A Method to Assess Agroecosystem Resilience to Climate Variability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well-crafted manuscript on an interesting and currently important topic on a method to assess agroecosystem resilience to climate variability. It would be important to include in the Abstract a result of your case study in Colombia. Other specifications are also missing from the text that are marked in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Appreciated reviewer
We thank the Sustainability for the comments and the evaluators recommendations to improve the article, as well as the opportunity to publish the results of our research.
We have accepted all comments and recommendations, and the document was adjusted with the evaluators’ recommendations. We focus specifically on comments and recommendations.
The adjusted document is attached in review format.
Reviewer 1
Recommendation:
- It would be important to include in the Abstract a result of your case study in Colombia.
Response:
Accepted recommendation, see page 1, lines 26-30.
General Recommendations: Other specifications are also missing from the text that are marked in the attached file.
- Recommendation: eliminate the point
Response: Accepted Recommendation, lines 201-203
- Recommendation: In Figure 3 you write Physico-Biotic and in this Table Physical-Biotic, please, standardize.
Response: Accepted Recommendation, see page 7, Table 1, Column 1, Row 2
- Recommendation: [Change] h
Response: Accepted Recommendation, see page 9, Table 1, Column 7, Row 20
- Recommendation: [Change comma to dot] (, .)
Response: Accepted Recommendation, see line 292.
- Recommendation: [Change] Deep
Response: Accepted Recommendation, see page 11, Table 2, Column 2, Row 7
- Recommendation: 92% of the citrus species of the Department or what you mean, please specify. Please include what are these citrus species (orange, mandarine, lemon....)
Response: Accepted Recommendation, see page lines 364.
- Recommendation: I cannot find some information about the size of these farms in ha. Please include an information about this.
Response: Accepted Recommendation, Table 4 is included, see pages 17-18.
- Recommendation: [change the word works to] studies
Response: Accepted Recommendation, see line 451.
- Recommendation: I understand that agrobiodiversity refers to different cultivated plant species in the farm, but you refer to technical terms?
Response: Accepted Recommendation, see page 21, lines 476-477.
- Recommendation: post-harvest in farm or where?
Response: Accepted Recommendation, see page 22, lines 514-515.
- Recommendation: [Change] (ton/ha) or (ton ha-1), Your have to standardize in the manuscript
Response: Accepted Recommendation, Standardized throughout the manuscript: ton/ha
- Recommendation: Please include in your paper the reference:
Cleves, J.A.; Toro, J.; Martínez, L.F. Agricultural water balances in agroclimatic simulation models. An analytical review. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Hortic. 2016, 10(1), 149-163, doi:10.17584/rcch.2016v10i1.4460, because it is related to the topic of this manuscript
Response: Accepted Recommendation, see Reference Number 6.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper “A method to assess agroecosystem resilience to climate variability” proposes an index to assess the resilience of agroecosystems to climate variability. The index – the Agroecosystem Resilience Index - is made up of a set of multidimensional indicators that give weight to the role they play in building the resilience of an agroecosystem. The index is then applied to a case study, specifically to some citrus production areas, to validate and test its ability to assess the resilience of these cultivations’ areas both in terms of productivity and profitability.
The first section of the paper is well organized and exhaustive although its readability could be improved reducing the sentences beginning with a number (instead of the author/authors name cited). The second section is well organized as well.
Case study (section 3) needs some clarifications:
- How many surveys were applied? 51 or 52?
- Which was the focus of the surveys?
- Who participate in the 10 community workshops? How were the data validated?
- Please explain better the concept of “recommendation domains”: it is not clear and how the 18 farms were selected.
As regarding the financial evaluation please specify why the fixed costs were not consider and clarify if the time horizon is linked to the plantation duration.
Some lines in the discussion section should be added to clarify how the financial performance is linked to the productivity. In other words, are the better/worst performances explained by the reduction in productivity terms?
Minor comments: check the translation of tab. 2
Author Response
Appreciated reviewer
We thank the Sustainability for the comments and the evaluators recommendations to improve the article, as well as the opportunity to publish the results of our research.
We have accepted all comments and recommendations, and the document was adjusted with the evaluators’ recommendations. We focus specifically on comments and recommendations.
The adjusted document is attached in review format.
Reviewer 2
Recommendation 1:
The first section of the paper is well organized and exhaustive although its readability could be improved reducing the sentences beginning with a number (instead of the author/authors name cited).
Response:
The entire manuscript was revised and all sentences beginning with a number were adjusted, the author's name and the year were included.
Recommendation 2:
Case study (section 3) needs some clarifications:
- How many surveys were applied? 51 or 52?
Response: 51 surveys were applied, see lines 365,380
- Which was the focus of the surveys?
Response:
The survey approach was explained, see lines 366-370: “The approach of the survey was based on identifying the specific knowledge and the resilience of the subject/object of study, in this case the citrus growers, who in the context of the theory of social-ecological systems have a greater attitude of learning and adaptation. Likewise, analyze the perception of the attributes (different variables) of the social and ecosystem components”.
- Who participate in the 10 community workshops? How were the data validated?
Response:
The respective clarifications were made, see lines 382-388
“In the structuring, validation, and adjustment of the survey, as well as in the presentation of the project and in the socialization of the results obtained, there was the active participation of specialists, technical assistants, researchers, marketers, producers and local communities. The data obtained in the survey were validated by consulting experts in 3 rounds, according to the protocols of the Delphi methodology.
The data was validated using specialized software (R v.9), the data obtained from the multivariate statistical analysis were validated”.
- Please explain better the concept of “recommendation domains”: it is not clear and how the 18 farms were selected.
Response:
The respective clarifications were made, see lines 395-410, Figure 6 was included.
For a better understanding, the dendrogram (Figure 6, page 17) allowed to visualize the formation of 6 typologies or groups of farmers with great similarity of the productive units within the group.
One of these groups, group 4 (Table X), was characterized by vertical integration between production and marketing at the agro-industrial level. This group was made up of 3 productive units and following the recommendations of the statisticians and with the aim of reducing dispersion and increasing reliability in each "recommendation domain" or group, the same number of productive units was selected, so they were selected. 18 farms (6 groups and in each group 3 farms).
A recommendation domain is defined as the way in which the groups are structured or grouped by their characteristics or attributes of homogeneity within the group and heterogeneity outside it ("ward" distance).
Recommendation 2:
As regarding the financial evaluation please specify why the fixed costs were not consider and clarify if the time horizon is linked to the plantation duration.
Response:
Fixed costs were included because they are essential in the financial analysis. This clarification was included in line 498.
The time horizon, because at that time the crop shows physiological maturity and productivity, which is expressed in a greater adaptation to environmental conditions. this clarification was included in line 517-519.
Recommendation 3:
Some lines in the discussion section should be added to clarify how the financial performance is linked to the productivity. In other words, are the better/worst performances explained by the reduction in productivity terms?
Minor comments: check the translation of Table. 2
Response:
This clarification was included in lines 604-618.
The AgRI allowed us to observe that the farms with greater resilience to climate variability had higher productivity and greater financial performance, among other reasons, because they used ecosystem, social and economic resources in a rational and efficient manner, this observation is consistent with the studies of:
We define resilience of a farming system as its ability to ensure the provision of the system functions in the face of increasingly complex and accumulating economic, social, environmental and institutional shocks and stresses, through capacities of robustness, adaptability and transformability” (Meuwissen et al., 2019, p. 1) [10]. “If agroecosystems are to continue to meet human needs, those who manage them must have their needs met as well. Farmers and farm workers should be able to make a living from work directly related to their labor, if they want to, without depending too much on off-farm income or subsidies” (Cabell & Oelofse, 2012. p.9) [26]. “[We define resilience as its] Ability to maintain desired levels of agricultural outputs despite the occurrence of perturbations” (Urruty et al., 2016, p.5) [54].
Translation of Table 2 verified
Reviewer 3 Report
A method to assess agroecosystem resilience to climate variability by Leguízamo et al is an well- structured manuscript. The authors has proposed a method to assesses the resilience of agroecosystems to climate variability. They have described the proposed method and then assessed the applicability using a case study. They have compared their method to other available established approaches. To asses the vulnarablity for any ecosystem to climate change is actually difficult. However, using some weighting indicators or measurable values is comparatively easier. In the proposed method the major concern is weighting depends on the interviewers because respondents could be influenced by their interests and background knowledge and could be biased by giving greater or lesser weight to indicators. To me, its still a better approach. Before accepting I have some minor suggestions:
1. Please avoid short paras throughout the manuscript.
2. Use correct form of citation in the text. For example 4. Financial evaluation of agroecosystems resilient to CV : [25] [p. 9] stated that resilient agroecosystems must be profitable. You should start a sentence with just a number.
3. I expect a comparative table showing advantages of your method over others.
Thank you
Author Response
Dear Sustainability Reviewer :
We thank the Sustainability for the comments and the evaluators recommendations to improve the article, as well as the opportunity to publish the results of our research.
We have accepted all comments and recommendations, and the document was adjusted with the evaluators’ recommendations. We focus specifically on comments and recommendations.
The adjusted document is attached in review format
Reviewer 3
Recommendation 1:
To assess the vulnerability [resilience] for any ecosystem to climate change is actually difficult. However, using some weighting indicators or measurable values is comparatively easier. In the proposed method the major concern is weighting depends on the interviewers because respondents could be influenced by their interests and background knowledge and could be biased by giving greater or lesser weight to indicators. To me, its still a better approach. Before accepting I have some minor suggestions:
Response:
The limitations of the expert consultation method have been recognized, and the clarification that following standardized protocols, the method generates key information for decision-making has also been included.
Accepted Recommendation, see page 23, lines 572-592.
Recommendation 2:
Please avoid short paras throughout the manuscript.
Response:
Accepted Recommendation
The entire document was revised and short paragraphs were corrected.
Recommendation 3:
Use correct form of citation in the text. For example 4. Financial evaluation of agroecosystems resilient to CV : [25] [p. 9] stated that resilient agroecosystems must be profitable. You should start a sentence with just a number.
Response:
The entire document was revised, and the citation format was corrected.
Recommendation 4:
I expect a comparative table showing advantages of your method over others.
Response:
The manuscript does not include a chapter with the comparison of methods to assess climate resilience, because the methods cited in line 91 [10,11,30–46] are significantly dedicated to the assessment of general resilience, not specific resilience to climate change. An overview of the SHARP method proposed by the FAO, which is specific to climate variability, and the approaches proposed by Meuwisen are included, as well as a chapter on the limits of AgRI, see lines 92-99; 572-592. AgRI was compared to SHARP, which was proposed by the FAO in 2015, whose main limitation is the 138 indicators used to measure the resilience of farmers and herders (Lines 556-559).
As a clarification, the paragraph of lines 559-568 was added.
“When analyzing the methodologies to evaluate the general resilience of agroecosystems, consulted in the literature review, regarding the proposed method (AgRI), the following differences could be evidenced: High number of components and synthetic variables; Simultaneous evaluation of components in different categories; Lack of or moderate weighting of the social ecological components makes analysis and applicability difficult; If system components have identical, linear response capacities, the method ignores the reality that the components of any system have differential attributes associated with their nature and composition; Lack of validation; They do not consider the specific resilience to climate variability”.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
thank you for providing this new version of the paper. All comments have been addressed. Good luck!
