Enhancing Water Use Efficiency and Carbon Profitability Through the Long-Term Impact of Sustainable Farming Systems
, M. A. M. Moursy 5,6 and Ramy Mohamed 7
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe document is good but to be published I recommend some modifications:
-Suggest that they provide a more detailed description of the experimental procedures in the "Material and Method" section, including information on the experimental design, sample size, analysis methods used, and any control variables.
One solution is to place a paragraph at the end of the introduction also making the novelty clear.
-It is recommended that you read a couple of interesting references for your document. A novel way to consider is to use that energy, for example the knowledge of turbines Rodríguez-Pérez, A. M., Rodríguez-Gonzalez, C. A., López, R., Hernández-Torres, J. A., & Caparrós-Mancera, J. J. (2023). Water microturbines for sustainable applications: optimization analysis and experimental validation. Water Resources Management, 1-15. Another reference to take into account Chacón, M. C., Díaz, J. A. R., Morillo, J. G., & McNabola, A. (2020). Hydropower energy recovery in irrigation networks: Validation of a methodology for flow prediction and pump as turbine selection. Renewable Energy, 147, 1728-1738.
-Statistical Analysis: Recommends that they carry out a more exhaustive statistical analysis of the data and present the results more clearly. This may include the inclusion of statistical significance values, confidence intervals
-The discussions section is poor. It might be advisable to create a separate section.
Author Response
Response to reviewers' comments 1
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2898396
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Enhancing water use efficiency and carbon profitability through the long-term impact of sustainable farming systems
Q1. Suggest that provide a more detailed description of the experimental procedures in the "Material and Method" section, including information on the experimental design, sample size, analysis methods used, and any control variables. One solution is to place a paragraph at the end of the introduction also making the novelty clear.
A1. Information has already been added in Materials and Methods to clarify the experimental design, sample size, analysis methods used, and how water was controlled. Also, a paragraph was added at the end of the introduction to clarify this, in addition to clarifying what is novelty in the research.
Q2. It is recommended that you read a couple of interesting references for your document. A novel way to consider is to use that energy, for example the knowledge of turbines Rodríguez-Pérez, A. M., Rodríguez-Gonzalez, C. A., López, R., Hernández-Torres, J. A., & Caparrós-Mancera, J. J. (2023). Water microturbines for sustainable applications: optimization analysis and experimental validation. Water Resources Management, 1-15. Another reference to take into account Chacón, M. C., Díaz, J. A. R., Morillo, J. G., & McNabola, A. (2020). Hydropower energy recovery in irrigation networks: Validation of a methodology for flow prediction and pump as turbine selection. Renewable Energy, 147, 1728-1738.
A2. Indeed, references have been utilized in preparing the novel of this current research and a final paragraph has been added to the introduction.
Q3. Statistical Analysis: Recommends that they carry out a more exhaustive statistical analysis of the data and present the results more clearly. This may include the inclusion of statistical significance values, confidence intervals.
A3. The statistical analysis has already been explained in the results and the confidence intervals used are set at 5%.
Q4. The discussions section is poor. It might be advisable to create a separate section.
A4. The discussion has already been supported by more evidence, previous studies and justifications for the results obtained.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, the authors reported the results of their study. The long-term effects of three farming systems (Biodynamic, Organic and Conventional) were studied, including water use efficiency, crop yield, carbon profitability and cost estimation.
The results indicated that the Biodynamic is best, Organic next, then Conventional is last.
The section of “2. Materials and Methods” described all methods in detail. However, all the data were too perfect. An important factor was not considered, the time.
In Figures 3, 4, 6, and 7, cumulative soil carbon sequestration increases year by year, same as Cumulative mitigation of CO2, Yield of maize and faba bean crops, and water use efficiency. Why do the cultivating years enhance all results?
Please check all possible factors and support the evidence, and rewrote the sections “3. Results and discussion” and “4. ”Conclusion”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Response to reviewers' comments 2
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2898396
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Enhancing water use efficiency and carbon profitability through the long-term impact of sustainable farming systems
Q1. The section of “2. Materials and Methods” described all methods in detail. However, all the data were too perfect. An important factor was not considered, the time.
A1. Experiments as described in the Materials and Methods section were conducted over six consecutive growing seasons to monitor the effect of the sustainable systems compared to the conventional system.
Q2. In Figures 3, 4, 6, and 7, cumulative soil carbon sequestration increases year by year, same as Cumulative mitigation of CO2, Yield of maize and faba bean crops, and water use efficiency. Why do the cultivating years enhance all results?
A2. As mentioned in the obtained results, these improvements during the years of cultivation are due to the fact that the use of farming systems and growing crops for successive 6 years has a significant impact in increasing the percentage of organic matter and thus the total carbon in the soil, which is reflected in crop productivity. It also helps to reduce the environmental impact by mitigating the carbon dioxide, in addition to improving the organic matter in the soil increases the water holding capacity and thus reduces amount of water applied.
Q3. Please check all possible factors and support the evidence, and rewrote the sections “3. Results and discussion” and “4. ”Conclusion”
A3. The results and discussion section has already been supported by further evidence, previous studies and justifications for the results obtained, in addition to the conclusion.
Q4. Minor editing of English language required
A4. The manuscript has been paraphrased and edited in English language.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript reports a study of the effects of the biodynamic system on soil properties and water conservation compared to other farming systems.
The topic is very interesting and topical.
The introduction is very well written with appropriate and up-to-date bibliographical references. The materials are carefully described and the experimental methodology is suitable for research.
Overall, the manuscript is well prepared and not far from being ready for publication.
However, the methodology for statistical testing of the data has not been reported, and tests of statistical significance between means have not been reported in some tables, nor have tests to assess the distribution of the data.
I would also point out that Figure 1 needs to be enlarged or the details made more legible.
Table 1 shows the results, which are probably averages, but indicators of variability should also be reported.
Variability should also be reported in Table 2 and Table 3. The test in this table is LSD, but the meaning of the asterisks must be indicated.
In Figures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 the variability lines must be reported.
The variability of the results is very important because it makes it possible to understand whether the true difference between the means is dominant or whether the value within replications is excessively variable.
Author Response
Response to reviewers' comments 3
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2898396
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Enhancing water use efficiency and carbon profitability through the long-term impact of sustainable farming systems
Q1. The methodology for statistical testing of the data has not been reported, and tests of statistical significance between means have not been reported in some tables, nor have tests to assess the distribution of the data.
A1. Already, the statistical testing methodology has been reported with clarifying the confidence intervals at 5%.
Q2. Figure 1 needs to be enlarged or the details made more legible.
A2. Figure 1. shows a schematic of the drip irrigation system under study, enlarged and some details added for clarify.
Q3. Table 1 shows the results, which are probably averages, but indicators of variability should also be reported.
A3. Indeed, the amount of variation of the different indicators compared to the initial measurements under the different farming systems is added in Table 1 of the manuscript.
Q4. Variability should also be reported in Table 2 and Table 3. The test in this table is LSD, but the meaning of the asterisks must be indicated.
A4. The variability in Tales 2 & 3 has already been clarified, as well as LSD at 5% and the meaning of the asterisks.
Q5. In Figures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 the variability lines must be reported.
A5. The variability lines for the figures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are already done.
Q6. The variability of the results is very important because it makes it possible to understand whether the true difference between the means is dominant or whether the value within replications is excessively variable.
A6. The variability of the results obtained was added
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSome of the previous reviews have not been done.
No new recommended turbine references have been added. There being very few references for a paper of this magnitude.
The discussions section has not been created and this part is still poor.
Author Response
Q1. Some of the previous reviews have not been done.
A1. All previous reviews have been done; The statistical analysis has already been explained in the results; Information has already been added in Materials and Methods to clarify the experimental design, sample size, analysis methods used, and how water was controlled. Also, a paragraph was added at the end of the introduction to clarify this, in addition to clarifying what is novelty in the research (This section has been prepared using recommended submitted research) .
Q2. No new recommended turbine references have been added. There being very few references for a paper of this magnitude.
A2. Incorporating references to turbine technology, we consider it as part of our future work to improve irrigation system efficiency and have already been added to the manuscript. However, it has not been included as a reference as it stands as an independent endeavor distinct from the primary research objective. Nevertheless, following the first revision, we have integrated two additional references into the manuscript
Q3. The discussions section has not been created and this part is still poor.
A3. Based on the initial review, it is suggested that a separate section may be advisable. However, it is worth noting that the discussion has been substantiated by additional evidence, previous studies, and justifications for the results obtained, even without the creation of a separate section. From our perspective, the quality of the discussion remains consistent whether it is integrated within the results section or presented separately. Moreover, this approach aligns with the framework of one of the recommended research methodologies.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll problems have been replied to adequately.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Q1. All problems have been replied to adequately
A1. Amendments have already been made in accordance with the recommendations and suggestions after the first review.
Q2. Minor editing of English language required
A2. The manuscript has been paraphrased and edited in English language.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised the manuscript according to the suggestions. I have no further comments and consider the manuscript ready for publication.
Author Response
Q1. The authors have revised the manuscript according to the suggestions. I have no further comments and consider the manuscript ready for publication.
A1. Amendments have already been made in accordance with the recommendations and suggestions after the first review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere is still no greater number of references, seeing the state of the art and the discussions are not classified.
