The Use of Hydromulching as an Alternative to Plastic Films in an Artichoke (Cynara cardunculus cv. Symphony) Crop: A Study of the Economic Viability
, Miriam Romero 1, Amparo Gálvez 1, Francisco Moisés del Amor 1, Maria Carmen Piñero 1 and José Manuel Brotons-Martínez 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
At the beginning I want to thank you for the opportunity of reading an interesting article about the economic viability use of hydromulching as an alternative to plastic films in an artichoke (Cynara cardunculus cv. Symphony) crop. This article is an interpretation of the results of field research with the usage of modeling. In the opinion of the reviewer, presented results are a valuable achievement that tell about caring for the environment, in this case, the replacement of the product that uses plastic in the protection of crops with the technology that uses of hydro-mulching.
The methodology of work should be completed with data of the period of the research (in detail from when to when, which will reduce doubts about this problem) In the opinion of the reviewer, the approach of assessing social effectiveness based on employment (the better employer, the higher the effectiveness) is a controversial one.
Detailed comments
Ins 133 Were the prices from the period presented in this way (2000-2020) definitely analyzed, and if so, it should be fill in with explanation.
Table 1 and 2 - in the opinion of the reviewer, it is necessary to explain (fill in explanation ) the numbering of the weeks
Figure 1. - average price for two years or were the period previously stated 2000-2020?
Ins 234.235 - the interpretation requires specificity : average income or market prices ?? (Figure 2. Yield….)
Ins 308-312 - what rounding system was used in the description? between 0.71 (price was 0.717, or 0.72) etc.
Table 6 - The title is unclarified with reference to the information presented in the table
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. After reviewing our manuscript according to the suggested comments (Letter of April 20th, 2021, Ref. manuscript Ms. sustainability-1194506), we are now re-submitting a new version (R1) of our work “The use of hydromulching as an alternative to plastic films in an artichoke (Cynara cardunculus cv. Symphony) crop: a study of the economic viability”
We agreed with the suggested changes and comments, and therefore we included here a point by-point letter of response to the reviewer and we have added a text highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.
The methodology of work should be completed with data of the period of the research (in detail from when to when, which will reduce doubts about this problem) In the opinion of the reviewer, the approach of assessing social effectiveness based on employment (the better employer, the higher the effectiveness) is a controversial one.
- Regarding the period, it has been indicated that the trial was carried out during the years 2019 and 2020. We thank you for this comment. It was a translation problem. We were referring either to productivity or to the number of workers per unit of production or inputs. It has been corrected.
Ins 133 Were the prices from the period presented in this way (2000-2020) definitely analyzed, and if so, it should be fill in with explanation.
- It has been clarified. Average prices for said period (2000-2020) have been used and their variability (standard deviation) has been used for the sensitivity analysis.
Table 1 and 2 - in the opinion of the reviewer, it is necessary to explain (fill in explanation) the numbering of the weeks
- It is now indicated in Tables 1 and 2: “Week: number of weeks since the start of the year”
Figure 1. - average price for two years or were the period previously stated 2000-2020?
- The title below Fig. 1 has been changed to “Figure 1. Average weekly artichoke prices for the period 2000-20. Mean±SE.”
Ins 234.235 - the interpretation requires specificity: average income or market prices?? (Figure 2. Yield….)
- Average yield of the two years multiplied by the average prices of the period 2000-2020.
Ins 308-312 - what rounding system was used in the description? between 0.71 (price was 0.717, or 0.72) etc.
- It has been rounded correctly. In addition, following the indications of reviewer No. 3, the costs have been slightly modified, so Table 6 has also been modified
Table 6 - The title is unclarified with reference to the information presented in the table
- The title of Table 6 has been changed to "Income and total and unit costs (average values)"
Reviewer 2 Report
The analysis is interesting but the quality of English need to be improved. Several sentences are very difficult to read and it is often hard for the reader to understand what the authors want to say.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. After reviewing our manuscript according to the suggested comments (Letter of April 20th, 2021, Ref. manuscript Ms. sustainability-1194506), we are now re-submitting a new version (R1) of our work “The use of hydromulching as an alternative to plastic films in an artichoke (Cynara cardunculus cv. Symphony) crop: a study of the economic viability”
Response to reviewer´s comments:
The analysis is interesting but the quality of English need to be improved. Several sentences are very difficult to read and it is often hard for the reader to understand what the authors want to say.
- The entire document has been reviewed by a native English speaker
Reviewer 3 Report
About the submission with the title "The use of hydromulching as an alternative to plastic films in an artichoke (Cynara cardunculus cv. Symphony) crop: a study of the economic viability " I have the following comments:
The paper has a clear language and is interesting. However, the main problem of this submission is about the rigor of the concepts used. For example, in table 4 the authors forgot same important costs as those related with taxes, interests, services, overheads, etc. So, the net profit in table 6 are not correct.
In addition, in the subsection 3.2. the authors write about efficiency, but I was unable to see any standard approach, as for example, DEA, Malmquist, frontier analysis, etc.
What is social efficiency (table 8)?
How the authors carried out sensitivity analysis?
It is needed a discussions section and the conclusions section should be significantly improved with the main insights, practical implications and policy suggestions.
Author Response
I thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. After reviewing our manuscript according to the suggested comments (Letter of April 20th, 2021, Ref. manuscript Ms. sustainability-1194506), we are now re-submitting a new version (R1) of our work “The use of hydromulching as an alternative to plastic films in an artichoke (Cynara cardunculus cv. Symphony) crop: a study of the economic viability”
We agreed with the suggested changes and comments, and therefore we included here a point by-point letter of response to the reviewer and we have added a text highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.
Response to reviewer´s comments:
The paper has a clear language and is interesting. However, the main problem of this submission is about the rigor of the concepts used. For example, in table 4 the authors forgot same important costs as those related with taxes, interests, services, overheads, etc. So, the net profit in table 6 are not correct.
- Regarding the indicated costs:
- Real estate tax has been introduced. Indirect costs are included in the purchase and sale prices, since in general farmers are covered by the special agricultural tax regime, and direct taxes have not been included because they differ greatly from some taxpayers to others (especially in the tax on the income of individual persons).
- The overheads costs were incorporated, but they were indicated as structure costs; this term is not correct and it has now been corrected.
- Interest costs have not been included in this study as no source of financing is considered
- The costs for services are included in the rest of the sections
In addition, in the subsection 3.2. the authors write about efficiency, but I was unable to see any standard approach, as for example, DEA, Malmquist, frontier analysis, etc.
- The article refers to productivity and not efficiency. We welcome the reviewer's comments. The relevant text has been corrected.
What is social efficiency (table 8)?
- It refers only to job creation and has been corrected
How the authors carried out sensitivity analysis?
The following has been added:
- In each iteration, the net return for each year has been obtained as the difference between income and expenses. Income has been considered as the product of yield and prices. The yield has been considered as a normal variable, the mean being the average of the two years and the standard deviation being obtained from the experiment itself. For prices we have proceeded in a similar way, but considering the information from the last 20 years. Regarding costs, although the overheads have been considered fixed, since they were incurred in the first planting and cannot be altered during the rest of the useful life, the annual costs have also been considered as normal with the mean values used throughout the text and the standard deviation obtained from the information provided by the various sources
It is needed a discussions section and the conclusions section should be significantly improved with the main insights, practical implications and policy suggestions.
- To the discussion, the text highlighted in yellow has been added
- To the conclusions, the text highlighted in yellow has been added
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The quality of English has been improved.
Author Response
I thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
I suggest the authors introduce in the paper the justifications presented to my report.
Author Response
I thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. After reviewing our manuscript according to the suggested comments (Letter of May 1st, 2021, Ref. manuscript Ms. sustainability-1194506), we are now re-submitting a new version (R2) of our work “The use of hydromulching as an alternative to plastic films in an artichoke (Cynara cardunculus cv. Symphony) crop: a study of the economic viability”
We agreed with the suggested changes and comments, and therefore we included here a point by-point letter of response to the reviewer and we have added a text highlighted in green in the manuscript.
Response to reviewer´s comments:
The paper has a clear language and is interesting. However, the main problem of this submission is about the rigor of the concepts used. For example, in table 4 the authors forgot same important costs as those related with taxes, interests, services, overheads, etc. So, the net profit in table 6 are not correct.
- Regarding the indicated costs:
- Line 266- 267. Table 4.
- (taxes included). Real estate tax has been introduced. Indirect costs are included in the purchase and sale prices, since, in general, farmers are covered by the special agricultural tax regime. On the other hand, direct taxes have not been included because they differ greatly from some taxpayers to others (especially in the tax on the income of individual persons).
- The overheads costs were incorporated in the first version, but they were indicated as structure costs; this term was not correct and it has now been corrected.
- Interest costs have not been included in this study as no source of financing is considered and Net Present Value doesn’t allow to include them if they are not paid effectively
- The costs for services were included in the rest of the sections (in the first version)
- Line 323-325 (Table 6 has been changed consequently of the change done in table 4)
In addition, in the subsection 3.2. the authors write about efficiency, but I was unable to see any standard approach, as for example, DEA, Malmquist, frontier analysis, etc.
- The article refers to productivity and not efficiency. We welcome the reviewer's comments. The relevant text has been corrected in section 2.2 and 3.2.
- Following the reviewer comments, in this new version of the paper, we have added the efficiency analysis using DEA considering as inputs working hours and m3 of used water. The optimisation program has been added in material and methods and the results in the results section.
- Line 150-155. DEA-CCR model in material and methods
- Line 397. “Table 9. Efficiency and addition input and output variables” and “Table 10. Potential improvement” have been added
What is social efficiency (table 8)?
- It refers only to job creation and has been corrected. We have discussed the efficiency of the input “working hours” has been added. (line 390-405)
How the authors carried out sensitivity analysis?
The following has been added:
- Line 410-419. In each iteration, the net return for each year has been obtained as the difference between income and expenses. Income has been considered as the product of yield and prices. The yield has been considered as a normal variable, the mean being the average of the two years and the standard deviation being obtained from the experiment itself. For prices we have proceeded in a similar way, but considering the information from the last 20 years. Regarding costs, although the overheads have been considered fixed, since they were incurred in the first planting and cannot be altered during the rest of the useful life, the annual costs have also been considered as normal with the mean values used throughout the text and the standard deviation obtained from the information provided by the various sources
It is needed a discussions section and the conclusions section should be significantly improved with the main insights, practical implications and policy suggestions.
- To the discussion, the text highlighted in green has been added (lines 295-299, 308-311, 430-432)
- To the conclusions, the text highlighted in green has been added (lines 456-457, 461-462, 466-469, 478-479)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
I suggest some care about the use of the efficiency concept over the document.
Author Response
I thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. After reviewing our manuscript according to the suggested comments (Letter of May 4th, 2021, Ref. manuscript Ms. sustainability-1194506), we are now re-submitting a new version (R3) of our work “The use of hydromulching as an alternative to plastic films in an artichoke (Cynara cardunculus cv. Symphony) crop: a study of the economic viability”
We agreed with the suggested changes and comments, and therefore we included here a point by-point letter of response to the reviewer and we have added a text highlighted in green in the manuscript.
Response to reviewer´s comments:
I suggest some care about the use of the efficiency concept over the document.
- There were some incorrect terms along the text. We have changed efficiency by productivity (first paragraph and lines 337-340).
- We have introduced general limitations (156-160) and particular limitations (line 410-413) to the present work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
