Transforming Agricultural Living Labs into Lighthouses Contributing to Sustainable Development as Defined by the UN-SDGs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REWRITE CONCLUSION 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

We thank this reviewer for his comments. The reviewer considers the introduction, the research design and the method descriptions to be satisfactory but feels that results should be more clearly presented. We have carefully looked at this but feel that sections 3.1 and 3.2. present results of ecosystem services provided  and soil health assessments, clearly indicating which service and which health indicator is being considered. Also thresholds are mentioned and there is a clear conclusion for each item whether or not the thresholds are met. We see no possibilities to “improve” this description whiuch would appear to be quite clear. Perhaps the rather long text fragments have put his reviewer off track? Shortening the text would, however, not be a good idea.

The reviewer suggests to “rewrite” the conclusions section but this section was not included in the submitted manuscript. We add a proposed conclusion section for the editors to considfer. Good idea! We thank the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very important for policy makers and for farmers interested in transition to a more sustainable farming system by integrating the farm development goals with the goals declared by UN-SDGs.

Meanwhile,farmers are mostly interested in good agricultural practices for improving soil health capable to provide ecosystem services.System approach to farm management is crucial for successful transition to a more sustainable farming system.Landscape organization of the territory ,crop rotationwith a higher diversity of main and cover crops,minimum disturbance of the soil,innivative methods of recycling nutrients and water ,different methods of preventing "weeds,pests and diseases" etc are amongst the most atractive sites to visit for farmers.Proper choices of indicators for the evaluation of agrophisical,agrochemical and biological prperties of the soil ,will help in providing suitable ecosystem services.Unfortunately authors didn't enumerate the ecosystem services to be focused on in order to provide a sustainable development of the farm.Using of many proposed indicators require laboratory and expensive analyses.The best way for expanding of good agricultural practices should be using of cheap,simple and visible methods.As an example -taking soil samples and analysing soil samples on the shavel directly in the field.The such named Gerling method was used in Germany before the Second World War for determining soil maturity.In case of the necessity more expensive and comprehensive methods can be used.It is important for farmers tro realize that by improving soil health a more sustainable development can be achieved together with providing ecosystem services.

Regarding the thresholds.Different indicators require a solid argumentation.For example,how to determine the optimal level of soil organic matter for different soils with different texture,under different cropping systems etc.

Using level of yields and profit in different farms can mask the real situation.May be using the energetic efficiency is more suitable for the evaluation of the ratio between the amount of energy used(applied) from nonrenewable sources of energy and their derivatives and the amount of energy taken out with yields for each crop and  for the whole farm.

The management system of the farm in achieving higher level of sustainability should be oriented towards

-reduction of production expenses by using mostly renewable sources of energy of local origin

-prevention of negative consequences on the environment,including soil compaction,soil erosion,droughts etc

-reduction of GHGs emissions and increasing carbon sequestration for this purpose some strip trials can be done directly in the field conditions)

-increasing biodiversity both above and under soil surface etc

Each farmer should make the diagnosis of his farm by using a simple method in order to find what are the obstacles which don't allow him(her)to overcome the barriers to a more sustainable agriculture.

The article should be published because it can generate many useful discussions which can help in the transition of farms to a more sustainable agriculture.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

We thank this reviewer for his comments. Five “yes” qualifications are quite positive and we particularly like his statement that:  “the article is very important for policy makers and for farmers interested in transition to a more sustainable farming system” and: this article should be published because it can generate many useful discussions which can help in the transition of farms to a more sustainable agriculture”.

Meanwhile,farmers are mostly interested in good agricultural practices for improving soil health capable to provide ecosystem services.System approach to farm management is crucial for successful transition to a more sustainable farming system.Landscape organization of the territory ,crop rotationwith a higher diversity of main and cover crops,minimum disturbance of the soil,innivative methods of recycling nutrients and water ,different methods of preventing "weeds,pests and diseases" etc are amongst the most atractive sites to visit for farmers.Proper choices of indicators for the evaluation of agrophisical,agrochemical and biological prperties of the soil ,will help in providing suitable ecosystem services.Unfortunately authors didn't enumerate the ecosystem services to be focused on in order to provide a sustainable development of the farm.Using of many proposed indicators require laboratory and expensive analyses.The best way for expanding of good agricultural practices should be using of cheap,simple and visible methods.As an example -taking soil samples and analysing soil samples on the shavel directly in the field.The such named Gerling method was used in Germany before the Second World War for determining soil maturity.In case of the necessity more expensive and comprehensive methods can be used.It is important for farmers tro realize that by improving soil health a more sustainable development can be achieved together with providing ecosystem services.

The Notes of the reviewer clearly demonstrate his thorough practical knowledge of the issues being discussed in this article. He questions the ecosystems we focus on. These were summarized in Figure 1 and relate directly to the corresponding SDGs. Our intent is to show that a farm is sustainable if it satisfies a limited number of SDG-related ecosystem services and we feel strongly that farmers should next be free to adopt the form of management that best fits their particular farming style. In fact this would be : “their ticket to ride!”.This management should not be prescribed by policy. 

We strongly agree that tests should be cheap and simple and point out that new methods are now available that satisfy this requirement.

Regarding the thresholds.Different indicators require a solid argumentation.For example,how to determine the optimal level of soil organic matter for different soils with different texture,under different cropping systems etc.

We fully agree that setting meaningful thresholds is a key priority for research and we say so clearly.

Using level of yields and profit in different farms can mask the real situation.May be using the energetic efficiency is more suitable for the evaluation of the ratio between the amount of energy used(applied) from nonrenewable sources of energy and their derivatives and the amount of energy taken out with yields for each crop and for the whole farm.

Comments of the reviewer on yields and profits are intriguing and thought provoking. We find, though, that talking about yields and profits registers directly with farmers which may be less so when considering energetic efficiency. The reviewer agrees in a way as he mentions: “reduction of production expenses”as a focal point.  We also point out that the energy issue ( SDG7) is really not of major concern for the Living Lab being considered. But the reviewer is is correct: keep exploring new approaches!

The management system of the farm in achieving higher level of sustainability should be oriented towards

-reduction of production expenses by using mostly renewable sources of energy of local origin

-prevention of negative consequences on the environment,including soil compaction,soil erosion,droughts etc

-reduction of GHGs emissions and increasing carbon sequestration for this purpose some strip trials can be done directly in the field conditions)

-increasing biodiversity both above and under soil surface etc

His four bullits at the end of his review are correct, We already mentioned that number 1 has a financial character. Number 2 mentions soil compaction and effects of erosion which are expressed by indicators for soil health. Number 3 mentions GHG emissions and carbon capture that is covered by SDG13. Our systems allows a systematic consideration of all these factors.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a very important and highly relevant currently topic. The paper presents an interesting case study showing the readers in detail the direct relation between farming and SDGs. This is a very important but hardly tackled issue.

The results are compelling and the authors present the study limitations.  

The abstract does not include the information about the methods applied in the study.

I do not exactly understand the use of “living lab” here. Living labs are multi-actor platforms focused on co-creation of innovative concepts – a similar definition is presented in lines 109-111. But the section 2.2 does not show suach a living lab. Based on the section 2.2 description, I guess a “living lab” in this study is meant as an experimental area to study the SDGs relevant to agriculture in a specific farm. Please put in section 2.2 the definition of a living lab used in the study.

Methodology – there is no mention of the period in which field study was conducted. In line 169 it is mentioned that the data included 11 years but no specific period is mentioned.

Section 3.6: It includes only one paragraph. In my opinion it should be extended. Now it looks like bullet points. The issues mentioned here should be presented in more detail to be fully understandable for readers not familiar with the agricultural policy.

Line 450: “Following the :”one-out-all-out” principle, Lighthouses would qualify.” – what is meant by this sentence?

 

There are numerous editing issues that need to be corrected.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

We thank the reviewer for his comments: “the paper presents a very important and highly relevant current topic The paper presents an interesting case study showing the readers in detail the direct relation between farming and the SDGs”. This is a very important but hardly tackled issue”.

He also raises some questions:

The abstract does not include the information about the methods applied in the study.

In the abstract we mention “innovative sensing techniques”being applied but there is no room to expand on other research methods reported in the paper ( e.g. heavy metals, PLFA,QUPPe,EKR). The number of words for the abstract are limited and to just mentions these terms would not be informative. 

I do not exactly understand the use of “living lab” here. Living labs are multi-actor platforms focused on co-creation of innovative concepts – a similar definition is presented in lines 109-111. But the section 2.2 does not show suach a living lab. Based on the section 2.2 description, I guess a “living lab” in this study is meant as an experimental area to study the SDGs relevant to agriculture in a specific farm. Please put in section 2.2 the definition of a living lab used in the study.

We use the definition of Living Labs as provided by the EU Soil Deal for Europe: “spaces for co-innovation, through participatory, transdisciplinary systemic research” that “contribute to Green Deal targets for sustainable farming, climate resilience, biodiversity and zero-pollution”. ( lines 109 plus). Section 2 describes a farm  that acts as a Living Lab. We have added a sentence now to that effect on line.

Methodology – there is no mention of the period in which field study was conducted. In line 169 it is mentioned that the data included 11 years but no specific period is mentioned.

Indeed, no mentioning of the period when sampling was done. Fall 2023 was added. Thanks for the suggestion.

Section 3.6: It includes only one paragraph. In my opinion it should be extended. Now it looks like bullet points. The issues mentioned here should be presented in more detail to be fully understandable for readers not familiar with the agricultural policy.

We decided to be brief on the policy issue and mention only the aspect of payments to be tied to achieving satisfactory ecosystem services in line with six SDGs. The policy issue is, indeed, much wider but all dimensions are impossible to catch in a few lines. We focus now on the payments which are the bottomline expression for farmers.

Line 450: “Following the :”one-out-all-out” principle, Lighthouses would qualify.” – what is meant by this sentence?

We explained the “one-out/all-out” expression, that was also questioned by another reviewer.

There are numerous editing issues that need to be corrected.

We corrected them, thank you.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a manuscript with very low quality. First, authors mentioned they chozen Geling farm as their study area, but I can not found a single data related to this Geling farm. At least, the basic data of agricultural production, the using of water and energy, the releasing of CO2, the variation of soil and biodiovisity during aguricultural producing should be listed out in your study. Secondly, authors want to provide a clear and operation procedure to benefit other farm, but "what the detail procedure is" author did not give us. As a guiding paper, it should be summary the datas and shape the mechanism or procedures, instead of empty talking with limited datas. In all, I think this manuscript was bad organised, so that I will not suggest its publishing.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

The reviewer has clearly not been able to interpret our paper, which we regret. Language problems could be a reason perhaps? But when he states that data presented are not related to the Geling farm  we find this difficult to understand. We have clearly defined our Living Lab as being the Geling Farm. And we mention agricultural production in detail! Ecosystem services associated with  water, energy, carbon emission, biodiversity are also reported and discussed in detail. This would not be “listed”?? We don’t understand why this was not noticed. We have certainly reported “mechanisms and procedures” to determine and judge ecosystem services in detail , which hardly qualifies as “empty talk with limited data””. Limited data? Please look at all analyses being presented!  Heavy metals; pesticide residues with the QuPPe methodology,;biological indicators for ecosystems by the EKR score; carbon dynamics, including CO2 emssions by the Soil Carbon Check methodology and soil biology by the PLFA method.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am so sorry to confuse you. I know you must have put many efforts in this manuscript, but I still think it was not prepared in a right way. First, I admited I may not be familiar with living labs as you are. However, as a scholar, I certainly knew research needs rigour and manuscript needs readability. You mentioned in reply that you have offered many datas related to Geling Farm, so that I have actually found them in your contexts. But I think it should be not accept to report your data just in context instead ofa single table or figure,  which hinders the visualization of these datas. I may give a speculation that you did not release your data in a single table or figure due to your testing is not rigorous. For example, you admited HMs and biocides were all down below detect limits. As know to us, the content of HMs is relatively high in soil and rarely reported to be no detection in previous studies. Even if you have done incorrected testing, you can also give us the detail datas of these parameters, which suggested your less rigorous. Additionally, you mentioned you have done the testing of groundwater and surface water,  carbon emission and biodiversity, so that I would like to know the detail procedures of these sampling. As known to us, the methods, time (seasons, before or after agricultural production), and location (depth) of sampling may significantly vary their texting datas, so that this suggested your less rigorous again. At last, your manuscript should benefit the agricultural production, so that you should take more time to concern the issue that once the dysfunction of soil health came out, then how can you respond to uphold your SDG ranking. In all, I still think this manuscript is not well organised and less rigorous, which should be not published.