future.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have taken your advice to heart and have expanded on both the future potential plans and opportunities of our study, as follows: “This study reveals the influence and mechanism of plots’ spatial characteristics on chemical input reductions in agricultural production. The effect of fragmented farmland on the efficiency of agricultural chemical use, as well as the estimation of the potential of fragmented farmland integration in agricultural chemical reduction, require further attention. These studies provide a theoretical basis for promoting farmland integration in China. Furthermore, it also provides a special way for the reduction of agricultural chemicals.”

In addition, we have standardized the text in terms of vocabulary and language, tables, and reference formatting style. All changes/additions to the manuscript are accessible via the “Track Changes” feature.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Yang Guo

School of Management, Jiangsu University

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors analyzed the influence of spatial characteristics of land plots in the chemical input reduction on agricultural production. Overall, the paper covers an important and necessary topic in exploring the application of agricultural chemicals. However, there is a lack of describing the processes' spatiality and understanding of the environmental impacts of the resource endowment in China.

My specific comments:

1. Authors should include a location map identifying spatially the provinces of Heilongjiang, Henan, Zhejiang, and Sichuan in China, and also, on a more refined scale, some samplings of the shape of the plots.

2. I missed a better historical description of the reallocation of the farmlands in the period of contemporary dynamics. When did it start? Why? How many farms were and are affected?

3. The discussion of the results is weak. I suggest including a massive amount of discussion on the environmental issues associated with this allocation dynamics regarding the new plots and the 'abandoned' lands. Also, the debate should better consider the social impacts of such allocation and reduction.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We appreciate your insightful review of our article titled “Influence of transfer plots’ spatial characteristics on chemical input reductions: Evidence from China” authored by Meiling Cui, Yang Guo, and Yueqing Ji. Your comments illuminated areas of improvement, and in response, we have made extensive revisions to our initial draft. The specific amendments, in line with your recommendations, are detailed below.

We are profoundly grateful to the editor and all reviewers for their constructive feedback, which was instrumental in enhancing the rigor of our manuscript. For clarity, the reviewers' comments are presented in italics, along with their enumerated concerns. Our responses are in standard font, and changes made to the manuscript are highlighted using the “Track Changes” feature.

Reviewer 3：

The authors analyzed the influence of spatial characteristics of land plots in the chemical input reduction on agricultural production. Overall, the paper covers an important and necessary topic in exploring the application of agricultural chemicals. However, there is a lack of describing the processes' spatiality and understanding of the environmental impacts of the resource endowment in China. My specific comments:

Q1: Authors should include a location map identifying spatially the provinces of Heilongjiang, Henan, Zhejiang, and Sichuan in China, and also, on a more refined scale, some samplings of the shape of the plots.

Response: We value this constructive suggestion. Upon reviewing the data survey area, we noticed that the regions surveyed were relatively small, making them challenging to display clearly on a country-wide map. Consequently, we have opted not to provide a schematic diagram of the data source area. Instead, we have provided a list of the surveyed cities. For clarity, we have enumerated the cities in a footnote, detailing: " The list of the sample of cities are as follows: Ning 'an, Tangyuan, Zhaodong and Longjiang (Heilongjiang provinces); Xiayi, Anyang, Xiping, Xuchang (Henan province); Shengzhou, Wuyi, Wenling, Xiuzhou (Zhejiang province); Zhongjiang, Nanbu, Yanjiang, and Linshui (Sichuan province)"

Q2: I missed a better historical description of the reallocation of the farmlands in the period of contemporary dynamics. When did it start? Why? How many farms were and are affected?

Response: Thank you for the insightful feedback. There are twists and turns in the history of the reallocation of the farmlands in China. For example, the traditional Chinese inheritance system of equal distribution of children leads to infinite subdivision of land; plots of land would be combined according to quality to ensure fair distribution under the household contracting system of the 1980s, etc. Since agricultural land began to be distributed to farmers, the government has intervened in the transfer of farmland. From the 1982 Constitution, which stipulates that "land leasing is prohibited", to the 1993 decision of the Third Plenary Session of the 14th Central Committee, which "allows the transfer of land use rights with compensation according to law", and from the 2003 Rural Land Contract Law, which "can be transferred using subcontracting and leasing according to law". By 2013, the first government document stressed that it "encourages and supports the transfer of contracted land". China's farmland transfer policy has experienced many stages from prohibition to acquiescence, from permitting to encouraging and supporting.

Consequently, as reproduced below, we have introduced the number and area of farmers participating in the agricultural land transfer, and their proportion is included in the latest data, to describe the phased results of the dynamic development of agricultural land.

“By 2019, the number of rural households that have transferred farmland out has reached 73.3 million, and the area of farmland transferred has reached 532 million mu. The proportion of farmers and arable land in the country is 33.3% and 35.6% respectively.”

Q3: The discussion of the results is weak. I suggest including a massive amount of discussion on the environmental issues associated with this allocation dynamics regarding the new plots and the 'abandoned' lands. Also, the debate should better consider the social impacts of such allocation and reduction.

Response: We appreciate the valuable comments. We have expanded our “Robust analysis” section to include a comprehensive discussion of the empirical analysis results. By interpreting and comparing empirical model parameters, we have now statistically validated our research hypothesis. Furthermore, we have juxtaposed our findings with those of previously cited papers to provide a robust validation of our model. This enhancement should provide a clearer understanding of our study's context within the broader academic landscape.

As the research topic is about the influence and heterogeneity of transfer plots’ spatial characteristics on the chemical input reductions, we have not broached the subject of land allocation dynamics regarding the new plots and the 'abandoned' lands, as the reviewer suggested.

 

In addition, we have standardized the text in terms of vocabulary and language, tables, and reference formatting style. All changes/additions to the manuscript are accessible via the “Track Changes” feature.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Yang Guo

School of Management, Jiangsu University

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a good job during the revision of this manuscript.

This could be accepted in the current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the responses to the comments in the review, as well as the revised version of the article. The new version of the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result of taking into account the comments contained in the review. The current version is in my opinion suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.