AgroTutor: A Mobile Phone Application Supporting Sustainable Agricultural Intensification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Bayas et al. presented paper that is technical note showing potential of smartphone application AgroTutor. I really appreciate this project and fully support development of such decision tools not only for developing countries. However, the technical note is pretty short and many rather theoretical questions raised during reading. Can authors clarify these questions in the manuscript?

1) How does the AgroTutor support sustainable production? Where is the ecological benefit of using such App? Isnt it only supporting higher production without regard to really ecological agricultural practices?

2) Authors mentioned in the Supplementary Table GreenSat and GreenSeeker. Are the suggestions for nitrogen fertilizing from AgroTutor influenced by the data of GreenSeeker (if it is used by the farmer) or GreenSat project? It would be great if the suggestions about dose and frequency of nitrogen fertilizing will be based on assessment of nitrogen content in the crop.

3) Is the App specific for Mexico? How it will works outside of Mexico, where Mosaico nacionale is not providing the map layer?

4) What about other crops? How they can be implemented into AgroTutor App? What are the minimum prerequisites for implementation of new crop (Model, real data from farmers...?).?

5) Chapter 2.2.1 (Wheather information) Does the common farmer understand these info? How are these info interpreted by farmer in specific situation? Does the App suggest timing of cropping action with regard to wheater forecast?

6) Chapter 2.2.4 (Windows of opportunity) Does the Windows of Opportunity reconsider timing of the management activities with regard to the wheater forecast?

 

 

Author Response

Question) Bayas et al. presented paper that is technical note showing potential of smartphone application AgroTutor. I really appreciate this project and fully support development of such decision tools not only for developing countries. However, the technical note is pretty short and many rather theoretical questions raised during reading. Can authors clarify these questions in the manuscript?

Answer) We thank the reviewer for their comments and questions and hope the answers provided below can clarify further the app functioning.

Q1) How does the AgroTutor support sustainable production? Where is the ecological benefit of using such App? Isnt it only supporting higher production without regard to really ecological agricultural practices?

A1) The app is part of a large system of agricultural extension services provided by the International Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT) in Mexico, where the driving force is sustainable intensification of agricultural production. This is only achieved by the correct use of techniques and inputs that avoid environmental impacts, such as conservation agriculture and integrated pest management, which promote soil and water conservation as well as employing pest control measures that are not necessarily based on pesticides. The principles behind the app stand for improved agricultural yields and improved ecosystem functions. Further information on what these practices are and how they are introduced by CIMMYT can be found here https://www.cimmyt.org/news/what-is-sustainable-intensification/.

Q2) Authors mentioned in the Supplementary Table GreenSat and GreenSeeker. Are the suggestions for nitrogen fertilizing from AgroTutor influenced by the data of GreenSeeker (if it is used by the farmer) or GreenSat project? It would be great if the suggestions about dose and frequency of nitrogen fertilizing will be based on assessment of nitrogen content in the crop.

A2) This is definitively the ideal scenario and as the proof of concept of the application advances, the recommendations will be further adjusted by the results and measurements from GreenSat and GreenSeeker. However, the current version of AgroTutor does not yet incorporate these sets of data into the recommendations provided.

Q3) Is the App specific for Mexico? How it will works outside of Mexico, where Mosaico nacionale is not providing the map layer?

A3) The current version of the app is designed for Mexico, but the application is built in a modular way, i.e., the sources of information and services it provides can be modified to match different locations and countries. The Mosaico Nacional background layer is employed as an additional offline functionality to allow farmers to locate and delineate their parcels using very high-resolution imagery offline. When the app has an online connection, the latest imagery from Google Maps is displayed and can be used in the same way as the Mosaico Nacional. If the app were to be adapted to a different country, we would endeavor to partner with potential providers of imagery so as to facilitate offline geo-visualization of parcels, although as technology progresses, access to freely available high-resolution satellite imagery is becoming more the norm.

Q4) What about other crops? How they can be implemented into AgroTutor App? What are the minimum prerequisites for implementation of new crop (Model, real data from farmers...?).?

A4) The lack of in-situ data to calibrate and validate crop models for specific crops is a common problem. We hope that as part of the crowdsourcing function within AgroTutor, that new crops and crop management practices can be reported that will then be used by crop models such as EPIC-IIASA. These results can, in turn, be sent back as useful information to farmers that have contributed this in-situ information.

Q5) Chapter 2.2.1 (Wheather information) Does the common farmer understand these info? How are these info interpreted by farmer in specific situation? Does the App suggest timing of cropping action with regard to wheater forecast?

A5) The weather information is obtained directly from the weather providers. Based on discussions with farmers on the ground, many have expressed their preference for growing degree days (GDD) to be displayed, apart from precipitation and weather alerts. They use the GDD to make their own estimates,e.g., for fertilizer application. The windows of opportunity utilize these weather-derived GDD to suggest, e.g., when the best time is to fertilize maize, so weather does have a direct influence on AgroTutor recommendations.

Q6) Chapter 2.2.4 (Windows of opportunity) Does the Windows of Opportunity reconsider timing of the management activities with regard to the wheater forecast?

A6. See the answer above. In addition, the windows of opportunity require that a crop planting date and variety type have been selected in the app, combined with weather-derived GDD, to suggest the best times for fertilization.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,
Dear Editorial Office.
In my opinion, this article has nothing to do with science, but it is only an insight into the operation and functionality of the AGROTUTOR system.
My opinion is not suitable for printing in this form.
No scientific purpose, no methodology, no science in this article.
I am sorry, but I am in favor of rejecting the reviewed article.

Author Response

Question:

Dear Authors,
Dear Editorial Office.
In my opinion, this article has nothing to do with science, but it is only an insight into the operation and functionality of the AGROTUTOR system.
My opinion is not suitable for printing in this form.
No scientific purpose, no methodology, no science in this article.
I am sorry, but I am in favor of rejecting the reviewed article.

Answer:
We respectfully disagree with the reviewer. All the sections of the manuscript, from weather to agronomic recommendations and price forecasting are thoroughly based on scientific models and empirical evidence that, due to the format of this Technical Note, are very succinctly described. We believe that the literature references provided ground the work behind each of the AgroTutor modules. We have added additional sentences at the end of the introduction section and at the beginning of section 2 reiterating that the paper is a technical note, to better indicate to the readers the scope of the manuscript

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper (or technical note) describes an app called AgroTutor which is being distributed to farmers in Mexico. The goal of the app is to complement the work of extension workers. The paper presents the characteristics of the app and qualitative results from a survey with 27 farmers in which the researchers asked for farmers’ feedback.

 

I think that the goal of the app is interesting and there is much to learn about how knowledge spreads across farmers in agriculture. I think that the authors should keep working on evaluating the results of the app, perhaps using a larger dataset and more quantitative information. However, the paper, as it is now, presents a very preliminary overview of an app (or a technical note). And while I do not see the academic contribution of it.

 

To be more specific. This paper contains no research question (or not one that I could see). What determines the intention to adopt the app? What is the impact of the app? What are the difficulties in implementing the app in the region? Other than presenting the characteristics of the app and the preliminary findings from a feedback survey, there is no question in the paper. I can see the value of technical notes, but as it stands this note does not provide a clear academic contribution.

Author Response

Question:

This paper (or technical note) describes an app called AgroTutor which is being distributed to farmers in Mexico. The goal of the app is to complement the work of extension workers. The paper presents the characteristics of the app and qualitative results from a survey with 27 farmers in which the researchers asked for farmers’ feedback.

I think that the goal of the app is interesting and there is much to learn about how knowledge spreads across farmers in agriculture. I think that the authors should keep working on evaluating the results of the app, perhaps using a larger dataset and more quantitative information. However, the paper, as it is now, presents a very preliminary overview of an app (or a technical note). And while I do not see the academic contribution of it.

To be more specific. This paper contains no research question (or not one that I could see). What determines the intention to adopt the app? What is the impact of the app? What are the difficulties in implementing the app in the region? Other than presenting the characteristics of the app and the preliminary findings from a feedback survey, there is no question in the paper. I can see the value of technical notes, but as it stands this note does not provide a clear academic contribution.

Answer:

We thank the reviewer for their suggestions. We have presented our manuscript as a Technical Note, precisely because we wanted to succinctly introduce the technology behind AgroTutor as well as the scientific models that support the recommendations it provides. We have added additional sentences at the end of the introduction section and at the beginning of section 2 reiterating that the paper is a technical note, to better indicate to the readers the scope of the manuscript. AgroTutor is a proof of concept on how a mobile app can support agricultural extension to promote sustainable intensification. Two other papers are currently being drafted that focus on farmers’ intention to use the app and the results from a pilot with 400 farmers in the region, which answer the questions raised above. As this is a technical note, these topics are beyond the current scope of this paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is well written and the information presented is relevant to the field. I revised the application myself and I think it could be easily adopted by farmers. However, I think developers should improve the interface.

Author Response

Question:

The manuscript is well written and the information presented is relevant to the field. I revised the application myself and I think it could be easily adopted by farmers. However, I think developers should improve the interface.

Answer:

We thank the reviewer for their comment. We are currently looking for future funding opportunities that can enable us to further enhance the user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) of the application, its reach (e.g., expanding to different countries) and the addition of new functionality, and we are grateful for all the comments received as they help to focus our efforts.

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have improved this manuscript.

Overall, the manuscript was  good; there was nothing major that I felt needed comment. 

Author Response

Question:

The authors have improved this manuscript.

Overall, the manuscript was good; there was nothing major that I felt needed comment. 

Answer:

We thank the reviewer for their comment and support.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editors, Dear Authors.
After reading the article again I hold my review and final conclusion.
The presented article has no features of scientific work.
I am in favor of rejecting the paper, but I leave the final decision to the Editorial Office.

Reviewer 3 Report

The changes in this manuscript relative to the previous one are minimal. Several of the questions raised in my previous review remain largely unanswered. In particular, there is minimal to no discussion about how this piece contributes to the literature.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has two major flaws, which decrease its quality, therefore I have to recommend against publication

The paper is more like a report or a user's guide, describing the system. It lacks scientific support, methodologies are not described. Also, there is no evidence regarding its actual usability and contribution. There is not enough connection to previous studies to demonstrate how this app is different or better than orevious efforts, at the scientific level  The paper does not peovide any linkage to sustainability other than some general references in the introduction. It would pertain more to an ICT-oriented journal. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a novel topic that will be of interest to the readers of the journal

Major Comments:

Introduction: give background info/details about other commercial smartphone technologies/apps used in Mexico for agricultural sustainable intensification/Precision agriculture. The AgroTutor mobile app: Give more details about MVVM approach, for example the final model used to calculate the estimated yield as an equation. You might think of representing this info as a figure which describes a flowchart of the methodology used to generate the final output. Potential results/next steps: can you give details about your experimental results that used to test this app before using real seasons of testing in the field?

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Bayas et al. presented paper that is technical note showing potential of smartphone application AgroTutor. I really appreciate this project and fully support development of such decision tools not only for developing countries. However, the technical note is pretty short and many rather theoretical questions raised during reading. Can authors clarify these questions in the manuscript? 1) How does the AgroTutor support sustainable production? Where is the ecological benefit of using such App? Isnt it only supporting higher production without regard to really ecological agricultural practices? 2) Authors mentioned in the Supplementary Table GreenSat and GreenSeeker. Are the suggestions for nitrogen fertilizing from AgroTutor influenced by the data of GreenSeeker (if it is used by the farmer) or GreenSat project? It would be great if the suggestions about dose and frequency of nitrogen fertilizing will be based on assessment of nitrogen content in the crop. 3) Is the App specific for Mexico? How it will works outside of Mexico, where Mosaico nacionale is not providing the map layer? 4) What about other crops? How they can be implemented into AgroTutor App? What are the minimum prerequisites for implementation of new crop (Model, real data from farmers...?).? 5) Chapter 2.2.1 (Weather information) Does the common farmer understand these info? How are these info interpreted by farmer in specific situation? Does the App suggest timing of cropping action with regard to weather forecast? 6) Chapter 2.2.4 (Windows of opportunity) Does the Windows of Opportunity reconsider timing of the management activities with regard to the weather forecast? I recommend this technical note to the publication after minor revision.