Limiting Factors and Environmental Adaptability for Staple Crops in Kazakhstan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Increasing food productivity in Kazakhstan through spatial reorganization of major food crops under existing cropland conditions would help alleviate global food pressure. Therefore, authors want to elucidate the factors restricting Kazakhstan's food productivity and propose reasonable countermeasures, based on food production structure based yearbooks and conduct Correlation and stepwise regression methods.

However, some major issues need to be improved:

1. the data span from 2010 to 2019. How to explain the short research data?

2. where is the Figure 7? The figure number is confusion. Please check carefully.

3. The description of overview is not comprehensive enough and need to complete it.

4. Since different factors have different units, normalization is required. Is there collinearity between all factors? Collinearity test is required.

5. I think the research title is inconsistent with the research content. Need to check it and improve it.

6. the discussion is incomplete.

7. line 368-369 mentioned data limitation. I want to know what limitation exist in our paper in details.

 the quality of English needs improving.

8. What the line 372-374 want to express? Future work?

9. What is the reasoning behind section5.2 and line 338-339 decisions?

10. Only the S score can represent the spatial reconstruction of food crops in Kazakhstan?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please check attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

According to both content and observable quality, the article is highly interesting. Literature on the subject is extensive and up-to-date and shows that the authors have done an excellent job in preparing the analysis.

However, I made a few minor suggestions.

1.   It is recommended to use the most up-to-date data. In accordance with the FAO website, the authors should update lines 42-45. Source: https://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=KAZ&lang=ru

2. In line number 66 authors should include the yield gap (YG) theory. For a general audience, it would be easier to understand.
3. In line number 85 research report name should be included. However, Reference number 15 is not available online. Please update the URL. https://cn.knoema.com//atlas/topics/Agriculture/Crop production/Cereals
4. In line number. 119 appropriate references should be used for yield gap definition.

Author Response

Thank you very much for checking our manuscript, your comments are very detailed. Your comments make our manuscript more up-to-date and detailed expression more perfect.

1. It is recommended to use the most up-to-date data. In accordance with the FAO website, the authors should update lines 42-45. Source: https://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=KAZ&lang=ru

The corresponding content in the introduction has been modified as follows:

According to FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) statistics [6], total 2021, cereal production is estimated at about 17 × 106 t, among them, wheat is about 12 × 106 t, and barley is about 3 × 106 t; cereal exports in the 2021/22 marketing year (July/June) are forecast at about 7.5 × 106 t, among them, wheat is about 6.5 × 106 t, barley is about 80 × 106 t. Due to high temperatures and insufficient rainfall in April and August, Kazakhstan's cereal production and export volume drop significantly in 2021, but it still make a great contribution to world food security.

2. In line number 66 authors should include the yield gap (YG) theory. For a general audience, it would be easier to understand.

We changed that to “yield gap theory (YGT)”, and checked the contents of the subsequent text.

3. In line number 85 research report name should be included. However, Reference number 15 is not available online. Please update the URL. https://cn.knoema.com//atlas/topics/Agriculture/Crop production/Cereals

I'm sorry, this website has become registered and paid in 2022. But when we browsed it in June 2021, it was public welfare.

So we made the following adjustments to the references, there is no charge for opening to this step:

15. 15.Agriculture- Crop production » Yield (metric tons) - Cereal, 2020 - knoema.com Available online: https://cn.knoema.com//atlas/topics/Agriculture (accessed on 30 July 2022).
16. 17.Agriculture - Trade » Export volume- Cereal, 2020 - knoema.com Available online: https://cn.knoema.com//atlas/topics/Agriculture (accessed on 30 July 2022).
17. In line number. 119 appropriate references should be used for yield gap definition.

We have rewritten the overview section, mainly to improve the definition, the summary and classification of the factors to make the paragraphs more logical and fit the selection of indicators in this study.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. chek the abstract amd key words carafully.

2.  I think the overview is still not comprehensive enough. 

must to explain previous and present theoretical background clearly and cited relevant references on the topic comprehensively.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your reminders and suggestions on this manuscript. This revision is marked in green.

1. We checked the abstract, keywords and conclusion.

2. We added the history of YG's proposal and development, increased the amount of literature, and added cites in Table 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

Dear Authors,
the manuscript is much improved but there is the need for some minor corrections in order to meet journal standards, specifically there are some typos (i.e., row 259: "... rather than the single-crop approach used prior research" should be "... rather than the single-crop approach used in prior research (I personally would prefer PREVIOUS STUDIES); row 64 "A yield gap ..." insert here "(YG)" instead then at row 76).

Moreover, in my opinion, after the introduction there should be a paragraph commenting on the current production scenario in Kazakhstan, presenting the data currently reported in the introduction (with a graph) and in paragraph 3.1. These latter are not research results, they are secondary data processed by the authors; they would be better placed in a paragraph following the introduction and preceding the materials and methods.

Thank you

Author Response

1. The manuscript is much improved but there is the need for some minor corrections in order to meet journal standards, specifically there are some typos (i.e., row 259: "... rather than the single-crop approach used prior research" should be "... rather than the single-crop approach used in prior research (I personally would prefer PREVIOUS STUDIES); row 64 "A yield gap ..." insert here "(YG)" instead then at row 76).

We have modified the sentence to “(1) Three representative crops were considered rather than the single-crop approach used in previous studies. “

We have also included an explanation for our choice of “yield gap theory” and redefined YP at its first mention. “Exploring production potential by improving food productivity will effectively alleviate food pressure and curb environmental deterioration. Standard production includes potential research methods such as the crop growth model [11], machine learning simulation [12], and yield gap (YG) theory. Among these, the YG theory is more comprehensive and widely used. A yield gap is defined as the difference between the attainable and current productivity of an agricultural product.

2. Moreover, in my opinion, after the introduction there should be a paragraph commenting on the current production scenario in Kazakhstan, presenting the data currently reported in the introduction (with a graph) and in paragraph 3.1. These latter are not research results, they are secondary data processed by the authors; they would be better placed in a paragraph following the introduction and preceding the materials and methods.

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. According to your suggestions, we have adjusted the structure of the article as follows:

1. Introduction
2. Grain production status in Kazakhstan
   • Grain productivity level of Kazakhstan
   • Grain production structure in Kazakhstan
   • Grain production layout in Kazakhstan
3. Materials and Methods

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper entitled "Crop spatial reconstruction in Kazakhstan based on yield gap", which has two stated objectives, namely; Clarifying the limiting factors of grain production in Kazakhstan, and designing a new layout of environmentally adaptive grain production through HCA and normalized score?
The study indeed covers a pertinent issue of the yield gap. However, on the ground of weak scientific soundness on the methodology/data analysis part, lack of coherence between the figures in the figure and text, and several inconsistencies.

Please refer to the attachment for specific comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which are of great help to improve the manuscript. The specific content is in the word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

The article requires a bit restructuring and a deeper explanation of some sections, especially to show its methodological soundness.

Title

I suggest simplifying it by removing the reference to yield gap. Also, provided that you are studying cereals, maybe the title can be more explicit; for example: spatial reconstruction of cereal cropping in K.

Abstract

The link between the statement of the problem and the selection of K. as an important country that is worth investigating is not clear.

Line 12: here you should say how you propose to address the problem, not research gaps, which has more to do with the innovativeness of the presented research.

Lines 19-22: I suggest revising the order of sentences:

“The current planting distribution in Kazakhstan is suboptimal. The key limiting factors of wheat and barley production are water shortage and soil alkalization. The ideal geographical crop configuration is “Northern Wheat, Southern Barley and Wheat, and Western Potatoes,” based on the regional environmental conditions. Water-saving irrigation and runoff agriculture, food crop planting layout optimization, organic fertilizer promotion, drought-resistant crop variety cultivation, and agricultural technology training must be prioritized to overcome crop yield constraints in Kazakhstan.”

The objective of the study is missing.

Introduction

Lines 29-37 are the statement of the problem. However, the problem is presented in very general terms and it should be given context, consistently with the objective of this research.

Lines 38-48: I think this part can be deleted from the introduction.

Line 57: what does “Residual environmental problems” mean?

Line 64: the introduction of the “yield gap” is not clear and should be linked with the rationale behind case study selection (lines 49-63). A rationale behind the selection of the research approach should be presented, including a (very short) comparison of the pros and cons of alternative approaches.

The objective of the study is missing.

Materials and methods

Please move the explanation of research methods before data.

Line 106: to understand how “The 20 possible yield impact factors are selected, including five aspects: climate, soil, management, facility, and market” you should at least describe briefly the complete dataset; then you should explain how the selection was done and how you know that these are impact factors.

Lines 113-114: “WY, BY, PY, and 13 independent variables were subjected to OLS and stepwise  regression using the 2010–2019 data.” I think this sentence can be deleted

Line 118: which states?

“The centroid method performed a HCA on 12 influencing factors.” This requires explanation; then, please show the results here.

Please show correlation results here and describe the regression model (formula+variables). If correlation analysis is the tool to select regression variables then it is not part of research results.

Results

“3.1. Current situation of grain production in Kazakhstan” this is not explained in the methods, so how can it be a result?

Lines 152-167: please move this part to the methods

Missing explanations in the methods section makes reading model results a bit difficult.

Figure 6 is very difficult to understand. Can you please find a way to display all states on a single graph?

Conclusions

Lines 327-334: can you please revise this part by being more explicit on the key findings of your research?

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which are of great help to improve the manuscript. The specific content is in the word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the effort the authors have made in responding to the comments. Unfortunately, I found the responses not well organized and even not convincing. Surprisingly, the comments received from the co-author? or editor?, which I guess appeared accidentally in the submitted version, if not due to the negligence, are so valuable but were ignored while revising the paper. Moreover, there is not much improvement in the methodology section. On these grounds, I still believe that the paper does not meet the standard of this journal.

Thank you.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. Please see the attachment.