Structural Changes to China’s Agricultural Business Entities System Under the Perspective of Competitive Evolution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-structured, and the objectives are clearly stated. The methods adopted are appropriate, and the conclusions are consistent with the results. I have a few minor suggestions that may help improve the manuscript.

Firstly, the manuscript would benefit from a comparison with other evidence in the literature, both in the explanation of the theories and hypotheses in the introduction, and in the interpretation of the results in the conclusions. In particular, I would suggest adding references in the introduction where the gaps in the literature are mentioned. This is also so as to highlight the importance of this study and what specific gaps it answers. Additionally, the paper would benefit from an improvement in the section discussing whether the results are consistent with existing knowledge. Even when the existing literature is limited, it is still be valuable to mention any relevant studies or findings and provide an analysis of how the current results align with or contribute to existing knowledge.

The sentence of the introduction section, "Consequently, understanding the dynamic changes and spatiotemporal variations in the structure of diverse ABEs, as well as the underlying mechanisms driving these transformations, is critical. Addressing these issues will enhance our understanding of China's agricultural modernization pathways during this transformative period." is not clear to me. I would suggest  the addition of concrete examples or case studies to make the importance of spatio-temporal analysis clearer.

In tghe methods section it would be helpful to better explain why these specific methods (dominance index, Shannon-Wiener index, Lotka-Volterra model and Geographical Detectors) were chosen over other options.
For example, why is the Lotka-Volterra model more suitable than other population dynamics models? How does it specifically relate to competition between ABEs?

Similarly, it should be better explained why certain variables were extrapolated from the dataset than others. Are there other studies in the literature that have used the same variables? I suggest supporting this choice on the basis of evidence in the literature.

In the results, the section describing regional differences is rather dense. It could be more readable by dividing the information by main regions or by using a summary table. The validation of the hypotheses is mentioned rather succinctly (‘thus confirming Hypothesis 1’, ‘validating the complexity projection in Hypothesis 2’). It would be more effective to better clarify how the data support these hypotheses and whether there are any exceptions or limitations. 

The conclusion on the relationship between the dominance of NABEs and geographical conditions is interesting, but could be strengthened by citing some previous study that supports this claim or by adding quantitative data to support it.

Finally, a section on the limits of this study should be added.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We have made the revisions as per your request. Below are our revision notes for your review.

1. Firstly, the manuscript would benefit from a comparison with other evidence in the literature, both in the explanation of the theories and hypotheses in the introduction, and in the interpretation of the results in the conclusions. In particular, I would suggest adding references in the introduction where the gaps in the literature are mentioned. This is also so as to highlight the importance of this study and what specific gaps it answers. Additionally, the paper would benefit from an improvement in the section discussing whether the results are consistent with existing knowledge. Even when the existing literature is limited, it is still be valuable to mention any relevant studies or findings and provide an analysis of how the current results align with or contribute to existing knowledge.

Response: Thank you for your insight. It’s necessary to relate more researches with our study. We have added more discussion of other evidence relevant to this study in line 81-84 in the introduction section, and made its logic relation more streamlined with the relevant literatures in line 89-92, and highlighted the importance of this study in line 113-116. We have added more discussion of other evidences relevant to this study in line 287-288, line 338-340 in the results section. We have added more comparation of our conclusion with other relevant studies in line 550-552, line 575-578, line 603-604 in the discussion section.

 

2. The sentence of the introduction section, "Consequently, understanding the dynamic changes and spatiotemporal variations in the structure of diverse ABEs, as well as the underlying mechanisms driving these transformations, is critical. Addressing these issues will enhance our understanding of China's agricultural modernization pathways during this transformative period." is not clear to me. I would suggest the addition of concrete examples or case studies to make the importance of spatio-temporal analysis clearer.

Response:：Thank you. We have added some relevant case studies in line 59-67, to highlight the importance of spatio-temporal analysis of ABEs.

 

3. In the methods section it would be helpful to better explain why these specific methods (dominance index, Shannon-Wiener index, Lotka-Volterra model and Geographical Detectors) were chosen over other options. For example, why is the Lotka-Volterra model more suitable than other population dynamics models? How does it specifically relate to competition between ABEs?

Similarly, it should be better explained why certain variables were extrapolated from the dataset than others. Are there other studies in the literature that have used the same variables? I suggest supporting this choice on the basis of evidence in the literature.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have added detailed explanation of why choosing these indexes in this study, and what’s their advantages compared with other variables. Moreover, we related other researches who used same variables in line 194-214.

 

4. In the results, the section describing regional differences is rather dense. It could be more readable by dividing the information by main regions or by using a summary table. The validation of the hypotheses is mentioned rather succinctly (‘thus confirming Hypothesis 1’, ‘validating the complexity projection in Hypothesis 2’). It would be more effective to better clarify how the data support these hypotheses and whether there are any exceptions or limitations.

The conclusion on the relationship between the dominance of NABEs and geographical conditions is interesting, but could be strengthened by citing some previous study that supports this claim or by adding quantitative data to support it.

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have abbreviated the description of the regional differences and make the text more concise in line 468-492. Moreover, the logic relation of results and theoretical hypothesis were discussed more deeply in line 283-287, line 293-297, line 317-322, line 353-356. In addition, the conclusion on the relationship between the dominance of NABEs and geographical conditions was strengthened by citing more references in line 310-311.

 

5. Finally, a section on the limits of this study should be added.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added discussion of the limits of this study in line 656-665.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sharing this research paper on the structural changes of China's agricultural business entities system. The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the spatiotemporal evolution and driving factors behind the changes in China's agricultural landscape from 2012 to 2021.

Some key strengths of the paper include:

1. A novel application of ecological theories and models like the Lotka-Volterra model, dominance index, and Shannon-Wiener index to abstract and quantify the relationships and structural changes among different agricultural business entities (ABEs). This allows for analyzing the complex competition and cooperation dynamics.

2. A detailed spatial analysis at the city level across China, revealing the regional differentiation in how ABEs have evolved over time. The maps and regional breakdowns provide good visualizations of the spatial patterns.

3. Use of the geographical detector method to uncover the key driving factors behind the structural changes, considering economic, social and technological indicators. The interaction detection also provides insights on how the factors work together.

4. Proposal of a three-stage framework to characterize the evolution path of ABEs in China, from farmer-dominated to a competitive stage to eventual modernization led by new ABEs. This conceptual framework, supported by the empirical analysis, offers useful guidance for region-specific development strategies.

A few suggestions for further strengthening the paper:

1. The introduction could benefit from a clearer articulation of the research questions and hypotheses upfront, before diving into the theoretical framework. This will help orient the reader on the key issues being investigated.

2. While the Lotka-Volterra model results are insightful, the methods section should provide more details on how the model parameters were estimated from the available data. Any limitations of applying this ecological model to socio-economic entities can also be briefly discussed.

3. The policy implications discussed in the final section are highly relevant. These can be further expanded by linking the findings more explicitly to some of the recent policy developments in China concerning agricultural modernization and rural revitalization.

4. Proofreading the manuscript carefully to fix some minor language and formatting issues will improve the overall readability.

In summary, this is a well-executed study that makes important empirical and methodological contributions to understanding the ongoing transformation of China's agricultural system. With some polishing, it has the potential to become a valuable reference for researchers and policymakers working on agricultural development issues. I would recommend it for publication after addressing the above points.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We have made the revisions as per your request. Below are our revision notes for your review.

1. The introduction could benefit from a clearer articulation of the research questions and hypotheses upfront, before diving into the theoretical framework. This will help orient the reader on the key issues being investigated.

Response: Thank you for your insight. We have added more discussion of relevant researches with this study, and summarized different debates of the relationship among multiple agricultural business entities 93-94, line 106-109, to make the logic of the key issues of this study clearer, and highlighted the importance of this study in line 113-116.

2. While the Lotka-Volterra model results are insightful, the methods section should provide more details on how the model parameters were estimated from the available data. Any limitations of applying this ecological model to socio-economic entities can also be briefly discussed.

Response: Thank you. We have added detailed explanation of the processing of the parameters in Lotka-Volterra model in line 264-267, and discussed of the limitation and of effectiveness this model is also listed in line 246-249.

3. The policy implications discussed in the final section are highly relevant. These can be further expanded by linking the findings more explicitly to some of the recent policy developments in China concerning agricultural modernization and rural revitalization.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the discussion of our policy suggestions in different stages and by relating them to the detailed policy demands of different stages in line 559-563, line 590-592, line 609-612.

4. Proofreading the manuscript carefully to fix some minor language and formatting issues will improve the overall readability.

Response: Thank you. We have rechecked the language errors and formatting issues throughout the manuscript.