Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-          This paper correspond for scope of journal.

-          The title corresponds to the content of the paper. 

-          This study represents a significant contribution to the development of prediction method in grain production on the base production area agricultural mechanization (tractors and other machines per hectare) in aim to develop policy in agricultural sector in Turkey.

-          The main question of paper  addressed to study impact of tractors, production area, other agricultural mechanization, fertilizer and carbon emission on yield and grain quality and quantity, their relationship which estimated by model of autoregressive distributed lag bounds (ARDL). 

-          The aim of research  is not clearly and fully pointed out  on the end of chapter of Introduction

-          The rule is that aim of study need write  on the end of chapter of introduction.

-          Should be pointed out aim of investigation at the end of Chapter of introduction. *

-          Key words are appropriate, but should be write single key word.

-          Scientific methodology is applied correctly for this type of study.

-          Results are clearly presented and discussed.

-          Tables, figures, pictures are clear.

-          The conclusions are clear, but should be shorter and more precisely based on research results

-          Manuscript is acceptable after minor corrections, but not in this Journal!

Suggestion:

From line 445 to 448 – “The study aimed to evaluate the determinants of grain production in Turkey by analyzing the long-run and causality relationships between the amount of grain produced in Turkey, the amount of fertilizer used in agriculture, the number of tractors and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and the area where grain is produced between 1988 and 2018.” – don’t belong to chapter Conlusion- Should be removed (delete) from chapter Conclusion and can use for presenting aim of study (on the end of chapter of Introcuction/ but should be modify).

From line 449 to 452 – “Cointegration analysis was performed to understand the long-run effects of independent variables on grain production areas, and causality tests were used to investigate

the direction of the relationships between variables. The stationarity of the variables' order is decisive in both cointegration analysis and causality tests. Therefore, first, unit root tests.” - don’t belong to chapter Conlusion- Should be removed (delete) from chapter Conclusion. This text is more applicable in Material and Methods or for Discusion.

 

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

This paper corresponds for scope of journal.

The title corresponds to the content of the paper. 

This study represents a significant contribution to the development of prediction method in grain production on the base production area agricultural mechanization (tractors and other machines per hectare) in aim to develop policy in agricultural sector in Turkey.

The main question of paper addressed to study impact of tractors, production area, other agricultural mechanization, fertilizer and carbon emission on yield and grain quality and quantity, their relationship which estimated by model of autoregressive distributed lag bounds (ARDL). 

 The aim of research is not clearly and fully pointed out  on the end of chapter of Introduction

-          The rule is that aim of study need write on the end of chapter of introduction.

-          Should be pointed out aim of investigation at the end of Chapter of introduction. *

 

Response to Reviewer #1:

 

We have added to the last paragraph of page 4 (The study aimed to evaluate the determinants of grain production in Turkey by analyzing the long-run and causality relationships between the amount of grain produced in Turkey, the amount of fertilizer used in agriculture, the number of tractors and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and the area where grain is produced between 1988 and 2018.)

 

-     Key words are appropriate, but should be write single key word.

Response to Reviewer #1: Thanks for your suggestion High-impact manuscripts on ARDL were examined, so the keywords were prepared accordingly.

 

-          Scientific methodology is applied correctly for this type of study.

-          Results are clearly presented and discussed.

-          Tables, figures, pictures are clear.

-          The conclusions are clear, but should be shorter and more precisely based on research results

 

Response to Reviewer #1:

 

We deleted it from the Conclusions section:

 

From line 458 to 459. (A 1% increase in grain production leads to a decrease of approximately 0,30% in grain production areas.)

 

From line 453 to 456. (The test results demonstrate that some series are stationary in the I(1), and some are stationary in the I(0). For this reason, the ARDL bounds test cointegration approach and the Toda-Yamamoto causality test techniques that do not require the variables to be in the same order of integration.)

 

From line 485 to 491. (The Toda-Yamamoto causality test results are significant in revealing that grain production areas may be in a feedback relationship with agricultural inputs and grain production. Although many studies demonstrate the causal relationships between grain production and agricultural inputs when the literature is reviewed, studies examining the relationships between grain production areas and agricultural inputs are limited. This study guides researchers to explore the relationships between grain production areas and agricultural inputs by revealing the potential in this field.)

 

Response to Reviewer #1:  Thanks for your kind compliments. Much appreciated

 

Reviewer #1:  Suggestion:

 

From line 445 to 448 – “The study aimed to evaluate the determinants of grain production in Turkey by analyzing the long-run and causality relationships between the amount of grain produced in Turkey, the amount of fertilizer used in agriculture, the number of tractors and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and the area where grain is produced between 1988 and 2018.” – don’t belong to chapter Conclusion- Should be removed (delete) from chapter Conclusion and can use for presenting aim of study (on the end of chapter of Introcuction/ but should be modify).

 

Response to  Reviewer #1: We deleted it from the Conclusions section

 

From line 449 to 452 – “Cointegration analysis was performed to understand the long-run effects of independent variables on grain production areas, and causality tests were used to investigate the direction of the relationships between variables. The stationarity of the variables' order is decisive in both cointegration analysis and causality tests. Therefore, first, unit root tests.” - don’t belong to chapter Conclusion- Should be removed (delete) from chapter Conclusion. This text is more applicable in Material and Methods or for Discusion.

 

Response to  Reviewer #1: We deleted it from the Conclusions section

Thanks for your kind compliments. Much appreciated

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an interesting study of the factors determining the volume of grain production in Turkey. The methods used are correct. It is important to underline that the authors based their study on data for a period of 30 years which is necessary to reach valid and useful conclusions.

In my opinion the paper is well written and there is no need for significant changes and modifications. There is only need to make the language more precise as there appear such phrases as "relationship between grain production and grain production areas". It is not clear what exactly is meant by the "grain production" - is it total amount?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #2: 

The paper presents an interesting study of the factors determining the volume of grain production in Turkey. The methods used are correct. It is important to underline that the authors based their study on data for a period of 30 years which is necessary to reach valid and useful conclusions.

 

In my opinion the paper is well written and there is no need for significant changes and modifications. There is only need to make the language more precise as there appear such phrases as "relationship between grain production and grain production areas". It is not clear what exactly is meant by the "grain production" - is it total amount?

 

Response to  Reviewer #2

 

We appreciate your positive assessment and understand your clarity about specific phrases. We all need to refine the language for precision. We all acknowledge the ambiguity in the expression 'relationship between grain production and grain production areas' In order to provide further clarity, we have made the following changes to specify whether we are referring to the total quantity of grain production or another factor:

 

From line 8 to 10 - [The study aims to evaluate the long-run and causality relationships between the annual grain production (kg per hectare) in Turkey, fertilizer used in agriculture, the number of tractors, agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and grain production area from 1988-2018.]

 

From line 23 to 25 - [There is a negative relationship between grain production (kg per hectare) and grain production areas. A 1% increase in grain production (kg per hectare) leads to a decrease of approximately 0,30% in grain production areas (hectares).]

 

From line 129 to 131 - [Koondharet al.[40] found out that the relationship between grain production (mt), agricultural carbon emissions, grain cultivated area (square km), and food production index was estimated using ARDL and VECM models.]

 

From line 131 to 133 - [ARDL long-run estimation showed that grain-cultivated land and food production index variables had a statistically significant and positive relationship with amount of grain production (mt).]

 

From line 134 to 135 - [In contrast, carbon emissions negatively and statistically significantly affected grain production area (Square. Km).]”

 

From line 139 to 141 - [The results showed that the increase in temperature affected cultivated land under grain production (hectares) negatively, whereas the increase in carbon emissions and precipitation positively affected production area.”

 

From line 379 to 380 - [Koondhar et al.[40] revealed that grain production (mt) significantly affects grain production areas (square km).”

 

From line 383 to 384 - [Chandio et al.[38] found the effect of land under grain production (hectares) on grain yield (kg per hectare) to be negative.]

 

From line 460 to 462 - [As long as the need for different crops like forage crops and grain imports continues in Turkey, it can be concluded that amount of production increases will continue to reduce grain production areas.]

 Thanks for your kind compliments. Much appreciated

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper: Grain Production in the Presence of Climate Change with ARDL Approach

This paper aims to evaluate the long-run and causality relationships between grain production in Turkey, fertilizer use in agriculture, the number of tractors, agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and grain production area from 1988-2018. The study specifically investigates grain production in the context of climate change.

Comments:

1. The title indicates climate change, which is a broad term. Consider a more specific title, such as "Grain Production and Its Environmental Drivers."

2. The author should explain why these variables were selected and others omitted, such as changing grain prices, water availability, drought, and input prices. Addressing these factors will provide a more comprehensive understanding of production dynamics.

3. Reference: The citation for "Abate and Kuang [34]" is not active in the text.

4. Clarification: The study's goal should be explained at the end of the "Introduction" section, before the "Materials and Methods." Currently, it is placed in the middle of the references.

5. The authors use the indicator "Number of Trucks" without mentioning the power of the tractor. It's crucial to explain the power details, as farmers use tractors with varying power levels. Consider providing details on tractor power, possibly using the total number of watts instead of the number of tractors.

6. In lines 351-354, some arrows need to be deleted from the text.

7. Table 5. Long-Run and Short-Run Estimation Results for the ARDL (2,3,3,1,1) Model:

8. The result shows that lnTRK in the long term was 0.638938***, and in the short term, it was D(lnTRK) Negative -0.118232. Please provide an explanation for this.

9. The conclusion is lengthy and seems more like a discussion. Consider refining the conclusion to be more concise.

10. The authors focused on the relationship between production and carbon emissions in general. It would be beneficial to show the trend and sources of carbon from grain and different resources to enhance understanding.

 

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

1. The title indicates climate change, which is a broad term. Consider a more specific title, such as "Grain Production and Its Environmental Drivers."

 

Response to Reviewer #3: We appreciated for your title suggestion and changed our manuscript title according to your suggestion.

 

“Grain Production in Turkey and its Environmental Drivers Using ARDL in the Age of Climate Change”

2. The author should explain why these variables were selected and others omitted, such as changing grain prices, water availability, drought, and input prices. Addressing these factors will provide a more comprehensive understanding of production dynamics.

 

Response to Reviewer #3: We have added to the last paragraph of Conclusions:

The study significantly explains the main factors affecting grain production areas. However, due to data limitations and low sample size, which are the main limitations of the study, many potential factors and analysis methods were not included in the study. These potential factors include changing grain prices, water availability, drought and input prices, and we believe that their use in future studies will make significant contributions to the literature if the data constraint is eliminated.

 

3. Reference: The citation for "Abate and Kuang [34]" is not active in the text.

 

Response to Reviewer #3: Abate and Kuang [34] on page 3 and page 12 became active.

 

4. Clarification: The study's goal should be explained at the end of the "Introduction" section, before the "Materials and Methods." Currently, it is placed in the middle of the references.

 

Response to Reviewer #3: 445-452 we deleted page 4 we added it as the last paragraph

The study aimed to evaluate the determinants of grain production in Turkey by analyzing the long-run and causality relationships between the amount of grain produced in Turkey, the amount of fertilizer used in agriculture, the number of tractors and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and the area where grain is produced between 1988 and 2018.

 

5. The authors use the indicator "Number of Trucks" without mentioning the power of the tractor. It's crucial to explain the power details, as farmers use tractors with varying power levels. Consider providing details on tractor power, possibly using the total number of watts instead of the number of tractors.

 

Response to Reviewer #3: Accessing data in underdeveloped and developing countries such as Turkey can be challenging. Especially when we want to obtain a 30-year data set, the chance to find complete data would be impossible. Therefore, the data that had been published by the state's official statistics agency had to be taken as basis. Also ın Turkey, many farmers believe that having new and powerful tractors as an indicator of prestige among their peers. Which would make using tractor’s power levels unreliable. Also depending on the policy of import taxation, and annual taxes of motor vehicles most of the tractors sold in the country have the same sort of   engine and horsepower levels.  Consequently, there were no available 30 year data that shows the power or watt levels of tractors to be used in the study.

 

6. In lines 351-354, some arrows need to be deleted from the text.

 

Response to Reviewer #3: The arrows on page 11 have been deleted.

 

7. Table 5. Long-Run and Short-Run Estimation Results for the ARDL (2,3,3,1,1) Model:

 

Response to Reviewer #3:Variable LnCO₂ in the Long-run Estimation Results for the ARDL (2,3,3,1,1) Model table on page 16 has been changed to lnCO₂.

 

8. The result shows that lnTRK in the long term was 0.638938***, and in the short term, it was D(lnTRK) Negative -0.118232. Please provide an explanation for this.

 

Response to Reviewer #3: We have added to the last paragraph of discussion: The positive long-run coefficient of the tractor variable shows that it has a long-run positive impact on the production area, which is the dependent variable and this impact is statistically significant. This points out that there will be an increase in the long-run in area under grain production if number of tractors increase. On the other hand, negative short-run coefficient shows that tractor numbers (independent variable) have a short-run negative effect on grain production area (dependent variable). This indicates that momentary changes in tractor numbers, causes an increase or a decrease in grain production area in the short-run. Even though the short-run effect is negative, this effect is not statistically significant. In this case, the short-run effect can be said to be random. In conclusion, positive long-run and negative short-run coefficients, shows that the relationship between these two variables is complex and prone to change over time.

 

9. The conclusion is lengthy and seems more like a discussion. Consider refining the conclusion to be more concise.

Response to Reviewer #3: The texts in the conclusion section and related to the introduction and discussion section of this study were deleted.

10. The authors focused on the relationship between production and carbon emissions in general. It would be beneficial to show the trend and sources of carbon from grain and different resources to enhance understanding.

 

Response to Reviewer #3: We have added to the last paragraph to the Conclusions: In addition, our causality test results, which reveal that grain production and tractor use are the cause of carbon emissions, indicate that we can obtain important information with a cointegration analysis in which carbon emissions are also considered as a dependent variable. In this way, not only the effect of emissions on grain production but also the effect of grain production on emissions can be explained. However, the stationarity level of our data and sample length are not sufficient to apply multiple cointegration approaches such as the Johansen approach.

Thanks for your kind compliments. Much appreciated

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf