Complementary Agriculture (AgriCom): A Low-Cost Strategy to Improve Profitability and Sustainability in Rural Communities in Semi-Arid Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

While the introduction mentions ideas of rural areas in arid regions, poverty, migration, and climate change, the way these are intertwined is confusing for the reader. Therefore, it is recommended that these ideas be presented more concretely and in an organized manner.

No background is presented on previously evaluated associated crops in arid or similar areas that support the proposed hypothesis.

The potential economic advantages of associating both species lack biological or chemical foundations that favor such association.

 

Materials and methods

The origin of the prickly pear varieties is not mentioned; for example, whether they are local races.

Section 2.5 seems more pertinent in the introduction than in Materials and Methods.

The number of replicates, experimental design, and how each experimental unit was considered are not mentioned.
A missing control would be a plot with only prickly pear plants, without association.

 

Results

It is confusing that the lack of water storage is mentioned first and then its availability; this could be due to an experimental error.
It is mentioned that statistical analyses were performed, but the confidence indicators are not presented either in the text or in the figures.
Table 3 presents the repetitions instead of the mean, suggesting that the results have been included without prior statistical analysis.

 

Discussion

The discussion is written as a justification or literature review, instead of making comparisons and interpretations of the results. Therefore, the focus should be changed.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the design, implementation, and evaluation of a low-cost Complementary Agriculture (AgriCom) model aimed at improving economic resilience and sustainability in drought-prone rural communities of the Potosí-Zacatecas semi-desert in Mexico. The AgriCom model integrates high-density planting of seven Opuntia ficus-indica varieties with rainwater harvesting and drip irrigation, alongside conservation of regional germplasm. However, there is a need to improve futher. Please see the following comments and suggestions.

The abstract lacks clarity on the experimental design—specifically, whether the cactus-corn comparison was an intercropping system or separate plots. It states corn had zero ELU due to failed phenology but does not clarify if this was from intercropping stress or solely climatic failure. This ambiguity could mislead readers about the nature of the crop association.

There is no clear statement differentiating AgriCom from existing agroecological models like milpa, silvopastoral systems, or other polycultures.

The transition from general agricultural challenges to the specific AgriCom model feels abrupt; more logical scaffolding is needed.

While maize is mentioned as a control, there is no description of whether it was grown in isolation or intercropped. Given that ELU compares intercropping to monoculture, it must be explicitly stated that maize monoculture data came from the same site and period.

The text mentions three replicates for germplasm collection (N=210), but it is unclear if yield trials (Tables 2–4) were replicated across plots or genotypes. Without replication, statistical validity is compromised.

 Critical methodological gaps exist regarding when and how much water was applied via drip irrigation. These details are essential for reproducibility and assessing the true "low-cost" claim.

 If no rain fell, then survival and growth must have relied entirely on emergency irrigation—but infrastructure wasn’t built until Phase 2. This raises questions about plant survival mechanisms during Phase 1.

 Table 3 shows ELU > 1.0 for all cactus varieties versus corn, but since corn yield = 0, any positive yield would mathematically result in infinite or undefined ELU. Presenting ELU > 1.0 implies a valid denominator, which contradicts the zero yield. This is a fundamental error in interpretation.

Overstates the novelty of crop association without sufficiently differentiating AgriCom from traditional practices like nopal-bean associations or backyard orchard gardens (huertos familiares).

Does not address why maize failed beyond “lack of rainfall”—was soil quality, seed variety, or planting date also a factor? This omission weakens the argument for replacing maize entirely.

Claims about CO₂ sequestration and organic matter improvement are speculative, as no measurements were taken in the study.

Fails to acknowledge limitations such as dependency on initial investment for water infrastructure or market access for nopal products.

Table 3, Last Row (Corn): All values are 0.00. This invalidates the ELU calculation. Authors must either remove the ELU column or justify its use despite zero denominator. Alternatively, report historical average maize yields in the region to serve as a benchmark.

Line 316–320: Description of rainwater tank and drip system. Missing technical specifications critical for replication: slope gradient, catchment area, filtration system, pump type (gravity-fed or mechanical?), maintenance requirements. Without these, the “low-cost” claim cannot be verified.

Line 394–397: Discussion mentions CO₂ absorption, soil retention, reduced degradation, and organic matter amendment as benefits. None of these were measured in the study. These claims should be toned down to “potential” or “expected” benefits based on literature, not presented as observed outcomes

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article focuses on the rural development predicament in the semi-arid regions of Mexico and proposes and validates the low-cost complementary agriculture (AgriCom) model. A lot of work has been done around the topic of the article. However, at present, there are still some problems and shortcomings in the paper. To make the paper more scientific and perfect, the following suggestions are given:

Comment 1: The core information in the abstract section is clear and explicit, clearly expounding the research background, research objects, key results, and the application prospects of the model, enabling readers to quickly grasp the overall picture of the research. However, only "the yield, profitability and equivalent land use (ELU) of 7 cactus varieties were evaluated" was mentioned, without briefly explaining the key process of the evaluation. It is suggested to add 1-2 sentences of core method descriptions to make the research logic more complete.

Comment 2: In the introduction part, the research objective is not expressed precisely enough: The original text, "Enhance the equivalent use of land and promote the diversification of primary activities to improve the local rural economy," is rather broad. It is suggested to refine it into "clarifying the differences in yield and economic benefits among different cactus varieties in the AgriCom model, verifying the resource utilization efficiency (ELU) of the model in semi-arid regions, and constructing feasible paths for the combination of cactus germplasm resource conservation and production", to make the research direction clearer.

Comment 3: The literature review section all centers around the core of "low-cost sustainable agriculture in semi-arid regions", and the selected literature directly or indirectly serves the design of the AgriCom model, avoiding the accumulation of irrelevant literature. However, most of them are statements of single literature viewpoints, lacking the comparison and integration of different literature viewpoints on the same topic. It is suggested to add a section on "Literature Disputes and Consensus" to analyze the deficiencies of existing research and further highlight the role of this study in filling the gap.

Comment 4: The literature review is only a list of some articles, but does not clarify the main issues, research results, problems, and defects of existing research in the academic field. According to the keyword search of “AgriCom” and “sustainable production”, it is suggested that the author read the following literature:

Biodiversity and human well-being trade-offs and synergies in villages. Nature Sustainability 2025, 8, 894–904.

Heterogeneity of urban‒rural responses to multigoal policy from an efficiency perspective: Empirical study in China. Habitat International 2025, 158: 103341.

Comment 5: In the results section, the analysis of the reasons for the failure of corn cultivation was not in-depth enough. The article merely attributed it to "the climatic conditions not reaching the phenological period", without further analysis. It is suggested to supplement the reasons for the obstruction of photosynthesis caused by the relevant growth conditions of plants, and enhance the scientific nature of the explanation of the reasons.

Comment 6: The article failed to analyze the shortcomings of the research. It is suggested to add a subsection titled "Research Limitations and Prospects", such as "This study only conducted a one-year field trial. In the future, long-term monitoring of cactus yield and soil health changes under continuous cropping is required." Subsequently, multi-point experiments can be carried out in different semi-arid regions of Latin America to further verify the universality of the model, reflecting the objectivity of the research and the subsequent research direction.

Comment 7: Language polishing is recommended to improve the readability and professionalism of the article. Ensure that the logical flow of the article is clear and the connections between the various parts are tight.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NONE.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of food supply, particularly in light of problems such as migration, poverty, hunger, climate change, and so on, is very relevant. Therefore, the article addresses an important topic, and the analysis also seems to suggest an interesting approach to solving it. For publication as a scientific article, two points would need to be better developed.

First, a clarification of the terms. Is this simply a comparison of corn monoculture with the cultivation of prickly pear cactus? How are the following terms defined: Complementary agriculture; subsistence production; mixed crop production; crop variety mixtures; etc.

Second, the experimental design and the presentation of the tables and maps are unfortunately unclear, i.e., sources, the number of observations, the size of the experimental fields, the year the experiment was conducted, the type and amount of irrigation, etc. are missing.

In line 112, the left-hand map is not helpful for orientation.

In Table 3, is $10 the price? Every other column could be omitted, because the values ​​are simply multiplied by 10.

What would the results be if corn were also drip-irrigated?

Line 303: What costs and amounts were considered?

What financing sources are available, and what is the interest rate?

Line 369: Statements regarding CO₂ sequestration cannot be made because this question was not investigated.

A revision in these two areas would significantly improve the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant changes according to comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no further comments