Sustainable Production of Barley in a Water-Scarce Mediterranean Agroecosystem

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper made an investigation regarding the Sustainable production of barley in a water-scarce Mediterranean agroecosystem. Overall, the structure of this paper is well organized, and the presentation is relatively clear. The idea is interesting and potential. However, there are still some crucial problems that need to be carefully addressed.

More specifically, 1. The motivations or remaining challenges are not so clear or what kinds of issues or difficulties are this task that is facing. Please give more details and discussion about the key problems solved in this paper, which is largely different from existing works.

2. The reviewer is wondering whether current some state-of-the-art machine learning models or AI models can better perform this task. Therefore, the reviewer suggests discussing some related works by analyzing the following papers in the revised manuscript, e.g., 10.1109/TGRS.2020.3015157,10.1109/TIP.2019.2893068

3. Please clarify the contributions to this field, for example, which are the existing ones and which are your own ones?

4. Some future directions should be pointed out in the conclusion.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewers for the comments and suggestions aimed at improving the quality and impact of the manuscript.

Reviewer 1.

This paper made an investigation regarding the Sustainable production of barley in a water-scarce Mediterranean agroecosystem. Overall, the structure of this paper is well organized, and the presentation is relatively clear. The idea is interesting and potential. However, there are still some crucial problems that need to be carefully addressed.

More specifically,

1.1. The motivations or remaining challenges are not so clear or what kinds of issues or difficulties are this task that is facing. Please give more details and discussion about the key problems solved in this paper, which is largely different from existing works.

OK. Lines 10-12; 43-48; 128

1.2. The reviewer is wondering whether current some state-of-the-art machine learning models or AI models can better perform this task. Therefore, the reviewer suggests discussing some related works by analyzing the following papers in the revised manuscript, e.g., 10.1109/TGRS.2020.3015157,10.1109/TIP.2019.2893068

OK. Lines 61-64; 531-538

1.3. Please clarify the contributions to this field, for example, which are the existing ones and which are your own ones?

OK. Lines 95-115

1.4. Some future directions should be pointed out in the conclusion.

OK. Lines 572-579

The answers to these questions will add to the quality of the manuscript.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 Line 97 We consider that the secondary objective 3 ˮTo train one of the farmers in the use of the methodologies in SUPROMED and monitor, during the second year, their management of the crop;ˮ cannot be the an objective for a study, and has no place in a scientific paper.

 

We suggest the authors to reformulate their objectives.

 

Line 221 Please motivate which methodology is the basis of selection of the key performance indicators

 

Line 267 Results and discussion

 

Line 480 Conclusions

Please reformulate the conclusions in a manner, which responds to the targeted objectives.

 

We suggest the authors to reformulate the conclusions in a manner, which responds to the targeted objectives.

 We recommend major revision

The authors have as  ˮmain objective of this work was to demonstrate the impact of applying the models and methodologies in SUPROMED on the sustainability and profitability of a barley  crop in comparison with the traditional management of this crop in Castilla-La Manchaˮ, but in text they do not clearly  emphasize this issue.  

Please emphasize the new contributions brought by this study.

 

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewers for the comments and suggestions aimed at improving the quality and impact of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2.

2.1. Line 97 We consider that the secondary objective 3 ˮTo train one of the farmers in the use of the methodologies in SUPROMED and monitor, during the second year, their management of the crop;ˮ cannot be the an objective for a study, and has no place in a scientific paper.

We suggest the authors to reformulate their objectives.

Ok. Lines 130-139.

2.2. Line 221 Please motivate which methodology is the basis of selection of the key performance indicators

OK. Lines 20-22; 131-134; 273-278

2.3. Line 267 Results and discussion

Sorry, we do not understand this comment.

2.4. Line 480 Conclusions

Please reformulate the conclusions in a manner, which responds to the targeted objectives.

 

We suggest the authors to reformulate the conclusions in a manner, which responds to the targeted objectives.

We recommend major revision

The authors have as ˮmain objective of this work was to demonstrate the impact of applying the models and methodologies in SUPROMED on the sustainability and profitability of a barley crop in comparison with the traditional management of this crop in Castilla-La Manchaˮ, but in text they do not clearly  emphasize this issue. 

Please emphasize the new contributions brought by this study.

OK. Lines 549-551; 566-568.

The answers to these questions will add to the quality of the manuscript.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

"Sustainable production of barley in a water-scarce Mediterranean agroecosystem" is a well-written article and provides useful information about barley production in water-scarce Mediterranean areas and the role of the SUPROMED project and found a substantial difference in water utilization while maintaining the same level of production. The findings are of interest to the farmers living in the Mediterranean as well as other water-stressed areas. However, there are certain improvements needed in the manuscript as follows:

- There are a few issues with the writeup, seeking authors' attention. Authors are required to go through the manuscript carefully and make corrections regarding grammar, spelling, and article errors. Some of the mistakes are as under:

The following phrases appear with and without a hyphen:

• ‘Castilla La’ / ‘Castilla-La’ 1 time without a hyphen 4 times with
• ‘Crop-Water’ / ‘Crop Water’ 1 time with a hyphen 8 times without
• ‘first-year’ / ‘first year’ 1 time with a hyphen 2 times without
• ‘Garcia-Vila’ / ‘Garcia Vila’ 1 time with a hyphen 1 time without

• ‘agroecosystems’ / ‘agro-ecosystems’ 1 time without a hyphen 3 times with
• ‘semiarid’ / ‘semi-arid’ 2 times without a hyphen 6 times with

The following words are spelled in two different ways:

• ‘analyses’ / ‘analyzing’ analyses 2 times analyzing 4 times
• ‘center’ / ‘centre’ center 2 times centre 1 time

- Abstract:

This section is nicely written and presents an insight into the underlying research. I suggest that a brief policy recommended may be added at the end of this section. 

- Introduction:

This section is a bit short and needs more information/explanation about the project. What is this project? when, who and why did it start? The need for the study should also be strengthened.

 - Materials and Methods:

Figure 1 is ok but can be improved by using a colored one and also the labeling should be more clear for the readers.

The study is based on too little number of farms. There should be justification/reference for using this number. 

Moreover, the findings are based primarily on descriptive statistics. an in-depth research methodology may also be applied to employ unobserved characteristics like age, education, experience, and other socio-economic variables.

The rest of the paper is nicely described. Results are clearly discussed and the conclusion is in line with the findings.

-There are some points that need answers:  

What does this study suggest? 

What should farmers do?

What are the policy suggestions and recommendations in the light of the findings of the research?

The answers to these questions will add to the quality of the manuscript.

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewers for the comments and suggestions aimed at improving the quality and impact of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3.

Sustainable production of barley in a water-scarce Mediterranean agroecosystem" is a well-written article and provides useful information about barley production in water-scarce Mediterranean areas and the role of the SUPROMED project and found a substantial difference in water utilization while maintaining the same level of production. The findings are of interest to the farmers living in the Mediterranean as well as other water-stressed areas. However, there are certain improvements needed in the manuscript as follows:

3.1. - There are a few issues with the writeup, seeking authors' attention. Authors are required to go through the manuscript carefully and make corrections regarding grammar, spelling, and article errors. Some of the mistakes are as under:

The following phrases appear with and without a hyphen:

• ‘Castilla La’ / ‘Castilla-La’ 1 time without a hyphen 4 times with
• ‘Crop-Water’ / ‘Crop Water’ 1 time with a hyphen 8 times without
• ‘first-year’ / ‘first year’ 1 time with a hyphen 2 times without
• ‘Garcia-Vila’ / ‘Garcia Vila’ 1 time with a hyphen 1 time without
• ‘agroecosystems’ / ‘agro-ecosystems’ 1 time without a hyphen 3 times with
• ‘semiarid’ / ‘semi-arid’ 2 times without a hyphen 6 times with

OK. Corrected in the text, excepting those appearing in the References due to that is the way authors wrote their names or the title of their papers.

The following words are spelled in two different ways:

• ‘analyses’ / ‘analyzing’ analyses 2 times analyzing 4 times
• ‘center’ / ‘centre’ center 2 times centre 1 time

OK. The text was reviewed again by a native English language professional, who pointed out that “analyses” is the correct plural of “analysis” in both British and American spelling.

- Abstract:

3.1. This section is nicely written and presents an insight into the underlying research. I suggest that a brief policy recommended may be added at the end of this section. 

OK. Lines 29-31.

- Introduction:

3.2. This section is a bit short and needs more information/explanation about the project. What is this project? when, who and why did it start? The need for the study should also be strengthened.

OK. Lines 43-48; 79-82; 95-115.

 - Materials and Methods:

3.3. Figure 1 is ok but can be improved by using a colored one and also the labeling should be more clear for the readers.

OK. Line 149.

3.4. The study is based on too little number of farms. There should be justification/reference for using this number. 

OK. Lines 171-177.

3.5. Moreover, the findings are based primarily on descriptive statistics. an in-depth research methodology may also be applied to employ unobserved characteristics like age, education, experience, and other socio-economic variables.

We agree with this comment. The socio-economic analysis of the impact of the project is another objective, which will be published in a different paper. Nonetheless, some comments have been included in the text. Lines 111-112, 174-176.

The rest of the paper is nicely described. Results are clearly discussed and the conclusion is in line with the findings.

-There are some points that need answers:  

3.6. What does this study suggest?

OK. Lines 548-550.

3.7. What should farmers do?

OK. Lines 552-565.

3.8. What are the policy suggestions and recommendations in the light of the findings of the research?

OK. Lines 29-31; 572-579.

The answers to these questions will add to the quality of the manuscript.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No more comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author made the suggested improvements.

The article may be accepted in present form.