Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Land Use Impacts of Soybean Production: Systematic Review and Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article systematically analyzes the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agriculture on Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Land Use Change (LU/LUC) using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. It compares the greenhouse gas emissions and land use impacts of different agricultural systems, finding that organic farming typically exhibits lower greenhouse gas emissions, but in some regions, conventional farming results in lower emissions due to higher-input agricultural management. The article emphasizes regional differences, proposes best practices for different agricultural systems, and suggests adjusting agricultural management strategies based on regional characteristics. While the article provides valuable insights into agricultural sustainability, several issues still need to be addressed.
- The article seems unfinished, as it jumps from Chapter 3 directly to Chapter 5.
- There is a lack of a discussion section. The article needs to further discuss its unique contributions to highlight its innovation, address the practical implications of the research results, provide more specific policy recommendations, and offer insights into future research directions.
- Some of the images have small fonts or annotations, which fail to clearly convey key information. It is recommended to enlarge the fonts or simplify the charts, removing unnecessary details and highlighting the most important information.
- The article frequently contains "Error! Reference source not found." It is unclear what this means.
- While the overall structure is relatively clear, some parts lack smooth transitions, and the language is somewhat lengthy, which may affect the article's fluency and readability.
Author Response
Comment 1:
This article systematically analyzes the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agriculture on Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Land Use Change (LU/LUC) using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. It compares the greenhouse gas emissions and land use impacts of different agricultural systems, finding that organic farming typically exhibits lower greenhouse gas emissions, but in some regions, conventional farming results in lower emissions due to higher-input agricultural management. The article emphasizes regional differences, proposes best practices for different agricultural systems, and suggests adjusting agricultural management strategies based on regional characteristics. While the article provides valuable insights into agricultural sustainability, several issues still need to be addressed.
Response 1:
Thank you for this detailed summary and recognition of our study’s contribution to sustainability research. We agree that the manuscript needed clarifications and improvements in some parts. We have addressed each point below to ensure clarity, methodological transparency, and improved flow of information.
Comment 2:
The article seems unfinished, as it jumps from Chapter 3 directly to Chapter 5.
Response 2:
Thank you for pointing this out. The missing Chapter 4 was an unintended numbering error rather than a missing section. We corrected the numbering to ensure a logical and coherent structure throughout the manuscript.
Revision made in the revised manuscript: Page 20, Section header line 754.
Comment 3:
There is a lack of a discussion section. The article needs to further discuss its unique contributions to highlight its innovation, address the practical implications of the research results, provide more specific policy recommendations, and offer insights into future research directions.
Response 3:
In this article, given the high number of analysis steps, we preferred to integrate Results and Discussion into a single section. We understand that some discussion points may, for this reason, be overshadowed by results, while others were indeed missing. To enhance the clarity and impact of our findings, we integrated two dedicated discussion points at the end of the section. One focuses on the method applied here and its strengths (to balance its drawbacks and limitations that were already explained before), and one on policy implications. These additions explicitly highlight the study’s unique contributions and innovative aspects, emphasizing its methodological advancements and regionalized approach to LCA.
Furthermore, we elaborated on the practical implications of our results for agricultural management, providing concrete examples of how different farming strategies, such as precision nitrogen application and reduced tillage, can influence emissions. Specific policy recommendations were also included, focusing on adaptive strategies tailored to regional sustainability needs, such as incentives for precision agriculture and regulations on land-use conversion.
Lastly, we expanded on future research directions, outlining the need for improved LCA methods, greater data availability, and the integration of socio-economic factors to enhance the applicability of sustainability assessments in agriculture.
Revisions made in the revised manuscript: Page 19–20, Lines 693–753.
Comment 4:
Some of the images have small fonts or annotations, which fail to clearly convey key information. It is recommended to enlarge the fonts or simplify the charts, removing unnecessary details and highlighting the most important information.
Response 4:
The font sizes and annotations in the images have been enlarged to enhance readability. Additionally, the charts have been simplified by removing unnecessary details while ensuring that the most critical information remains highlighted. These adjustments improve the overall clarity and effectiveness of the visual presentation.
Revisions made in the revised manuscript: All figures in the paper.
Comment 5:
The article frequently contains "Error! Reference source not found." It is unclear what this means.
Response 5:
Thank you for noting this error. These were referencing issues caused during the document export process. We have now corrected all broken links and eliminated these errors.
Revisions made in the revised manuscript: Throughout the manuscript.
Comment 6:
While the overall structure is relatively clear, some parts lack smooth transitions, and the language is somewhat lengthy, which may affect the article's fluency and readability.
Response 6:
To improve the clarity of transitions and enhance the overall flow of the text, we carefully revised the beginnings and endings of each section to ensure smoother connections between ideas where necessary. Additionally, we refined certain lengthy sentences throughout the paper to improve readability without altering their meaning. These changes enhance the manuscript’s coherence while maintaining the necessary level of detail and technical accuracy
Revisions made in the revised manuscript: e.g., Pages: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Lines 75, 89, 90, 98-108; 127-130; 191-194 and other revised passages across the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA few errors, probably editorial
Line 100: ”(Error! Reference source not found.)” idem at L. 313 ”Error! Reference source not found. during” idem L 405, 550, 551.
L 438: instead of ”(Mohammadi Kashka)”, better (Kashka et al., 2023).
L 483-484: ”0.2 kg of fertilizer per hectare” is very little. Probably a mistake.
L 493: ”Giusti et al. (2023) [26]” the citation should be the same throughout the paper, with or without the order number in the Bibliography.
L 494: ”1.82 m³ of irrigation” is a very small amount of water. Is it a mistake?
Author Response
Comment 1:
A few errors, probably editorial Line 100: ”(Error! Reference source not found.)” idem at L. 313 ”Error! Reference source not found. during” idem L 405, 550, 551. L 438: instead of ”(Mohammadi Kashka)”, better (Kashka et al., 2023). L 483-484: ”0.2 kg of fertilizer per hectare” is very little. Probably a mistake. L 493: ”Giusti et al. (2023) [26]” the citation should be the same throughout the paper, with or without the order number in the Bibliography. L 494: ”1.82 m³ of irrigation” is a very small amount of water. Is it a mistake?
Response 1:
Thank you for your careful reading and for identifying these editorial issues. We have made the following corrections in the revised manuscript:
-
The “Error! Reference source not found.” messages were due to formatting issues during Word to PDF conversion. All reference links have been corrected.
-
The citation to Mohammadi Kashka has been removed and is no longer present in the text.
-
The fertilizer value was a typographical error and has been corrected from 0.2 kg/ha to 5.2 kg/ha
-
The citation to Giusti et al. (2023) has been standardized to include both the name and the numbered reference in all instances
-
The irrigation value was also mistyped and has been corrected from 1.82 m³ to 18.2 m³
Revisions made in the revised manuscript:
• Entire manuscript
• Page 14, Lines: 504, 513
• Page 14, Lines :487
• Page 14, Lines: 491
• Page 14, Lines: 495
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Lines 104-106: What is the basis for choosing to use the Global Warming Potential (GWP) to characterize non-biogenic greenhouse gas emissions and to calculate the impacts of land use/land use change (LU/LUC) by the loss of soil biogenic production capacity? And should references be added?
- Lines 125-128: When using specific keywords for searching in databases such as Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science, how were the combinations of these keywords determined? And is there a possibility of missing some important references?
- Line 332: The data of organic farms comes from 3 farms in China and the United States. Compared with other countries and regions, it is relatively small. Do the data of these 3 farms have representativeness?
- What are the obstacles faced in the promotion of the application of renewable energy in soybean production, such as for irrigation and the power of agricultural machinery, in different countries and regions? And how can policy and economic measures be used to promote the wider application of renewable energy in soybean production?
- There are a large number of "Error! Reference source not found" annotation errors in the article. Please correct them.
Author Response
Comment 1:
Lines 104-106: What is the basis for choosing to use the Global Warming Potential (GWP) to characterize non-biogenic greenhouse gas emissions and to calculate the impacts of land use/land use change (LU/LUC) by the loss of soil biogenic production capacity? And should references be added?
Answers 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s question regarding the choice of Global Warming Potential (GWP) for characterizing non-biogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the calculation of LU/LUC impacts.
GWP was selected as it is the most widely accepted and standardized metric for comparing the climate impact of different greenhouse gases over a specific time horizon, aligning with IPCC guidelines and established LCA methodologies. Specifically, we used GWP100 as the characterization model because it is the most commonly applied metric in LCA studies (Hauschild et al., 2018), both in the literature and among the studies included in our dataset.
The impact of LU/LUC was assessed based on the loss of soil biogenic production capacity. Biogenic carbon remains a contentious issue in LCA, as GWP metrics struggle to account for temporary carbon flows. However, we believe that soil carbon dynamics should still be reflected in the analysis, particularly regarding accumulation or depletion of soil carbon stocks (which are critical particularly in a crop like soybean, produced in the tropics and responsible for LUC). To avoid inconsistencies in standard GWP indicators, we used LU/LUC characterization factors instead, a commonly applied method for quantifying changes in soil biotic production potential in response to land conversion.
Among the available characterization models, we applied Teixeira et al. (2021) because it is one of the most recent and geospatially detailed methods for LU/LUC assessment. This model was developed for over 80 land-use classes and includes regionalized data across more than 17,000 regions, making it the most comprehensive approach available.
We have updated the Methods section to explicitly state these justifications and ensure clarity for readers.
Revision: page 8, lines: 266-283, 304-324.
Comment 2: Lines 125-128: When using specific keywords for searching in databases such as Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science, how were the combinations of these keywords determined? And is there a possibility of missing some important references? - please give me response and changes
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful question regarding the selection of keyword combinations for database searches, which is indeed critical in any review study. We have now used the PRISMA checklists to ensure that all necessary information about the review step was included in the paper.
We have completely re-written the methods section of the paper.
The keywords were chosen to ensure that all papers found used some form of LCA and were about soybeans. Therefore we had two sets of keywords separated by an OR – one for the method (LCA and related concepts), and one for the product (soybeans or alternative designations), joined by an AND. Due to our scope being soybeans and LCA, we ensured that only studies that included some keywords relevant to both were included. Each of the three databases (Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science) was searched iteratively until no new relevant studies appeared on subsequent pages. The use of the three search engines minimizes the likelihood of missing important literature. Additionally, an email alert system was set up to receive notifications of newly published studies matching the selected keywords, further minimizing the risk of missing important recent references.
Nevertheless, one must assume that some studies may have been missed despite our best efforts to minimize the likeliness of errors. We have therefore also mentioned this fact in the discussion
Revision: page 4, lines: 126-168 ; page:19, lines: 685-692.
Comment 3:
Line 332: The data of organic farms comes from 3 farms in China and the United States. Compared with other countries and regions, it is relatively small. Do the data of these 3 farms have representativeness?
Response: Indeed the 3 farms are not representative of organic farming systems, whose performance can vary tremendously depending on the region. Therefore, we have removed any comparison of organic and conventional systems from the paper. We also abstain from commenting on organic systems overall. We now included in the Discussion a separate topic for this issue of representativeness of the organic farming studies.
Revision: Page 18, lines: 646-654.
Comment 4: What are the obstacles faced in the promotion of the application of renewable energy in soybean production, such as for irrigation and the power of agricultural machinery, in different countries and regions? And how can policy and economic measures be used to promote the wider application of renewable energy in soybean production.
Response: We have expanded the Discussion section to address the barriers to renewable energy adoption in soybean farming and the policy and economic measures that could support its wider application.
To ensure a comprehensive response, we integrated this discussion within the broader context of agricultural sustainability, rather than treating it as a separate topic. This section now highlights key challenges, such as high initial investment costs, infrastructure limitations, and regional disparities in energy use, while also outlining policy interventions like subsidies, decentralized energy grids, and bioenergy production from soybean residues as potential solutions.
These additions provide a balanced perspective on the feasibility of renewable energy adoption in soybean farming, reinforcing the study’s relevance to sustainable agricultural decision-making.
Revision: page 19-20, lines: 715-753.
Comment 5: There are a large number of "Error! Reference source not found" annotation errors in the article. Please correct them.
Response 5: All instances of "Error! Reference source not found." were reviewed and corrected. These errors resulted from incorrect or broken figure and reference links.
Revision: Entire manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper conducted the LCIA based on published LCA data. Its advantage is that it does not refer to the results of each work but analyses each piece of data using its method. As the case study, they picked up soybean production from conventional and organic farming. The disadvantage of this work is the limitation of data that can be compared worldwide. The reviewer suggests reviewing soybean production and trade and emphasizing the meaning of this paper, even if it is limited to country data.
For example, four countries, Brazil, the USA, Argentina, and China, produce about 85% of the world's soybean production. Three countries, except China, have increased soybean farmland in the past 20 years. Brazil and the USA export their products mainly to China.
Reference
De Maria, M., Robinson, E. J. Z., Kangile, J. R., Kadigi, R., Dreoni, I., Couto, M., Howai, N., Peci, J., Fiennes, S. (2020): Global Soybean Trade. The Geopolitics of a Bean. UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund (UKRI GCRF) Trade, Development and the Environment Hub. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34892/7yn1-k494.
< !-- notionvc: 27ad5951-2050-4d74-b773-680b10b00fd3 -->
Author Response
Comments 1:
This paper conducted the LCIA based on published LCA data. Its advantage is that it does not refer to the results of each work but analyses each piece of data using its method. As the case study, they picked up soybean production from conventional and organic farming. The disadvantage of this work is the limitation of data that can be compared worldwide. The reviewer suggests reviewing soybean production and trade and emphasizing the meaning of this paper, even if it is limited to country data.
For example, four countries, Brazil, the USA, Argentina, and China, produce about 85% of the world's soybean production. Three countries, except China, have increased soybean farmland in the past 20 years. Brazil and the USA export their products mainly to China.
Reference
De Maria, M., Robinson, E. J. Z., Kangile, J. R., Kadigi, R., Dreoni, I., Couto, M., Howai, N., Peci, J., Fiennes, S. (2020): Global Soybean Trade. The Geopolitics of a Bean. UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund (UKRI GCRF) Trade, Development and the Environment Hub. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34892/7yn1-k494.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to provide additional context on global soybean production and trade. While our study primarily focuses on environmental impacts rather than trade patterns, we have incorporated a brief discussion in the Results and Discussion to acknowledge the major soybean-producing countries (Brazil, the USA, Argentina, and China) and their role in global markets, while comparing them to the main regions studied in the literature and noticing the mismatch. This addition helps situate our study within the broader context of soybean production trends while maintaining the paper’s primary focus on sustainability assessments.
Revision: lines: 352-355.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the article is relevant and contributes both to the consolidation of information on greenhouse gas emissions and land use due to soybean cultivation, and to the analysis, even if in part, of the management and environmental conditions used for soybean production in some countries that produce the crop.
Overall, the article was developed appropriately, with the main topics/information necessary for the reader's understanding.
Some adjustments are necessary to improve the article.
The title, as it stands, does not represent the content of the work. The terms “Regionalised Environmental Impacts” can be used/interpreted in several approaches. It is suggested to use something like: “Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and land use impacts of soybean production: Systematic Review and Analysis”.
One point that deserves reflection is the low representation of organic agriculture in the present work. The authors themselves appropriately point out this limitation. Only 3 farms were considered, which does not represent even one farm per country. However, the comparison between conventional and organic systems appears with great emphasis in the work. It is pointed out in the objectives, summary, conclusions, among others, where the sampling limitation is not mentioned. It is suggested to treat this comparison as secondary, removing it from the objective of the work with adjustments in the other items where this subject is addressed. The other issues would continue in the objectives with emphasis on the differences between producing countries/regions.
Countries are represented in an unbalanced manner, with most areas concentrated in Iran (97). Countries that stand out in soybean cultivation only have 16 (Brazil), 3 (China), 3 (USA) and 4 (Argentina) farms with conventional cultivation considered. Several of these countries have continental dimensions with very different cultivation situations between regions of the country. Depending on where the farms were considered, the results may not correctly represent the systems used in the country. This needs to be pointed out and discussed, at the very least.
It is important to mention which soybean production systems use crop inoculation with N-fixing bacteria and the impact of this practice on greenhouse gas emissions.
Review the somewhat generalized statements about, for example, the way soybeans are produced in Brazil. It was mentioned that production has a high impact on the forest. However, most of the production in Brazil is done in areas of consolidated agriculture, as is the case and was mentioned in Argentina, for example. Depending on the source of information used, this type of generalization may be occurring in the analysis of soybean production systems in other countries, leading to erroneous results and interpretations.
Here are some specific suggestions:
Line 13 - Review the inclusion of the comparison of conventional and organic farms in the objective, given the low number of representatives from organic farms.
Lines 22 to 23 - Very generalist sentence. It is not part of the objectives of the work to evaluate different methodologies.
Line 25 - Insert the scientific name of soybeans in the keywords.
Line 28 - I suggest including in the introduction some specific aspects about soybean cultivation (importance in the world, main producing countries, variability of environments and production systems). As it is, it only addresses vegetable protein crops.
Line 97 - Include the work objectives clearly and directly.
Line 98 - The material and methods are very extensive. It can be summarized.
Line 274 - It was not clear how the “geospatial analysis”. Please specify.
Line 328 - Did the studies consulted report the use of inoculation of soybeans with nitrogen-fixing bacteria? This aspect may appear more in the study, both in the characterization of the production systems and in the reflections on the results obtained.
Line 389 - Avoid citing results not supported by statistics like this: “A similar but not statistically significant relationship is observed between water and total emissions (r = 0.38, p > 0.05), indicating a broader but less pronounced effect of water usage on the overall emission profile”
Line 414 - Review figures 4 and 5. Review the term “regional”. Also, the use of the same color to demarcate the entire country seems to indicate that there are no differences between the regions of the country and that they all have the same Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Land Use Impacts. Consider the issue of the USA. The figure seems to indicate soybean cultivation in Alaska. It is suggested that a table be used to present the data, indicating the number of farms considered, in order to demonstrate greater or lesser consistency in the representation of each country.
Lines 451 to 459 - Mention the reduced use of nitrogen fertilizers and biological N fixation.
Line 715 - It is important to note that in addition to increasing the number of organic farms considered, these must be compared with conventional farms in the same production environments (climate, soil, etc.).
Lines 744 to 745 - Although the authors point out limitations due to the low number of organic farms considered, the conclusions emphasize the comparison. Review this statement, without considering the limitations.
Lines 749 to 750 - Review the statement, as it is not valid for all producing regions. Most production is done in already consolidated regions. Check the sources of information.
Author Response
Comment 1:
The topic of the article is relevant and contributes both to the consolidation of information on greenhouse gas emissions and land use due to soybean cultivation, and to the analysis, even if in part, of the management and environmental conditions used for soybean production in some countries that produce the crop. Overall, the article was developed appropriately, with the main topics/information necessary for the reader's understanding. Some adjustments are necessary to improve the article.
Response 1:
Thank you for your positive and constructive feedback. We are glad the topic was considered relevant and the article appropriately developed. We have carefully addressed the suggested adjustments to further improve the clarity, structure, and overall quality of the manuscript.
Revisions made in the manuscript: -
Comment 2:
The title, as it stands, does not represent the content of the work. The terms “Regionalised Environmental Impacts” can be used/interpreted in several approaches. It is suggested to use something like: “Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and land use impacts of soybean production: Systematic Review and Analysis”.
Response 2:
We understand and agree with the suggestion. We have changed the title to “Global greenhouse gas emissions and land use impacts of soybean production: Systematic Review and Analysis” as suggested by the reviewer.
Revisions made in the manuscript: The title has been changed.
Comment 3:
Countries are represented in an unbalanced manner, with most areas concentrated in Iran (97). Countries that stand out in soybean cultivation only have 16 (Brazil), 3 (China), 3 (USA) and 4 (Argentina) farms with conventional cultivation considered. Several of these countries have continental dimensions with very different cultivation situations between regions of the country. Depending on where the farms were considered, the results may not correctly represent the systems used in the country. This needs to be pointed out and discussed, at the very least.
Response 3: The overrepresentation of Iran, compared to other major soybean producers such as Brazil, the USA, Argentina, and China, is a direct result of data availability in the reviewed studies. While this limitation does not allow for a fully representative assessment of all production systems within each country, we have taken steps to highlight differences between farms in each country where possible. To further address this, we have added a discussion explicitly recognizing this limitation and its potential influence on the interpretation of our findings, as suggested by the reviewer. We also used clearer language, namely stating that we are not comparing countries, but rather farms of different countries within our sample.
Revision: Page 19, lines: 675-686.
Comment 4:
It is important to mention which soybean production systems use crop inoculation with N-fixing bacteria and the impact of this practice on greenhouse gas emissions.
Response 4:
This is an important topic that made us return to the original studies to check the information available and also the IPCC guidelines. Only one study in our dataset explicitly mentioned the use of inoculants for nitrogen-fixing bacteria, while the majority did not report this information. Furthermore, none of the included studies provided quantitative data on the amount of nitrogen biologically fixed, nor did they include emission factors or estimates related to biological nitrogen fixation. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, which we used for all calculations, exclude biological nitrogen fixation from Nâ‚‚O emission calculations due to a lack of conclusive evidence on its contribution to emissions. For those reasons, we did not include emissions from biological N fixation in our modelling.
Revision: pages 6, 13, lines: 206-209, 435, 453-454.
Comment 5: Review the somewhat generalized statements about, for example, the way soybeans are produced in Brazil. It was mentioned that production has a high impact on the forest. However, most of the production in Brazil is done in areas of consolidated agriculture, as is the case and was mentioned in Argentina, for example. Depending on the source of information used, this type of generalization may be occurring in the analysis of soybean production systems in other countries, leading to erroneous results and interpretations.
Response:
As mentioned in our response to comment #3, we have revised the wording in the manuscript to avoid generalizations about Brazilian soybean production. While we acknowledge that much of Brazil’s soybean cultivation today occurs in consolidated agricultural areas, the LU/LUC impacts in our study reflect the occupation of land with high natural carbon sequestration potential, as modeled in the characterization factors used.
According to Castanheira and Freire (2013), even long-converted areas in sensitive biomes like the Amazon and Cerrado carry significant occupation impacts due to the loss of potential soil carbon sequestration and biodiversity functions when compared to their natural state. Similarly, Raucci et al. (2021) emphasize that occupation emissions are not tied to recent deforestation but are based on the long-term carbon stock differences between actual land use and potential natural vegetation. This modeling approach is aligned with how land use is assessed in LCIA methods, including those used in this study.
We clarified the meaning of the indicator used in the paper. The method does not account for carbon emissions from soils during recent transformations, but rather loss of biotic production potential due to soil carbon being lower than in a potential renaturalized state. This affects both recent and past conversions.
Revisions: pages 12-15, lines: 427, 429, 439, 440, 445, 448, 451,452, 456, 457, 458, 461, 447, 472, 481-483, 485, 486, 491, 493, 496, 503, 515-526, 536-541, 550, 553, 560, 561, 563, 568.
Comment 6:
Line 13 - Review the inclusion of the comparison of conventional and organic farms in the objective, given the low number of representatives from organic farms.
Response 6: As mentioned in our reponse to comment #2, given the small sample size, we have decided to remove our analysis of organic production. The objectives, summary, conclusions, and other relevant sections have been revised accordingly.
Revision: Please see response to comment #2.
Comment 7:
Lines 22 to 23 - Very generalist sentence. It is not part of the objectives of the work to evaluate different methodologies.
Response 7: The abstract has been completely rewritten to better reflect the quantitative results of the study, removing generalized statements and ensuring alignment with the study's specific objectives and methodology.
Revision: The Abstract of the manuscript has been fully re-written.
Comment 8: Line 25 - Insert the scientific name of soybeans in the keywords
Response 8: The scientific name has been added a keyword.
Revision: page 1 line 30.
Comments 9:
Line 28 - I suggest including in the introduction some specific aspects about soybean cultivation (importance in the world, main producing countries, variability of environments and production systems). As it is, it only addresses vegetable protein crops.
Response 9: We have added information about the global significance of soybean production, the main producing countries, and the variability in production environments and systems.
Revision: page 2 lines 67-76.
Comment 10:
Line 97 - Include the work objectives clearly and directly.
Response 10: The study objectives have been revised and are now clearly and directly stated in the introduction section.
Revision: page 3 lines 100-110.
Comment 11:
Line 98 - The material and methods are very extensive. It can be summarized.
Response 11: The Material and Methods section has been carefully shortened without removing any essential content to improve clarity and readability – taking into account that the supplementary methods provide additional resources for understanding our work.
Revision: The whole Material and Method section.
Comment 12:
Line 274 - It was not clear how the “geospatial analysis”. Please specify.
Response 12: The term “geospatial analysis” was incorrect. We have clarified how average emissions were calculated for all farms within each country, which is the core of this part of the analysis.
Revision: page 8, lines 306-311.
Comment 13: Line 328 - Did the studies consulted report the use of inoculation of soybeans with nitrogen-fixing bacteria? This aspect may appear more in the study, both in the characterization of the production systems and in the reflections on the results obtained.
Response 13: Please see response to comment #4.
revision: Please see response to comment #4.
Comment 14:
Line 389 - Avoid citing results not supported by statistics like this: “A similar but not statistically significant relationship is observed between water and total emissions (r = 0.38, p > 0.05), indicating a broader but less pronounced effect of water usage on the overall emission profile”
Response 14: All statements related to statistically non-significant results have been removed to ensure that only statistically supported findings are discussed.
Revision: page 11-12 lines 394-405.
Comment 15:
Line 414 - Review figures 4 and 5. Review the term “regional”. Also, the use of the same color to demarcate the entire country seems to indicate that there are no differences between the regions of the country and that they all have the same Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Land Use Impacts. Consider the issue of the USA. The figure seems to indicate soybean cultivation in Alaska. It is suggested that a table be used to present the data, indicating the number of farms considered, in order to demonstrate greater or lesser consistency in the representation of each country.
Response 15:
We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the term “regional” and have removed it throughout the manuscript to better reflect that our data was averaged at the national level.
Regarding the use of full-country demarcation in Figures 4 and 5, we would like to clarify that the color shading represents the average impacts of the farms within each country, not the spatial distribution of soybean cultivation within that country. To avoid potential misinterpretation, we have updated the figure captions to explicitly state that the color does not imply that soybean is cultivated across the entire national territory.
Lastly, we appreciate the suggestion to provide a table with the number of farms per country. However, given the small number of countries in the sample, we believe that such a table would be small and contain little information. Instead, we have now included the number of farms per country in the Results section. In case the reviewer feels that the table is strictly needed, we are open to including it in a future version.
Revision: pages 9 lines 347-351 , page 14 lines 422-425 and page 15 lines 537-541.
Comment 16:
Lines 451 to 459 - Mention the reduced use of nitrogen fertilizers and biological N fixation.
Response: Please see response to comment #4. In this specific section we have also mentioned the issue of biological N fixation.
Revision: Please see response to comment #4 and Line 435 page 13.
Comment 17: Line 715 - It is important to note that in addition to increasing the number of organic farms considered, these must be compared with conventional farms in the same production environments (climate, soil, etc.).
Response: Please see response to comment #2. We have removed all comparisons between organic and conventional farming systems from the manuscript, including in the conclusions and across all sections of the text.
Revision: Please see response to comment #2.
Comment 18: Lines 744 to 745 - Although the authors point out limitations due to the low number of organic farms considered, the conclusions emphasize the comparison. Review this statement, without considering the limitations.
Response 18: Please see response to comment #2. We have completely rewritten the Conclusions section, which also fixed this issue.
Revision: Conclusions section re-written.
Comment 19:
Lines 749 to 750 - Review the statement, as it is not valid for all producing regions. Most production is done in already consolidated regions. Check the sources of information.
Response 19: Please see response to comment #5.
Revision: Please see response to comment #5.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made the necessary revisions, and the revised manuscript is excellent and fully meets the requirements. It should be accepted.
