Modelling Neglected and Underutilised Crops: A Systematic Review of Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

The manuscript “Modelling neglected and underutilised crops: a systematic review of progress, challenges, and opportunities” summarized 169 modeling studies for neglected and underutilized crops. In general, it is a well-written manuscript and would be of general interest to the audience of Sustainability. I have some small suggestions/ minor revision requests to perhaps help the authors further improve their manuscript. In particular, I would like to see some additional analysis based on the extracted studies.

Specific comments:

L23. Add a sentence stating number of studies reviewed in this work.

L87. Explain what ‘not registered’ means here.

L97. Adjust format.

Figure 2. Explain ‘automation tool’. Missing an arrow before “reports not retrieved’. Delete “**” after “excluded”.

L125. Add reference for the software.

L167. Add figures/ tables about the analysis results, such as % of studies using different models and studies included % different classes of model input variables/ parameters. Consider moving some information from the SI to the main texts.

L227. Explain what type of advancement.

L250. Could you give an estimation about how often it happens that NUS parameters are not included in data folder of these models?

L321. Expand what type of developments and add citations.

Table 1. Could you add a table/ figure showing different parameters and how often they are considered in these models for NUS? How does that compare with the general usage for major crops?

Author Response

Reviewer’s comment
L87. Explain what ‘not registered’ means here.

Response

Not registered means the rational and methodology used in the study were not submitted for evaluation/publication prior to commencement of the systematic review. Registration of systematic reviews is not mandatory but helps to avoid duplicate work. However, the main trade-off is it is costly, and the processing time is long

Reviewer’s comment
L97. Adjust format.

Response

Format has been adjusted

Reviewer’s comment
Figure 2. Explain ‘automation tool’. Missing an arrow before “reports not retrieved’. Delete “**” after “excluded”.

Response

Thank for the comment. Arrow has been added and “**” after “excluded” removed. See revised Figure 2. No automation tool was used, the statement has been removed from the manuscript.

Reviewer’s comment
L125. Add reference for the software.

Response

Reference for VOSviewer added.

Reviewer’s comment
L167. Add figures/ tables about the analysis results, such as % of studies using different models and studies included % different classes of model input variables/ parameters. Consider moving some information from the SI to the main texts.

Response

We acknowledge the comment by the reviewer. We have added Figure 2 and 3

Reviewer’s comment
L227. Explain what type of advancement.

Response

Advancements in ICT that promote digitalization of agriculture such as data sharing platforms that aid farmers in decision-making e.g digital extension and digital marketing. We have added an explanation of the types of advancements in the manuscript. See section ‘The role of Information and Computer Technologies and data management, paragraph 2’.

Reviewer’s comment

L250. Could you give an estimation about how often it happens that NUS parameters are not included in data folder of these models?

Response

Crop models generally have one crop growth model that simulates various crops based on unique parameter values for each crop. While specific crop parameters are widely available for the major crops such as maize such parameters are difficult to find for NUS. Very often, NUS parameters are not included in the usual standard crop data folder that comes with most models.

Reviewer’s comment
L321. Expand what type of developments and add citations.

Response

We acknowledge the comment. The following state “For instance, genetic-map construction, which is a critically tool for in-depth genomic studies, has been done for economically important crop species [83]” has been added


Reviewer’s comment

Table 1. Could you add a table/ figure showing different parameters and how often they are considered in these models for NUS? How does that compare with the general usage for major crops?

Response

Crop model parameters are specific values that describe the growth and development of each crop. Examples of crop parameters include Radiation Use Efficiency, Optimal Temperature for photosynthesis, Biomass-energy ratio, and Harvest index. A minimum number of crop parameters are usually required for each specific crop to run the simulation. Crop parameters are usually determined by extensive calibration and validation or by experiment. Because of the limited research on crop modelling of NUS, specific parameters for most NUS are scarce. We have however; added the following “From the survey of 167 papers published on modelling NUS, re-searchers considered a wide range of issues. These included the effects of water-use efficiency [49] nitrogen-use efficiency [50], phosphorus-uptake [51], solar radiation [52,53], yield gaps [54–56], planting densities [57] and growing crops in marginal environments [58,59]. Sorghum had most of the themes identified, followed by millet and cowpea. The observed large number of themes is consistent with the number of articles on modelling sorghum. The geographic importance of sorghum makes it underutilised as it has a high economic value in northern and western Africa but remains a minor crop in central and southern Africa (Leff et al., 2004). Also, the advancements in sorghum modelling are attributed to its inclusion in global research initiatives as an alternative biofuel and fod-der crop for maize, especially under climate risk.” A figure has also been added in support

Reviewer 2 Report

The review article comprehensively synthesized the Modelling of neglected and underutilised crops and their progress, challenges, and opportunities. The methodology is sound and well executed. The study reports that several models exists but not all can be used to enhance knowledge in the area. There are weaknesses and needs to consult experts and stakeholders to develop robust and versatile crop models for future progress in NUS.

A good study and worth publishing. 

Author Response

Thank for the comment. We are happy to know that you have found the publication useful and worthy for publication