Towards Climate Smart Farming—A Reference Architecture for Integrated Farming Systems
, Panagiotis Sarigiannidis 1,*, Andreas Maropoulos 1, Thomas Lagkas 2, Konstantinos Zaralis 3 and Chrysoula Karaiskou 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Towards Climate Smart Farming - A Reference Architecture for Integrated Farming Systems” proposes a Climate-Smart Agriculture architecture for fostering and supporting integrated agricultural systems such as Mixed Farming Systems (MFS), by facilitating the design, the deployment, and the management of crop-livestock-forestry combinations towards sustainable, efficient, and climate resilient agricultural systems. The manuscript is well written, technically sound and will be very relevant to the readership of the journal and I would recommend its publication after issues highlighted below are adequately addressed.
In the introduction, the articulation of the utility and relevance of precision agriculture technologies for diversified farming systems particularly in developing countries context is missing or weak and should be provided. This would increase the relevance and readership of the manuscript.
I recommend that authors’ development on Climate-Smart Agriculture and Mixed farming systems or diversified farming systems (in the introduction) should be improved by citing relevant literature on the subject. I have provided some relevant literature that the authors should consider. Please consult the PDF attached.
Another major point I have with the manuscript is that an application of MiFarm-CSA is missing. It could have been good if the authors illustrate the MiFarm-CSA with a case study showing how it works and its benefits in terms of various indicators (productivity and income gain, time saved, etc.).
The manuscript will need to be revised for proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style. I have provided some edits directly in the text. Please consult the PDF attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper designs a climate-smart agriculture architecture that aims at providing a multi-actor, and community-oriented architecture to increase the resilience of the underlying farms, crops, livestock, and forestry against the negative impact of climate change. This paper introduces the architecture in detail. However, the following issues should be considered.
- Although this paper describes many techniques, the techniques are not proposed in this paper. The proposed architecture just simply integrates the technologies and is not technically sound.
- For an academic article, simulations or experiments are necessary. In simulations and experiments, the proposed architecture should be compared to some related work such that the advantage of the proposed architecture can be highlighted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The articles deals with a very interesting and contemporary topic that is climate change in relationship to the Farm. The paper si well framed, has strong reference to the related work. The CSA, object of the paper is well described.
I kind of miss a paragraph that introduce the system by explaining the reason of framing the CSA in four layers. I will add at least few sentences in the section 3 introducing why CSA is shaped like that.
The benefit of the system are explained from a mere theoretical point of view. I see that it is a H2020 funded project so I assume that is has or it will be tested?
What about further development? Will the authors test the system or part of it? Which are the data that support the "benefits" of the system compared to the existing ones?
I suggest improving these aspects.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have carefully read the authors’ responses and the revised manuscript. Although some improvements have been made, I feel that the revisions could have been more significant.
I appreciate authors’ efforts to improve the introduction section of the manuscript and to place the manuscript into the wider contexts of CSA and mixed farming systems literature by citing the suggested relevant literature. However, the case study included as an application of the proposed framework does not convince and is not relevant. Currently, the case study section is just a compilation of lists activities and objectives to be achieved (or achievable) if the architecture is implemented and not the results of the application of the proposed architecture.
To illustrate the proposed architecture, simulations or experiments are necessary. In simulations and experiments, how the proposed architecture works and its benefits in terms of various indicators (productivity and income gain, time saved, etc.) should be compared to other works and highlighted. This is different from a listing of what the proposed architecture could achieve. Otherwise, the proposed architecture will remain just a simple theoretical proposition of integration of different technologies without any technical soundness and application.
