Agroecology and Sustainable Agriculture: Conceptual Challenges and Opportunities—A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript primarily discusses the challenges and opportunities faced by sustainable agricultural development. It is a meaningful topic, but I hope the author can further optimize the following aspects:

1. The abstract should elaborate on the theoretical contributions and practical insights that can be derived from this study.

2. In the introduction, when presenting the research background, it is recommended to integrate the four scattered paragraphs and add relevant supporting literature as appropriate.

3. The author is advised to draw the main contributions of the paper by comparing it with existing literature.

4. The literature analysis method is the primary approach used in this manuscript. However, the number of recent literature in Table 2 is not substantial; it is suggested to increase the number of recent literature citations.

5. How can the author ensure that the conclusions drawn from the studied literature are uncontested? How to test for validity and reliability?

6. The author is requested to deepen the policy recommendations derived from the research conclusions. This paper should not only organize existing literature but, more importantly, provide policy recommendations.

Author Response

- Comment: “The abstract should elaborate on the theoretical contributions and practical insights that can be derived from this study.”

Response: The theoretical and practical contributions of the research were included in the abstract (page 1, the part highlighted in yellow).

-Comment: “In the introduction, when presenting the research background, it is recommended to integrate the four scattered paragraphs and add relevant supporting literature as appropriate.”

Response: the introduction was integrated into a complete paragraph, and significant supporting literature was included (page 2, the part marked in yellow).

-Comment: “The author is advised to draw the main contributions of the paper by comparing it with existing literature.”

Response: The authors extracted the main contributions of the work and compared them with the existing literature (pages 2 to 10, the parts in blue color).

-Comment: “The literature analysis method is the primary approach used in this manuscript. However, the number of recent literature in Table 2 is not substantial; it is suggested to increase the number of recent literature citations”.

Response: In Table 2, the authors show the results derived from applying the proposed methodology, for which specific criteria were defined. However, there was no tacit conceptual discussion of the terms studied. The studies found on the border of the state-of-the-art are included on page 15 (the part in purple), where agroecology and sustainable agriculture are being focused.

-Comment: “How can the author ensure that the conclusions drawn from the studied literature are uncontested? How to test for validity and reliability?”.

Response: On page 20 (the highlighted yellow part), it is explained how the approach proposed by the authors supports identifying variables and indicators and how its validity and reliability can be tested.

-Comment: “The author is requested to deepen the policy recommendations derived from the research conclusions. This paper should not only organize existing literature but, more importantly, provide policy recommendations”.

Response: Although this work is not aimed at suggesting policies derived from the conclusions, on page 20, marked in yellow, some policies are recommended.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1 The structure of this article is unreasonable and the paragraphs are too scattered. For example, Figure 1 illustrated the development and evolution of the concept of agricultural ecology. Why can't part 1.1 be described according to the development and evolution. Dividing the part into paragraphs based on the cited references results in an unclear structure and organization. This issue also exists in other parts of the manuscript, and it is recommended to make revisions.

2 When discussing the advantages and limitations of various methods in the article, some places may appear slightly redundant or repetitive. Suggest integrating various parts, clarifying and highlighting the theme, to make the article structure more compact.

3 What is the purpose and significance of this study in focusing on the scope and limitations of the two key concepts of Agroecology and Sustainable Agriculture? What are the direct implications of clarifying these two concepts for facing challenges such as food shortages and climate change? I think the author's explanation of this part is vague and does not allow one to realize the importance of this study.

4 Currently, the survey it is only a compilation of work. Authors must show more information, and not only the summary of each paper. It should indicate the author's own point of view, and quotes should only be used as supporting evidence for one's own point of view.

Author Response

-Comment: “The structure of this article is unreasonable and the paragraphs are too scattered. For example, Figure 1 illustrates the development and evolution of the concept of agricultural ecology. Why can't part 1.1 be described according to the development and evolution? Dividing the part into paragraphs based on the cited references results in an unclear structure and organization. This issue also exists in other parts of the manuscript, and it is recommended to make revisions.

Response: The recommendation was taken into account. In section 2.1, changes were made to the wording and paragraph order. Figure 1 was mentioned in the corresponding paragraphs (pages 2 to 15, the parts marked in blue).

-Comment: “When discussing the advantages and limitations of various methods in the article, some places may appear slightly redundant or repetitive. Suggest integrating various parts, clarifying and highlighting the theme, to make the article structure more compact.”

Response: Suggestion attended. The authors integrated several parts clarifying and highlighting the theme (pages 18 and 19, the parts are highlighted in blue).

-Comment: “What is the purpose and significance of this study in focusing on the scope and limitations of the two key concepts of Agroecology and Sustainable Agriculture? What are the direct implications of clarifying these two concepts for facing challenges such as food shortages and climate change? I think the author's explanation of this part is vague and does not allow one to realize the importance of this study”.

Response: The scope, the limitations, and the direct implications of clarifying these two concepts were described (pages 1, 2, 19, and 20, colored in yellow).

-Comment: “Currently, the survey is only a compilation of work. Authors must show more information, and not only the summary of each paper. It should indicate the author's own point of view, and quotes should only be used as supporting evidence for one's own point of view”.

Response: In some of the paragraphs marked in blue, the authors establish their point of view, and the quote has been placed as evidence of the literature that supports this position.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have prepared a systematic review of the literature on the current topic of agroecology and sustainable agriculture.

The article examines modern concepts of agroecology and the use of natural resources.

Agroecological methods use, support, and enhance biological and ecological processes in agricultural production to reduce the use of acquired resources, including fossil fuels and agrochemicals, and to create more

diverse, sustainable, and productive agroecosystems. Agroecology is one of the key factors in the effectiveness of agricultural resource management.

In the introduction, the authors analyzed 49 sources, but there is no clearly defined purpose of this work.

 It is necessary to eliminate this gap.

The methodological basis of the research was the monographic method, analysis and synthesis, systematization and generalization.

An informative flowchart of systematic information search has been compiled.

The research results are well placed in the table.

The review presented by the authors is characterized by an original approach to the selection of the analyzed literature and is relevant.

The conclusions correspond to the analyzed sources.

The references are relevant and allow us to assess the stages of development of agroecology and trends in the development of sustainable agriculture.

In my opinion, the tables and figures are adequate and informative.

Author Response

Comment: “In the introduction, the authors analyzed 49 sources, but there is no clearly defined purpose for this work. It is necessary to eliminate this gap”.

Response: In the abstract, the authors established the aim of the investigation (it is marked in yellow).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept