Estimation of Environmental Indicators in High Mountain Cattle Ranching Agroecosystems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major issues that should be addressed for revising the manuscript

1. The abstract should be rewritten, make it clear and concise more.

2. The background has not been clarified. What key scientific issues have been resolved? Which areas require further exploration? What are the existing problems or challenges? What was your scientific hypothesis? The introduction section could be improved by adding more details about the hypothesis, key issues, and innovations. This part should be strengthen and significant improvement.

3. In Part 2, please clearly specify the data collection methods and sources.

4. The discussion should be enhanced by incorporating the research results and comparing them with findings from other studies.

5. The authors must carefully check the units of all indicators throughout the text and ensure they are standardized.

6. All the tables should be further optimized.

7. The Conclusions and Recommendations section contains redundant content, and the viewpoints are unclear. It needs to be rewritten.

 

Minor issues that should be addressed

1. Line 18, please verify the latitude and longitude.

2. Line 19, what is masl? Is Meters Above Sea Level? The first appearance should be annotated.

3. Lines 20-21, Please check the units of SOC and CO₂, international units should be used, make it more standardized. Check the full text. (Optional)

4. Line 22, The authors use the full term "soil organic carbon"; however, it is abbreviated as "SOC" in line 16. Please review the entire text. Generally, the abstract and main body of a manuscript are separate. Therefore, if the author wants to use an abbreviation, it should be defined independently in each section.  

5. Line 23, The sentence is unclear, and the range of quantification is too broad, making it difficult for readers to understand.

6. For example, should "g/cm³" or "g·cm^-3" be used? What is the journal's requirement? Check the full text.

7. Line 23, “0.46 (g/cm³)”, the “()” should be removed. Check full text.

8. Lines 23 and 25, The phrase "at a depth of 10 cm" is duplicate and can be expressed more concisely.

9. Lines 20, 27-27,  Eg. “2.77 kg CO₂eq/kg”，“(t SOC/ha)”, please check the units carefully.

10. The citation format of references in the main body does not conform to the requirements of *Sustainability*. Please refer to the MDPI template.

11. Subtitle 2.3, “2.3. Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) ” should be rewritten. 

12.  In line 103, "soil organic carbon" has already been defined as "SOC" in line 52. Check full text.

13. Please check lines 113-114.

14. In lines 114 and 116, please check whether "8.21 g/100 g" and "5.48 g/100 g" are presented in a standardized format.

15. Table 1 can be further optimized.

16. Subtitle 3.3, “Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) ” should be rewritten. 

17. Figure 1 has poor resolution, and some text is not clearly visible. It can be redrawn using software like Origin.

18. Please check the order of all tables and figures, such as Tables 3 through 5.

19. Please check lines 347-348.

20. Please check the references and their order carefully.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Dear reviewer 1. Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. They have been very important to improve our document. Below you will find a response to each of your comments.

 

Major issues that should be addressed for revising the manuscript

1. The abstract should be rewritten, make it clear and concise more.

AU: Done. The abstract was rewritten. The changes are highlighted in yellow.

2. The background has not been clarified. What key scientific issues have been resolved? Which areas require further exploration? What are the existing problems or challenges? What was your scientific hypothesis? The introduction section could be improved by adding more details about the hypothesis, key issues, and innovations. This part should be strengthen and significant improvement.

AU: Thank you very much for your comments. The introduction has been improved, adding more details about the context of the area and more details about the hypothesis. The changes can be seen from line 49 to line 113 of the introduction. The changes are highlighted in yellow.

3. In Part 2, please clearly specify the data collection methods and sources.

AU: Done. The description of the methods used for the work was improved.

4. The discussion should be enhanced by incorporating the research results and comparing them with findings from other studies.

AU: Done. The discussion of the results obtained was improved, incorporating results and conclusions from other studies. The modifications made are highlighted in yellow.

5. The authors must carefully check the units of all indicators throughout the text and ensure they are standardized.

AU: Done. The units of the indicators were corrected

6. All the tables should be further optimized. (Raúl).

AU: Done. The tables were modified.

7. The Conclusions and Recommendations section contains redundant content, and the viewpoints are unclear. It needs to be rewritten.

AU: Done. The conclusions were rewritten. The modifications made are highlighted in yellow.

 

Minor issues that should be addressed

1. Line 18, please verify the latitude and longitude. (Raúl).

AU: Done. The coordinates were adjusted.

2. Line 19, what is masl? Is Meters Above Sea Level? The first appearance should be annotated. (Raúl)

AU: Thank you very much. The adjustment was made.

 

3. Lines 20-21, Please check the units of SOC and CO₂, international units should be used, make it more standardized. Check the full text. (Optional)

AU: Done. The units was standardized.

 

4. Line 22, The authors use the full term "soil organic carbon"; however, it is abbreviated as "SOC" in line 16. Please review the entire text. Generally, the abstract and main body of a manuscript are separate. Therefore, if the author wants to use an abbreviation, it should be defined independently in each section.  

AU: Done. The complete text was reviewed and the requested adjustment was made.

 

5. Line 23, The sentence is unclear, and the range of quantification is too broad, making it difficult for readers to understand. (Raúl).

AU: Done. The entire summary was rewritten.

 

6. For example, should "g/cm³" or "g·cm^-3" be used? What is the journal's requirement? Check the full text.

AU: Done. Adjustments were made.

 

7. Line 23, “0.46 (g/cm³)”, the “()” should be removed. Check full text.

AU: Done. Removed parentheses from units

 

8. Lines 23 and 25, The phrase "at a depth of 10 cm" is duplicate and can be expressed more concisely.

AU: Done. was corrected with the modification of the abstract

 

9. Lines 20, 27-27,  Eg. “2.77 kg CO₂eq/kg”，“(t SOC/ha)”, please check the units carefully.

AU: Thank you very much. The units were checked.

 

10. The citation format of references in the main body does not conform to the requirements of *Sustainability*. Please refer to the MDPI template.

AU: Done. Citations were adjusted according to journal guidelines.

 

11. Subtitle 2.3, “2.3. Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) ” should be rewritten. 

AU: Done. The paragraph  was rewritten

 

12. In line 103, "soil organic carbon" has already been defined as "SOC" in line 52. Check full text. (Raúl)

AU: Done. The first definition of SOC in the text was left alone

 

13. Please check lines 113-114.

AU: Thank you very much. Done.

 

14. In lines 114 and 116, please check whether "8.21 g/100 g" and "5.48 g/100 g" are presented in a standardized format.

AU: Done. The units were checked and were adjusted according to journal guidelines.

 

15. Table 1 can be further optimized.

AU: Done. All tables were improved

 

16. Subtitle 3.3, “Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) ” should be rewritten. (Raúl).

AU: Done. The paragraph describing the results associated with the SOC was rewritten.

 

17. Figure 1 has poor resolution, and some text is not clearly visible. It can be redrawn using software like Origin.

AU: Done. The figure was modificated.

 

18. Please check the order of all tables and figures, such as Tables 3 through 5.

AU: Done. All tables and figures was check

 

19. Please check lines 347-348.

AU: Done

 

20. Please check the references and their order carefully.

AU: Thank very much. Done.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Estimation of Environmental Indicators in High Mountain Cattle Ranching Agroecosystems" aims to analyse soil organic carbon (SOC) values and environmental footprints in an area of livestock intervention located in the high tropics.

A sample of 22 farms was considered for this research. The assessment of SOC and environmental footprint is based on a robust approach and it is clearly described.

The paper can be improved working on two main limits:

i) the 22 farms were visited and a semi-structured survey was applied, with 162 questions on social, environmental and productive-economic issues. Among these info, only environmental ones are mentioned and used in the paper. Moreover, even if 22 farmers were involved, the paper is based on global assessment, and I was not able to find info on variability at farm level. I ask to the Authors to use the info they have to improve the context analysis and to try to explore the potential variability of the analysed indicators. This effort could be very useful to improve the discussion session

ii) The discussion needs to be improved, considering: a) potential strategies to favour sustainable rural development of the study area; b) moving from local to global level, the paper offers an interesting case study to analyse the potential role of sustainable livestock farming systems for conservation and sustainable use of highlands ecosystems. I invite the Authors to consider these comments to improve the discussion section.  

 

Minor comments:

·       Table 1 could be replaced with a figure

·       Lines 236-238: be consistent, use AUE – replace liver weight with live weight

·       Check the tables, there isn’t table 4. Table 5 needs to be revised according to the journal guidelines

·       References: be consistent with the style, according to the journal guidelines 

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Dear reviewer 2. Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. They have been very important to improve our document. Below you will find a response to each of your comments.

 

The paper "Estimation of Environmental Indicators in High Mountain Cattle Ranching Agroecosystems" aims to analyse soil organic carbon (SOC) values and environmental footprints in an area of livestock intervention located in the high tropics.

A sample of 22 farms was considered for this research. The assessment of SOC and environmental footprint is based on a robust approach and it is clearly described.

The paper can be improved working on two main limits:

1. the 22 farms were visited and a semi-structured survey was applied, with 162 questions on social, environmental and productive-economic issues. Among these info, only environmental ones are mentioned and used in the paper. Moreover, even if 22 farmers were involved, the paper is based on global assessment, and I was not able to find info on variability at farm level. I ask to the Authors to use the info they have to improve the context analysis and to try to explore the potential variability of the analysed indicators. This effort could be very useful to improve the discussion session

 

AU: Thank you very much for the suggestion. Fact. The results present information associated with the social and productive components of the livestock systems evaluated. The changes made are highlighted in yellow.

 

1. The discussion needs to be improved, considering: a) potential strategies to favour sustainable rural development of the study area; b) moving from local to global level, the paper offers an interesting case study to analyse the potential role of sustainable livestock farming systems for conservation and sustainable use of highlands ecosystems. I invite the Authors to consider these comments to improve the discussion section.

 

AU: Thank you very much for the suggestion. Done. The discussion of the results obtained was improved, incorporating results and conclusions from other studies. The modifications made are highlighted in yellow.

 

Minor comments:

Table 1 could be replaced with a figure

AU: Done.  The table was replaced by a figure

Lines 236-238: be consistent, use AUE – replace liver weight with live weight

AU: Done. liver weight was replaced with live weight

Check the tables, there isn’t table 4. Table 5 needs to be revised according to the journal guidelines

 AU: Done all tables was check.

References: be consistent with the style, according to the journal guidelines 

AU: Done. References were adjusted according to journal guidelines.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Cattle ranching is the main economic activity and plays a decisive role in the transformation of vegetation cover in rural Colombia. In addition to provide meat, milk, and other essential products, this cattle ranching in these sites exerts significant pressure on natural resources, generates environmental repercussions, and affects carbon capture and storage, and water regulation and other ecosystem services. In this research, Benavides and his/her colleagues investigated the productive, environmental, and social information from 22 dairy farms and estimated the soil organic carbon, greenhouse gases and water consumption regarding the land use change and soil depth. I appreciate the authors made some efforts in this research and obtained some results and conclusions. However, based on the scientificity and novelty, I think this manuscript seems like a research report and should be major revision. The main concerns are as follows:

 

1.      In my view, more work should be done to improve the quality of abstract and introduction, to tell the readers the main research progress in this field, especially to cite more the latest research manuscripts. For the present version, I believe that the authors just list some non-academic reports, and more comprehensive analysis for the beckground and specific research gap are needed. Moreover, following the literature review, no suitable hypothesis was consequently proposed.

 

2.      In the section of Materials and Methods, please add the information on Cattle Ranching, which is important for the potential readers to know the basic research process. Some information on group meetings with the farmers, field trips, and individual visits with semi-structured survey are necessary to provide in the supplementary.

 

3.      Please give me a reasonable explanation why the soil depth was designed in the topsoil within 10 cm. According to the IPCC, more than 50% of SOC is stored below the 30 cm, which is the non-negligible component of soil organic carbon sequestration.

 

4.   Please move the computational formula reflected into supplementary.  

 

5.      In the results and discussion, please provide more valuable information beside the simple narrative. Moreover, the authors should present a summary of the present findings that directly related to the research concern raised in the Introduction and did deep analysis the underlying reasons based the current results.

 

6.      Please refine the conclusion and recommendations.

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

 Dear reviewer 3. Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. They have been very important to improve our document. Below you will find a response to each of your comments.

 

 

Cattle ranching is the main economic activity and plays a decisive role in the transformation of vegetation cover in rural Colombia. In addition to provide meat, milk, and other essential products, this cattle ranching in these sites exerts significant pressure on natural resources, generates environmental repercussions, and affects carbon capture and storage, and water regulation and other ecosystem services. In this research, Benavides and his/her colleagues investigated the productive, environmental, and social information from 22 dairy farms and estimated the soil organic carbon, greenhouse gases and water consumption regarding the land use change and soil depth. I appreciate the authors made some efforts in this research and obtained some results and conclusions. However, based on the scientificity and novelty, I think this manuscript seems like a research report and should be major revision. The main concerns are as follows:

 

1. In my view, more work should be done to improve the quality of abstract and introduction, to tell the readers the main research progress in this field, especially to cite more the latest research manuscripts. For the present version, I believe that the authors just list some non-academic reports, and more comprehensive analysis for the beckground and specific research gap are needed. Moreover, following the literature review, no suitable hypothesis was consequently proposed.

 

AU: Thank you very much for your comment. Done. The summary and introduction of the document have been substantially modified in order to provide readers with a better context of the work. All the modifications made have been highlighted in yellow.

 

2. In the section of Materials and Methods, please add the information on Cattle Ranching, which is important for the potential readers to know the basic research process. Some information on group meetings with the farmers, field trips, and individual visits with semi-structured survey are necessary to provide in the supplementary.

 

AU: Thank you very much for your comment. The materials and methods section was improved in order to show more clearly the resources used to achieve the results. An item presenting general characteristics of the production systems was included in the results (All the modifications made have been highlighted in yellow). 

 

3. Please give me a reasonable explanation why the soil depth was designed in the topsoil within 10 cm. According to the IPCC, more than 50% of SOC is stored below the 30 cm, which is the non-negligible component of soil organic carbon sequestration.

 

AU: The area where the work was carried out has soils of the entisol order, in which the superficial horizons are poorly developed. In addition, as we wanted to evaluate the impact of livestock activity on pastures, the depth of the grasses in the area (root depth) is around 10 cm.

 

4. Please move the computational formula reflected into supplementary.  

AU: Thank you very much for the suggestion. However, we believe that to facilitate the reading of the document, the equations should go immediately after they are named in the text.

 

5. In the results and discussion, please provide more valuable information beside the simple narrative. Moreover, the authors should present a summary of the present findings that directly related to the research concern raised in the Introduction and did deep analysis the underlying reasons based the current results.

 

AU: Thank you very much for the suggestion. Done. The results and their discussion were improved, providing readers with more elements that allow them a better understanding of what was found in the research. Additionally, the figures and tables used in the text were improved. The changes made are highlighted in yellow.

 

6. Please refine the conclusion and recommendations.

 

AU: Done. The conclusions were rewritten. The modifications made are highlighted in yellow.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good, job! I don't have any further suggestions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1, thank you very much for your feedback and comments regarding the work. They were very important to improve our document.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved, and the Authors addressed my requests.

 

I invite the Authors to check the manuscript and the references, to correct typos and to harmonize the format of the citations. We can proceed with the acceptance. 

Best regards

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions on the paper. They have been very important to improve our document. We revised the whole paper and have harmonized the citations and references.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the revised manuscript, I appreciate the authors did some effotrs to improve the level and depth of the original ms. However, there are some small mistakes and flaws, such as the figures and tables as well as references. Please check these parts and do some improvement before acceptance.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions on the paper. They have been very important to improve our article. We have revised the whole document to harmonize citations and references. As for the tables and figures, we have taken as a reference the latest articles in Sustainability 2024, 16 (23).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf