Agroecology and Precision Agriculture as Combined Approaches to Increase Field-Scale Crop Resilience and Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting study, which aims to investigate differences in plant, soil and economic characteristics under two management strategies: agroecological vs. conventional agriculture. There are still some unclarities:
- Order of the authors presented in the manuscript is different from the order in the online system. Please check.
- L10: From the abstract, it is not clear what you mean with 'climate variability context'. Please define. In this context, it might also be informative to shortly describe the climate situation (~location) of the 5 ha of study sites.
- L27 - 32: Please support these statements with corresponding references.
- L54 - 67: It might be good to link these statements with relevant programmes such as '4 per mille' (for SOC) and Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs).
-L74: In the description of the objectives, the environmental (soil) variables are missing.
- Figure 1: Please check the quality. Also, what do the green colours represent? Can you also add information (delineation) about which parts of the study area were treated differently?
- Figure 2: the added value of this figure (with respect to Figure 1) is not clear to me. Same information content? If relevant, please add a scale bar.
- Table 1: I am not sure if presenting these properties in a table is useful. In my opinion, mentioning this in the text is sufficient. The same accounts for Table 2.
- L136-139 and Figure 3: Can you briefly describe here how these maps were generated. Which interpolation or digital soil mapping techniques have been used?
- Figure 4: legend should be translated.
-L204: Title does not match the description below? It might be better to integrate this statistical description in section 2.5.
- L343 - 347: The variation of Yield in AE seems to be higher. Is this a result of the excessive rain? Can this have an impact on your conclusion?
- Figure 9: 'Yield' instead of Yeld'.
- Discussion: The results are discussed point by point. It would be very informative to include an integrative discussion (and look for links between the different parameters, e.g. structural parameters with production and climate parameters and the resulting impact on the income statement). Additionally, a link to similar studies in literature is missing.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are multiple typos in the text.
Author Response
This is an interesting study, which aims to investigate differences in plant, soil and economic characteristics under two management strategies: agroecological vs. conventional agriculture. There are still some unclarities:
- Order of the authors presented in the manuscript is different from the order in the online system. Please check.
Response: The order of the authors has been corrected by the Editor after submission.
- L10: From the abstract, it is not clear what you mean with 'climate variability context'. Please define. In this context, it might also be informative to shortly describe the climate situation (~location) of the 5 ha of study sites.
Response: This change has been made.
- L27 - 32: Please support these statements with corresponding references.
Response: This change has been made.
- L54 - 67: It might be good to link these statements with relevant programmes such as '4 per mille' (for SOC) and Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs).
Response: This change has been made.
-L74: In the description of the objectives, the environmental (soil) variables are missing.
Response: This change has been made.
- Figure 1: Please check the quality. Also, what do the green colours represent? Can you also add information (delineation) about which parts of the study area were treated differently?
Response: We have improved figure resolution, added a scale bar for green colours (NDVI values) and provided visual identification of the two experimental treatments.
- Figure 2: the added value of this figure (with respect to Figure 1) is not clear to me. Same information content? If relevant, please add a scale bar.
Response: Figure 2 has been eliminated
- Table 1: I am not sure if presenting these properties in a table is useful. In my opinion, mentioning this in the text is sufficient. The same accounts for Table 2.
Response: Tables 1 and 2 have been eliminated, adding a mention in the text, as reviewer’s suggestion.
- L136-139 and Figure 3: Can you briefly describe here how these maps were generated. Which interpolation or digital soil mapping techniques have been used?
The maps in figure 3 have been generated by spatially interpolating the fertilization needs calculated from the concentration of nutrients found in the 20 soil samples, following the current regulations enacted by the competent regional administration. The maps highlight the demand for nitrogen and phosphorus that should be provided to soil to enable sunflower or wheat crops.
We have improved figure resolution and added the relevant citation for the current regional regulations to calculate the soil nutrients demand.
- Figure 4: legend should be translated.
Response: Legend has been translated and the figure has been replaced.
-L204: Title does not match the description below? It might be better to integrate this statistical description in section 2.5.
Response: The paragraph has been changed as requested
- L343 – 347:The variation of Yield in AEe seems to be higher. Is this a result of the excessive rain? Can this have an impact on you r conclusion?
Response: The difference of production between AE and CP is due to the management systems; AE has proven to be more resilient than CP, despite the loss of some plants due to the flooding. These considerations have already been specified in the discussion section and in conclusions (Lines 540-544, 575-5838, and 618-620).
- Figure 9: 'Yield' instead of Yeld'.
Response: The figure has been corrected
- Discussion: The results are discussed point by point. It would be very informative to include an integrative discussion (and look for links between the different parameters, e.g. structural parameters with production and climate parameters and the resulting impact on the income statement).
Response: A brief integrative discussion has been included at the end of the discussion section (Lines 569-576). This paragraph is related to two sentences added at the end of the 4.2 subsection (Lines 534-538), as requested by another reviewer.
Additionally, a link to similar studies in literature is missing.
Response: Results of similar studies have been discussed at the end of the discussion section.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are multiple typos in the text.
Response: The manuscript has been checked for typos and corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript investigates the agroecology and precision agriculture as combined approaches to increase field-scale crop resilience and sustainability. Overall, the general topic is interesting for the Sustainability readership, and thus the following comments are provided to the authors:
1. Inconsistent Use of Capitalization
There are inconsistencies in the use of capitalization in the paper, particularly in the spelling of some proper nouns and terms. Please review the entire manuscript to ensure that capitalization conforms to common academic writing standards. You may use automated tools to help check and unify these formatting issues. For the subscript in greenhouse gases, especially COâ‚‚, CHâ‚„, etc., please ensure that their formatting is consistent across the text, titles, and figures, adhering to the standards of chemical writing to guarantee clarity and accuracy of the symbols.
2. Lines 104-105
You employed a random sampling method in this study but did not explain in detail why random sampling was chosen over block sampling. Could you further clarify why random sampling is more advantageous than block sampling in this context? Additionally, the distribution of sampling points in the paper appears to be highly dispersed. Could you explain why the sampling points are distributed so widely? Could this dispersed sampling approach result in insufficient representativeness of samples at each location? How did you ensure that such dispersed sampling does not compromise the reliability and consistency of the data?
3. Clarity of Figure 3
The resolution of Figure 3 is insufficient. Please improve its clarity.
4. Line 227
Please provide the formula for the aridity index in the text.
5. Line 273
It is recommended to use subheadings here.
6. Figures 5, 6, 7, 8
Please explain how the error bars in these figures were calculated (e.g., standard error, standard deviation, or confidence intervals). Are these errors related to the sample size or variability in the experiment? Do larger error bars affect the robustness of the conclusions? Was this issue discussed as a limitation in the discussion section?
7. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 in the Discussion
It is recommended to combine sections 4.2 and 4.3 into one discussion and elaborate on how they influence each other.
8. Excessive Subsections in the Discussion
The discussion section is divided into too many subsections. It is recommended to reduce the number of subsections for a more cohesive presentation.
Author Response
The manuscript investigates the agroecology and precision agriculture as combined approaches to increase field-scale crop resilience and sustainability. Overall, the general topic is interesting for the Sustainability readership, and thus the following comments are provided to the authors:
- Inconsistent Use of Capitalization
There are inconsistencies in the use of capitalization in the paper, particularly in the spelling of some proper nouns and terms. Please review the entire manuscript to ensure that capitalization conforms to common academic writing standards. You may use automated tools to help check and unify these formatting issues. For the subscript in greenhouse gases, especially COâ‚‚, CHâ‚„, etc., please ensure that their formatting is consistent across the text, titles, and figures, adhering to the standards of chemical writing to guarantee clarity and accuracy of the symbols.
Response: Symbols and units of measurement have been checked for conformity to international standards and modified throughout the manuscript where necessary.
- Lines 104-105
You employed a random sampling method in this study but did not explain in detail why random sampling was chosen over block sampling. Could you further clarify why random sampling is more advantageous than block sampling in this context? Additionally, the distribution of sampling points in the paper appears to be highly dispersed. Could you explain why the sampling points are distributed so widely? Could this dispersed sampling approach result in insufficient representativeness of samples at each location? How did you ensure that such dispersed sampling does not compromise the reliability and consistency of the data?
As far as we understand Randomized Block Sampling (RBS) designs are commonly used as a means to control natural variability when high levels of background variation could obscure any effects of the factor of interest. In these designs, the factor levels are randomly applied to separate experimental units within each block. Our previously published data [16], highlighted no natural variability, as far as soil properties were concerned, that could drive us to consider a RBS design over a completely randomized design. The issue of representativeness of our completely randomized design was tackled by constraining, at the design stage, the sample set into two half-sized subsets, each composed of 10 random locations (4 per hectare on average) to be selected in the two treatments. An additional constraint was set on the minimum distance between locations (10 m), to avoid oversampling on the Sentinel-2 satellite grid [16].
- Clarity of Figure 3
The resolution of Figure 3 is insufficient. Please improve its clarity.
Response: We improved figure 3 resolution and replaced the old one.
- Line 227
Please provide the formula for the aridity index in the text.
Response: The formula has been provided in the text.
- Line 273
It is recommended to use subheadings here.
Response: Subheadings have been used and numbered
- Figures 5, 6, 7, 8
Please explain how the error bars in these figures were calculated (e.g., standard error, standard deviation, or confidence intervals). Are these errors related to the sample size or variability in the experiment? Do larger error bars affect the robustness of the conclusions? Was this issue discussed as a limitation in the discussion section?
The lower and upper hinges correspond to the first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles). Whiskers extend from the hinges to the largest or smaller value no further than 1.5 * IQR from the hinge (where IQR is the inter-quartile range). Data beyond the end of the whiskers are plotted individually. As a result “error bars” are related to the variability of results.
We have added this explanation to the “Statistical analysis and software” section. All the results we presented underwent ANOVA tests, the discussion section has been written by taking into account t the significant results.
- Sections 4.2 and 4.3 in the Discussion
It is recommended to combine sections 4.2 and 4.3 into one discussion and elaborate on how they influence each other.
Response: Done. Two sentences about the influence between parameters have been added (Lines 536-540).
- Excessive Subsections in the Discussion
The discussion section is divided into too many subsections. It is recommended to reduce the number of subsections for a more cohesive presentation.
Response: This change has been made.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript "Agroecology and precision agriculture as combined approaches to increase field-scale crop resilience and sustainability" is an interesting work. However, the following comments should be added to increase the quality of the work:
1- The Abstract should include the study's motivation, the empirical methodology employed, the key findings, and the policy implications arising from the main results.
2- In the Introduction, it is important to emphasize the significance of the topic, identify any gaps in the literature, and outline the study's contribution. Additionally, discuss the novelty of the results, the relevance of policy implications, the sample selection, the appropriateness of the methodology, the data utilized, the contribution to the existing literature, and the study's limitations.
3- Provide a more detailed discussion of the theoretical framework to inform the study's model.
4- Thoroughly discuss the results and compare them with existing studies.
5- Highlight the study's novelty in the discussion by explaining how the results contribute to the existing knowledge and differ from previous studies.
6- Provide a more in-depth discussion of the policy implications. After addressing the study's limitations, suggest areas for future research.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The manuscript "Agroecology and precision agriculture as combined approaches to increase field-scale crop resilience and sustainability" is an interesting work. However, the following comments should be added to increase the quality of the work:
1- The Abstract should include the study's motivation, the empirical methodology employed, the key findings, and the policy implications arising from the main results.
Response: The authors thank the reviewer for the comment. The study's motivation, the empirical methodology employed, the key findings have already been described in the abstract (maximum 200 words), while the policy implications are not among the topics covered in the manuscript, even if some regulatory references have been included in the introduction.
2- In the Introduction, it is important to emphasize the significance of the topic, identify any gaps in the literature, and outline the study's contribution. Additionally, discuss the novelty of the results, the relevance of policy implications, the sample selection, the appropriateness of the methodology, the data utilized, the contribution to the existing literature, and the study's limitations.
Response: A sub-paragraph has been added with the major part of the suggestion in the introduction (Lines 89-94). The sample selection, the appropriateness of the methodology, and the data utilized have been discussed in the Material and methods section.
3- Provide a more detailed discussion of the theoretical framework to inform the study's model.
Response: These aspects have been included in the new section 4.6 of the discussion section (General considerations).
4- Thoroughly discuss the results and compare them with existing studies.
Response: Results of similar studies have been included and discussed at the end of the discussion section.
5- Highlight the study's novelty in the discussion by explaining how the results contribute to the existing knowledge and differ from previous studies.
Response: Results of similar studies have been discussed in a new paragraph added at the end of the discussion section. In our research, no difference was found with previous studies (please see Lines 579-593) [28, 29, 30, 31]. The novelty of the research is the integrative approach, as described in the introduction.
6- Provide a more in-depth discussion of the policy implications. After addressing the study's limitations, suggest areas for future research.
Response: Regarding the limitations of the case study and the possible future research areas, new sentences have been added in the discussion (Lines 571-578) and in the conclusion section (Lines 614-6160). The policy implication is not a topic of the manuscript, because it requires an in-depth and detailed analysis that cannot be carried out with the results of a single local case study.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed the comments raised. Only one element has been overlooked: I believe there is still an error in the legend of Figure 1. NDVI values range between -1 and +1. I recommend the authors to have a second look at this figure.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The authors addressed the comments raised. Only one element has been overlooked: I believe there is still an error in the legend of Figure 1. NDVI values range between -1 and +1. I recommend the authors to have a second look at this figure.
Response:
Thank you for pointing this to us. The NDVI values range is [-1, 1], for sake of clarity we scaled it by a factor of 10,000. The caption of Figure 1 has been modified.
The authors would like to thank you for the contribution to the improvement of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all the comments.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The authors have addressed all the comments.
Response:
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his contribution to the improvement of the manuscript.
