Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

your manuscript needs significant modifications to be accepted for publication. 

Indicatively,

a) the introduction needs enrichment with solid references in similar previous publications and the added value of your work.

b) there are no reference cited throughout the manuscript

c) there is no reference of what Phase 1, 2, 3 are referred to. They are only mentoned on Table 1 and the reader cannot understand what are these about.

d) There are no Tables S2-S10 as you mentioned in 2.4 subchapter.

e) The methodolgy needs improvements in the structure to be more clear. The 1.1. and 1.2 should be enriched.

Please, check the overall manuscript to make it more attractive to be published. 

Author Response

General Comment: The manuscript needs significant modifications to make it more attractive for publication.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their critical assessment. We acknowledge that the initial submission had structural weaknesses and missing information. Based on your valuable feedback, we have performed a major revision of the manuscript, significantly enriching the Introduction, clarifying the Methodology, and ensuring all references and supplementary materials are complete.

Comment (a): The introduction needs enrichment with solid references in similar previous publications and the added value of your work.

Response: We have extensively rewritten the Introduction section.

Literature Gap: We have added a detailed review of existing LCA studies on precision agriculture (e.g., Leiva et al., 2016; Dorr et al., 2021; Goglio et al., 2025), highlighting their limitations in handling stochastic variables and grid heterogeneity.

Added Value: We now clearly articulate the study's unique contribution: bridging the gap between deterministic LCA and statistical hypothesis testing (ANOVA) to provide a robust decision-support tool for high-stakes management decisions.

Comment (b): There are no references cited throughout the manuscript.

Response: We apologise for this oversight in the previous version. We have carefully checked the entire manuscript and ensured that all citations are correctly formatted and included. The revised manuscript now contains a comprehensive list of references supporting our methodology (ISO standards, Ecoinvent database) and discussion.

Comment (c): There is no reference to what Phases 1, 2, and 3 refer to. They are only mentioned in Table 1, and the reader cannot understand what these are about.

Response: This is a crucial point. We have now explicitly defined these phases in the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) section and ensured consistent terminology throughout the text (replacing "Stage" with "Phase"):

Phase 1: Preparation of the primary seed culture.

Phase 2: Preparation of the secondary seed culture.

Phase 3: The growing process (cultivation). These definitions are now clearly presented before they appear in Table 1 and Table 4 to ensure reader comprehension.

Comment (d): There are no Tables S2-S10 as you mentioned in 2.4 subchapter.

Response: We apologise for the confusion regarding the Supplementary Materials. In this revised submission, we have consolidated the necessary supporting data into the main text and a streamlined Supplementary File. We have removed the erroneous references to missing tables (S2-S10) and ensured that all cited tables are present and correct.

Comment (e): The methodology needs improvements in the structure to be clearer. The 1.1 and 1.2 should be enriched.

Response: We have restructured the Methodology section for better clarity:

Goal and Scope: We expanded the justification for the system boundary and the functional unit.

Pedigree Matrix: We added a detailed explanation of how data quality scores were derived and converted into uncertainty factors (Section 2.3).

Monte Carlo & Sensitivity Analysis: We added specific subsections explaining the statistical setup (1,000 iterations) and the rationale behind the Discriminative Index (DI) and ANOVA tests.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The paper develops a statistically enriched LCA framework (pedigree matrix + Monte Carlo + ANOVA/Tukey + DI) for a specialty mushroom CEA system and argues that electricity sourcing is the decisive sustainability lever. The topic is important and promising, but the manuscript requires major revision for clarity, internal consistency, and sharper positioning.

Context (SDGs, dual-carbon goals, CEA, specialty mushrooms) is strong, but the specific methodological contribution is not sharply stated. Please:

• Clearly articulate what is novel beyond “LCA + Monte Carlo + ANOVA,” which already exists in probabilistic LCA.

Theory / Conceptual Framing

You implicitly propose a decision-support logic (hotspot identification → uncertainty propagation → discriminative ranking). A short conceptual subsection would help:

• Explain how the Discriminative Index (DI) complements ANOVA/F-statistics.
• Define the decision rule for calling a lever “the single most powerful and statistically robust” option.

Methodology

• Acknowledge more explicitly how ignoring cross-process correlations could influence variance estimates.

Data and Results

The main weaknesses are internal inconsistencies and scenario confusion:

• The text alternates between “five” and “seven” scenarios and mixes regional grids with hydropower, PV, PV+Battery, wind. Provide a single, coherent scenario set (names, parameters, and baseline).
• The claim that SWG is both the baseline and the “optimal” scenario, and that GWP falls from 1.66 to 0.42 kg CO₂ eq (75% reduction), conflicts with Table 5 values (~1.67 kg CO₂ eq for SWG). These numerical inconsistencies must be corrected.
• Clearly show how the “electricity = 88.5% of GWP” figure is obtained (e.g., contribution analysis).

Transport and SMS cut-off are adequately motivated but could be more concise: one short sensitivity calculation for transport (GWP contribution) and a schematic of SMS fate options would suffice.

Discussion, Implications, and Presentation

The discussion nicely emphasises the shift from agronomic to energy-system hotspots, but can be shortened and focused on:

• Generalisability to other CEA systems.
• Practical trade-offs for producers and policymakers.

Condense practical recommendations into 3–4 clear actions (for farm managers, policymakers, associations), each linked to expected magnitude of improvement.

Overall assessment:
A relevant and potentially valuable contribution, but it requires major revision to fix scenario/numerical inconsistencies, clarify the statistical methodology, and present a coherent, tightly argued decision-support framework.

Author Response

Comment 1: The text alternates between “five” and “seven” scenarios... Provide a single, coherent scenario set.

Response: We apologise for this confusion. We have unified the text to consistently refer to six scenarios (Baseline SWG + 5 regional grid variants). All conflicting mentions have been corrected in the Methodology and Results sections.

Comment 2: The claim that SWG is both the baseline and the “optimal” scenario... conflicts with Table 5 values.

Response: We have clarified this in the text. The Southwest Grid (SWG) serves as the Baseline for our study because the facility is located in Guizhou. Since the SWG is hydropower-based and low-carbon, it naturally performs best among the regional grids. We have revised the "Scenario Comparison" section to frame the analysis as "comparing other regional grids against the optimal baseline (SWG)" to avoid logical contradictions.

Comment 3: Numerical inconsistencies regarding GWP reductions (75–93%) and missing renewable scenarios.

Response: We acknowledge that the initial inclusion of hypothetical renewable scenarios (Solar PV) without complete life cycle inventory data was confusing. To ensure scientific rigour and data quality, we have removed the incomplete Solar PV scenario. The revised analysis now strictly compares six specific regional grid mixes using robust Ecoinvent background data: Southwest (SWG), East China (ECGC), Central China (CCG), Northwest (NWG), North China (NCGC), and Northeast (NECG). Consequently, the results and conclusion have been updated to focus on the quantifiable benefits of regional grid selection (e.g., shifting to the hydro-rich SWG) rather than hypothetical technology switching.

Comment 4: Clearly show how the “electricity = 88.5% of GWP” figure is obtained.

Response: We have updated the contribution analysis in the Abstract and Results to strictly align with the data in Table 4. The text now accurately states that the growing phase (dominated by electricity) contributes approximately 71% to GWP, and we have ensured all percentage claims match the tabulated results.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a life cycle assessment (LCA) of Dictyophora rubrovolvata cultivation, employing Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis and ANOVA-based scenario comparisons to identify environmental hotspots. Electricity use is highlighted as the dominant contributor to environmental impacts. While the methodological framework is generally well-structured, the results contain major inconsistencies. Most notably, the manuscript claims large reductions in global warming potential (GWP) for hydropower and solar PV scenarios (75–93%), yet these reductions are not supported by the numerical values in Table 5, and the renewable energy scenarios themselves are not reported. Key inventory elements for solar PV, including panel manufacturing, generally 25-year replacement cycles, and end-of-life impacts, are missing, which limits the validity of the conclusions. Additionally, tables contain unclear parameter labels and incomplete units, reducing reproducibility.

To improve the manuscript, the authors should:

• Align the Discussion with the actual results.
• Include complete renewable energy scenarios in both the text and tables.
• Model the full life cycle impacts of solar PV, including manufacturing, replacement, and end-of-life.
• Revise tables to improve clarity, consistency, and readability.

Introduction:

• Clarify the novelty of the study in a concise paragraph.
• Provide an explanation for Figure 1.

Materials and Methods:

• Table 1 presents material and energy inputs divided into Phases 1, 2, and 3, but the manuscript does not define these phases. The authors must clearly describe each phase in the Methods, including operations, processes, and allocation rules.
• Methods should explain how reliability and completeness scores were assigned (e.g., why electricity = 3 in reliability, water = 4 in completeness).
• Explain why the OLD metric is unstable.
• Figure 2 uses a log-scale on the y-axis; this should be clarified in the caption.
• Table 3 lists impact categories using only abbreviations (e.g., AD, AC, MAE, FWAE). Full names should be provided in the table or as a footnote for clarity.
• Table 2 uses internal or software-derived variable names (e.g., “EN_Electricity_Total_Kwh_per_FU”), which are difficult to interpret. Replace these with clear, descriptive labels (e.g., “Electricity,” “Water,” “Glucose”) and include units.
• Explain why AD and OLD have lower contributions in Stage 3.
• For Figure 3, add percentage labels to improve readability.
• Provide details on how regional grid mixes were constructed.

Results and Discussion:

• The manuscript previously claims hydropower and PV are the best scenarios, yet Table 5 shows the SWG grid mix as superior. The Discussion should be consistent with these results.
• Ensure consistent terminology: Table 1 uses Phase 1/2/3, while Table 4 uses Stage 1/2/3.
• Correct minor errors: The MAE column label in Table 4 (“kg 1,4-DB eq”) lacks a closing parenthesis.
• Table 5 should include full definitions of all impact category abbreviations (e.g., GWP, MAE, AC) in the table or as a footnote for self-containment.
• Numerical inconsistencies: The text (p.11–12) states that shifting from the baseline to the SWG mix reduces GWP from 1.66 to 0.42 kg CO₂-eq (~75%), but Table 5 lists SWG GWP = 1.67 ± 0.10 kg CO₂-eq, essentially identical to the baseline. Similarly, abstract claims of 93.6% and 88.9% reductions for hydropower and PV, respectively, are unsupported. The authors must either include the relevant hydropower/PV scenarios in the Results or revise the claims to match the actual data.
• The solar PV analysis does not account for panel manufacturing, replacement cycles (typically every 25 years), battery storage, or end-of-life disposal (glass, polymers, metals). Without these elements, the reported GWP reductions (e.g., 88.9%) are not scientifically defensible.
• Specify at what level the ANOVA was applied.
• Abstract states electricity contributes 88.5% of GWP under baseline, but Table 4 shows Stage 3 GWP = 1.41 and total = 1.66 → Stage 3 share = 84.9%, not 88.5%.
• Clarify why OLD shows a negative ω².
• Ensure consistent spelling and formatting: the species name should be consistently written as Dictyophora rubrovolvata and italicized throughout.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Ensure consistent spelling and formatting: the species name should be consistently written as Dictyophora rubrovolvata and italicized throughout.
• Revise tables  to mention the abbreviations in full words
• Ensure consistent terminology: phase or stage? 

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript claims large reductions in GWP for hydropower and solar PV, yet these are not supported by Table 5 values. Key inventory elements for solar PV are missing.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that presenting Solar PV results without a complete lifecycle inventory (manufacturing, end-of-life) is scientifically unsound. Therefore, we have removed the specific Solar PV and Hydropower scenarios from the manuscript. We have refocused the study on the robust comparison of regional grid mixes (Scenario Analysis), which provides statistically significant and actionable insights without relying on incomplete datasets.

Comment 2: Table 1 uses Phase 1/2/3, but the manuscript does not define these phases. Ensure consistent terminology (Phase or Stage?).

Response: We have standardised the terminology to "Phase" throughout the manuscript.

Phase 1: Preparation of primary seed culture.

Phase 2: Preparation of secondary seed culture.

Phase 3: Growing process. We have corrected all instances of "Stage" to "Phase" in Table 4 and the corresponding text.

Comment 3: Table 2 uses internal variable names (e.g., “EN_Electricity...”).

Response: We have completely reformatted Table 2. All software-derived codes have been replaced with clear, descriptive English labels (e.g., "Electricity," "Water," "Glucose") with correct units.

Comment 4: Ensure consistent spelling and formatting: Dictyophora rubrovolvata should be italicised.

Response: We have carefully proofread the entire manuscript. The species name Dictyophora rubrovolvata is now consistently italicised in the Abstract, Introduction, and throughout the text.

Comment 5: Correct minor errors: The MAE column label in Table 4 (“kg 1,4-DB eq”) lacks a closing parenthesis.

Response: This typo has been corrected in Table 4.

Comment 6: Explain why the OLD metric is unstable.

Response: We added a brief explanation in the Results section. The instability in Ozone Layer Depletion (OLD) arises because the absolute values are extremely low (order of E-08), making the metric highly sensitive to minor background data variations, which results in a lower signal-to-noise ratio compared to GWP.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved. 

I would expect a more detailed comparison to similar past published works (if any) in order to underline the significance of your work. 

In 2.3 chapter , it could be better if you present these ten relevant impact categories in a Table.

The cited references do not follow the numerical classification throughout the manuscript, so they should not be presented like this in the "references" at the end of the text.

Author Response

Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer 1
General Comment:
The manuscript has been improved.
Response:
Thank you very much for your positive feedback and for acknowledging the improvements made to the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.

Comment 1:
I would expect a more detailed comparison to similar past published works (if any) in order to underline the significance of your work.
Response:
Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We agree that explicitly contrasting our approach with existing literature is crucial to highlight the novelty and significance of our work.
Action taken:
We have significantly expanded the Discussion section to include a dedicated comparative analysis.
We cited classic LCA studies in speciality agriculture, such as Robinson et al. (2019) and Leiva et al. (2017), noting that while they successfully identified environmental hotspots, they predominantly relied on deterministic approaches using average data.
We contrasted this with our proposed framework, which integrates statistical robustness to address inherent agricultural variability.
We also referenced recent literature advocating for uncertainty management (Goglio et al., 2025; Dorr et al., 2021) to demonstrate that our work aligns with and advances current methodological trends.
This addition clarifies that our study moves beyond simple hotspot identification to provide statistically significant, evidence-based decision support.

Comment 2:
In Chapter 2.3, it could be better if you present these ten relevant impact categories in a Table.
Response:
We fully agree that a table would significantly improve the readability and presentation of the technical details.
Action taken:
We have replaced the original text list in Section 2.3 with a new table, Table [Insert Number] (e.g., Table 2). This table clearly presents the ten selected impact categories (e.g., GWP100, Abiotic Depletion, etc.) alongside their respective abbreviations, reference units, and brief descriptions. This change allows readers to quickly grasp the scope of the assessment.

Comment 3:
The cited references do not follow the numerical classification throughout the manuscript, so they should not be presented like this in the "references" at the end of the text.
Response:
We sincerely apologise for the inconsistency in the citation formatting in the previous version.
Action taken:
We have conducted a comprehensive review of all in-text citations and the reference list.
We ensured that all references are numbered consecutively in the order they appear in the text, strictly adhering to the MDPI citation style.
The reference list at the end of the manuscript has been re-ordered and formatted to match the corrected in-text numbers perfectly.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and significantly improved. The authors have addressed all essential methodological, analytical, and interpretative issues, and the current version reflects a clear and statistically robust contribution to the field. The paper demonstrates strong conceptual coherence, methodological rigor, and practical relevance for sustainable agricultural management. I recommend the manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and significantly improved. The authors have addressed all essential methodological, analytical, and interpretative issues, and the current version reflects a clear and statistically robust contribution to the field. The paper demonstrates strong conceptual coherence, methodological rigour, and practical relevance for sustainable agricultural management. I recommend the manuscript for publication.
Response:
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for the encouraging comments and the recommendation for publication. We are delighted that the revisions have met your expectations and improved the quality of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is suitable for publication. 

Author Response

Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
The revised version is suitable for publication.

Response:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation and recommendation for publication. We appreciate the time taken to review our manuscript.