RAPTURE: Resilient Agricultural Practices for Transforming Uncertain and Resource-Scarce Environments Tool

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: In the section “Abstract”, climate-smart agriculture (CSA) and climate-smart practices (CSPs) were used; however, in the section “Introduction”, CSA and climate-smart agriculture practices (CSAPs) were used but never mentioned in the previous section mentioned above. Also, during the text, there’s no consistency in which terms have been used. Make sure that you have consistency and that the term is the most appropriate one.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and understand the confusion that existed in the presentation of the CSA approach and the practices used for the achievement of its goals. Therefore, we have modified that section of the introduction to present more clarity for the readers' understanding as follows: “The term CSAPs refers to practices implemented in agricultural activities to mitigate climate change impacts and ensure harvest success, but excludes practices adopted by people in their regular behavior that have positive impacts on climate mitigation and sustainable management of the agricultural sector. In fact, it is essential to refer to all practices as CSPs, where either those implemented in agriculture or those adopted by human behavior can be found. Therefore, there is a need to make an updated classification of the practices used for CSA achievement to clearly distinguish the agricultural practices from the non-agricultural ones, while documenting the assessment methods for their assessment, considering their impact on agriculture and overall people’s livelihood as outcomes, to highlight their effectiveness in meeting the three pillars of the CSA approach.”

Comments 2: How was the tool tested? How did the stakeholders access the tool? Is RAPTURE an app? Those questions must be addressed in the article.

Response 2: In sections 2.2.3. of the methodology and 3.3 of the results, titled RAPTURE Tool Applications, there is detailed information explaining how the tool was tested. In fact, the tool was tested using agricultural data provided by the USDA for Florida.

One of the ways to make it accessible to stakeholders is via publication, where it can be used by everybody for informed decision-making regarding CSPs.

This paper on the RAPTURE tool is a study that provides data on the CSA approach and multiple methods that can be used to assess the impact of the specific practices used to achieve the goals of CSA as outcomes. Therefore, the plan is to turn it into an app in future work.

Comments 3: Line 67: Do not start a sentence with an abbreviation. Use this advice for all sentences that start with abbreviations.

Response 3: All sentences where there were abbreviations in the beginning are now fixed to start with complete words.

Comments 4: Line 86: Can we really mitigate climate change or the cause of climate change?

Response 4: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised this part of the writing to emphasize this point. We understand that to decrease climate challenges, we can modify the actions posed through our activities, as some of the causes leading to climate change. As a response to this, we have made some changes within that part of the introduction as follows: “The capacity of the CSAPs to mitigate GHG emissions and diminish climate change impacts has been assessed by evaluating their ability to sequester carbon (C) taken from the atmosphere and to reduce emissions made by the agricultural sector.”

Comments 5: Line 268: This topic sounds more like “Materials and Methods” than “Results”. Additionally, there are lots of references in the “Results” section, which make it sound as “Material and Methods” or, also “Discussion”. Make sure to have your results clearly described in the “Results” section.

Response 5: We agree with this comment and have removed this part from the results and moved it to the methods, where it explains the process adopted to come up with simple to complex definitions of CSA.

Comments 6: Line 552: Maize was typed twice.

Response 6: The second “maize” was removed from the sentence.

Comments 7: Line 612: What is the definition of CATIE?

Response 7: CATIE stands for Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center. The definition was added to the main text.

Comments 8: Line 937: The words “Alter” and “Modify” do not mean the same thing?

Response 8: Due to the existing similarity between the two vocabularies, we have removed “modify” and left “alter” in the sentence.

Comments 9: Figures: Figures 1, 5, 6, 7, and 9 were almost impossible to read.

Response 9: All figures were edited for a better view.

Comments 10: This table is too large, difficult to read, and understand. It’s hard to see the information clearly.

Response 10: The table has been reviewed and synthesized to provide more clarity and remove unnecessary information. It has been presented in a new format with clear information on the CSPs assessed, the equations used, and the input (X)/output (Y) variables.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The five-step process mentioned in the paper (defining CSA, selecting CSPs, verifying climatic conditions, identifying variables, and selecting evaluation methods) lacks analysis of its operability and adaptability across different geographical, economic, and cultural contexts.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. As a response to this comment, we have added a section for RAPTURE under different scenarios and created Table 2, titled Operability and adaptability of the RAPTURE Tool across different geographical, economic, and cultural contexts, was added to the study with an explanation of the impacts of the different contexts on the application of each step of RAPTURE (Line 633).

Comments 2: Is the classification of CSPs into "CSAPs" and "Smart Behavior" easily distinguishable in practice? Are there overlapping or ambiguous cases?

Response 2: Even though the differences between CSAPs and Smart behavior are clear for adopters, there exists a certain connection between them that needs to be clarified. To answer this question, more details were added in the manuscript in the section on CSPs classification as “It establishes the existing distinction between agricultural practices and specific behaviors that have significant impacts on the pillars of CSA, which are to increase productivity, build resilience to climate challenges, and mitigate GHG emissions in the era of climate change. It is necessary to consider the complementarity that exists among the two groups of practices, where people’s smart behavior will allow farmers to increase their chances of success in agriculture. For instance, farmers who have access to useful information from other farmers’ experience and extension officers while adopting CSAPs will benefit from a higher possibility to increase their outcomes regarding better productivity, adaptation, and GHG mitigation.”

Comments 3: These ranges are based on existing literature but do not consider whether they will remain applicable under future climate changes, nor do they account for extreme climate events.

Response 3: In sections 2.2.3 (methodology) and 3.3 (results) of the manuscript, referring to the RAPTURE tool application, there is a future prediction column made with data on incremental weather conditions (temperature and precipitation) for 2050 in Florida. This data was taken from Anandhi et al., 2018.

Comments 4: Although influencing factors (such as education, credit, and land ownership) are mentioned, does the tool itself incorporate the weighting of these factors in the evaluation?

Response 4: To provide clarity on the assessment methods provided by the tool to assess the factors influencing farmers in adopting CSPs, the following explanation were added in section 3.2.3 presenting the factors that influence CSP implementation in farming activities: “The RAPTURE tool provides specific methods (Table 1) that have been used by scientists in many studies to evaluate the impact levels of these factors (Figure 10) on influencing farmers when adopting CSPs [26,28,88,119]. Assessment methods such as the Logit Model [28,88], Endogenous Switching Regression (ESR) [119], Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression [88], Multinomial logit (MNL) model [127], and  model (OPM)[119] are found among the tool assessment methods (Table 1) that have been used to highlight the weight of several factors, including the ones cited in the question above, on their ability of influencing farmers’ decisions to adopt the CSPs.”

Comments 5: Do certain methods perform better for specific crops or systems? Are there guiding principles provided for method selection?

Response 5: The RAPTURE tool provides options for the stakeholders to choose the method, and that choice will depend on the inputs available and the objective of the stakeholder. Moreover, in table 3 of the study, there is a synthesis of important information about two most used methods, which are the logit model and the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) methods. The table shows the different names used by scientists when referring to the methods, their accuracy in assessment process, certain level of expertise that may require from users, and the areas in which they have been used to assess. Based on the results found in this table, it is clear that the logit model can be used in all the three pillars while the CBA is specified for economic analysis of the CSPs.

Comments 6: How applicable is the RAPTURE tool in resource-limited regions? Is it suitable for smallholders or low-resource environments?

Response 6: RAPTURE tool is a document that will be available online for all types of users regardless of financial conditions. It is free and accessible to smallholders as well as low-resource environments and shows users how to make effective use of available resources whether there is abundance or scarcity. Therefore, we have now added this in the revised manuscript (Line 620; Line 652).

Comments 7: The differences and advantages of the RAPTURE tool compared to existing assessment tools are not sufficiently explained.

Response 7: How is this tool different from others: when doing our research on existing tools to assess the CSPs and compared to this RAPTURE tool that covers the overall aspects of the CSA approach in terms of the three pillars, it was found that some tools only cover specific aspects of the CSA, while others cover other aspects. We have now added this in the revised manuscript for better explanation and clarity on the uniqueness of this tool compared to others (Line 645).

Comments 8: Can the RAPTURE tool handle uncertainties brought by future climate predictions?

Response 8: In sections 2.2.3 (methodology) and 3.3 (results) of the manuscript, referring to the RAPTURE tool application, there is a future prediction column made with data on incremental weather conditions (temperature and precipitation) for 2050 in Florida. This data was taken from Anandhi et al., 2018. In conclusion, RAPTURE, by combining data on weather conditions for different areas and by considering future weather forecasts, can handle related uncertainties (Line 646).

Comments 9: The text in figures is too small and labels are unclear (e.g., Figure 4, 5, 6), which affects readability. Some charts (e.g., climate range figures) do not provide error ranges or confidence intervals.

Response 9: All figures were edited for a better view.

Comments 10: The conclusion section largely repeats previous content and does not sufficiently summarize the limitations of the RAPTURE tool or future improvements (such as integrating machine learning, multi-scale evaluation, etc.).

Response 10: The conclusion was reviewed and edited. It highlights the importance of the RAPTURE tool in assessing the CSPs and for stakeholders to make informed decisions.

Comments 11: Provide multilingual and localized versions to enhance the tool’s accessibility.

Response 11: The future work considered in this project is to turn the RAPTURE tool into an application that is usable by multiple stakeholders regardless of their languages and the period they are using it. Therefore, this app can be in multiple languages and localized versions to facilitate accessibility.

Comments 12: Continuously update the database and evaluation methods, establishing a mechanism to regularly update climate data, CSP lists, and mathematical methods to maintain the tool’s scientific relevance and timeliness.

Response 12: These suggestions are highly considered for future work in the RAPTURE tool.

Comments 13: The use of the PRISMA framework for literature screening is reasonable, but relying solely on the Web of Science database may introduce publication bias. It is recommended to include additional databases such as Scopus or Google Scholar to improve the comprehensiveness of literature coverage.

Response 13: We agree with this comment. However, the use of one database for articles’ collection is considered a limitation of the study. This is explained in the Limitation section of the manuscript (Line 963).

3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We understand that an improvement of the English would make the research paper clearer, and this is why we have reviewed and edited the English for better expression of this research paper.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Fig. 3 (line 141) is, in my opinion, unnecessary. Its current presentation seems redundant, and the format of the comparison is extremely confusing.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, and that Figure 3 in the current presentation seems redundant and appears unnecessary. However, we believe it is important to demonstrate the existing differences between a simple and a complex definition of CSA. In response to this comment, Figure 3a was modified to show differences with Figure 3b, and more explanation was added to make the figure understandable (Line 272). The base of each figure is the same since they represent all the terms that can be presented to have a more detailed definition of CSA. Therefore, the number of pillars in a definition is what makes it simple (one pillar) or complex (more than one pillar).

Comments 2: The subsequent Fig. 4 (line 150)—from the perspective of maintaining the content's volume, as well as its substantive value—should be removed; it is superfluous.

Response 2: We agree that Figure 4 in the current presentation can be superfluous and appear unnecessary. However, we believe it is important. In response to this comment. we have, accordingly, modified and edited this figure for a better view. It presents the frequency of the CSPs in literature, which can be used as a reference to the level of awareness of these CSPs.

Comments 3: Fig. 5 (line 153) is illegible. It is impossible to read the content contained within, and additionally, placing these points within a table frame further limits its readability.

Response 3: This figure was edited for a better view and readability.

Comments 4: Further comments also concern the presentation of figures/graphs—Fig. 8 (line 233) is illegible, and combining four figures (8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d) into one graphic contained within a frame reduces its readability.

Response 4: This figure was edited for a better view and readability.

Comments 5: The same comments apply to Fig. 9 (line 237)—it is illegible and disrupts perception by the audience.

Response 5: This figure was edited for a better view. It becomes now figure 9 that provides the review studies and figure 10 that shows the pillars and areas considered in certain studies.

Comments 6: In the case of Fig. 10, there is graphic chaos—a glaring failure to meet editorial criteria—a lack of figure caption (line 244). The description of the illustration is placed within a framed area, and the individual elements (figure 10a/Figure 10b) do not comply with the journal's requirements. I recommend improving the entire graphic by adding a caption, enhancing the readability of the graphics, removing the borders, and any annotations within the graphic area, as it currently does not meet the standards and is unsuitable for publication.

Response 6: Figure 10, which is now Figure 11, was edited to meet the journal’s requirements.

Comments 7: The same comments apply to the tabular compilations—Table 1 (line 632) is overly extensive while lacking substantive content.

Response 7: The table has been reviewed to provide more clarity and remove unnecessary information. It has been presented in a new format with clear information on the CSPs assessed, the equations used, and the input (X)/output (Y) variables.

Comments 8: Table 2a (line 781) requires graphical improvement.

Response 8: Table 2a, now becomes Table 4a, has been reviewed and edited.