Circular Regenerative Agricultural Practices in Africa: Techniques and Their Potential for Soil Restoration and Sustainable Food Production
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript entitled: “Circular Regenerative Agricultural Practices in Africa: Techniques and their Potential for Soil Restoration and Sustainable Food Production” deals with an important issue, which is attracting the interest of the scientific community.
However, there are some points that need to be clarified and improved.
The keywords should not repeat the words in the title. Common words should be replaced by others that convey the same meaning.
Although it is a review paper, the abstract needs to contain some quantitative data, of great importance, obtained from this research.
This is a type of review which is described as a literature review. In these review papers the authors usually use diagrams or flow charts or useful graphics that describe in a digestible way a lot of information so that the manuscript is easy to read and understand by the scientific audience. I would suggest that authors replace part of their text or part of the information contained in the Tables with flowchart figures.
An underlying issue in the submitted manuscript is the discussion on the addition of soil amendments to crop soils, especially those containing extra carbon, as they change the percentage of organic matter in those added soils. The following paper among others could enhance manuscript paper: Assessment of remediation of soils, moderately contaminated by potentially toxic metals, using different forms of carbon (charcoal, biochar, activated carbon). Impacts on contamination, metals availability and soil indices, Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, 28, 2022, 100724, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2022.100724. The use of soil amendments is of a particular interest and the authors should focus on this, incorporating a relative paragraph in their manuscript.
The novelty of the paper should be highlighted and shown at key points in the manuscript.
The conclusions seem condensed and contain several generalities. They should perhaps be rewritten in several places and added: 1. Quantitative results, 2. Suggestion to continue this research in the future, properly generalized for agricultural soils nor only for Africa, also in countries that may have similar problems due to the climate crisis.
Author Response
|
S/N |
Reviewer’s comment |
Our Response |
|
Reviewer 1 |
|
|
|
a |
The keywords should not repeat the words in the title. Common words should be replaced by others that convey the same meaning. |
key words similar to words on the title have been replaced as advised |
|
b |
Although it is a review paper, the abstract needs to contain some quantitative data, of great importance, obtained from this research. |
The abstract has been improved by including quantitative data related to the theme under discussion in our work |
|
c |
This is a type of review which is described as a literature review. In these review papers the authors usually use diagrams or flow charts or useful graphics that describe in a digestible way a lot of information so that the manuscript is easy to read and understand by the scientific audience. I would suggest that authors replace part of their text or part of the information contained in the Tables with flowchart figures.
|
We appreciate the guidance, although we kept the tables intact, a flow chart has been included as Figure 2 to put more clarity in explaining how circular regenerative practices are used in reclaiming the quality/health of soils |
|
|
An underlying issue in the submitted manuscript is the discussion on the addition of soil amendments to crop soils, especially those containing extra carbon, as they change the percentage of organic matter in those added soils. The following paper among others could enhance manuscript paper: Assessment of remediation of soils, moderately contaminated by potentially toxic metals, using different forms of carbon (charcoal, biochar, activated carbon). Impacts on contamination, metals availability and soil indices, Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, 28, 2022, 100724, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2022.100724. The use of soil amendments is of a particular interest and the authors should focus on this, incorporating a relative paragraph in their manuscript |
The reviewer’s comments and suggestions have been taken on board, we have improved the section 5 of the document with additional paragraph and relevant citations have been included |
|
|
The novelty of the paper should be highlighted and shown at key points in the manuscript |
We have improved the abstract to include statements that allude to novelty of the manuscript |
|
|
The conclusions seem condensed and contain several generalities. They should perhaps be rewritten in several places and added: 1. Quantitative results, 2. Suggestion to continue this research in the future, properly generalized for agricultural soils nor only for Africa, also in countries that may have similar problems due to the climate crisis.
|
We have added a statement proposing/suggesting the need for future research around the themes of this paper |
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors attempts to review the Circular Regenerative Agricultural practices in Africa: Techniques and their potential for soil restoration and sustainable food production". The topic is of great interest to agriculture and mostly especially the coverage area. Find below some comments/suggestions to improve the manuscript further:
1) The method/methodology of selecting the literature for this review should be clearly stated in the Abstract section and also in the body of the contents
2) Before the second section (Line 91), there is need to insert the motivation, research gap and objective of the study
3) Abbreviation shouldn't be use in the table/figure caption (Line 126).
4) It is better to consider streamlining the review to cover "Sub Saharan Africa" than the whole Africa
5) Table 1 & Table 2 should be made more complex (some more heading should be included such as production percentage, mechanism, limitations, results etc)
6) Figure 1capture does make it easy to comprehend. Also, there should be an indication point to each of the crop mentioned. Then what is the purpose of this figure in the paper?
7) At least 2 or more figures should be included which which explain more about the regenerative agricultural practices
8) The references contain many online sources information (Refs - 2, 4 - 6, 14, 21 - 26, 29 - 31, 35 - 39, 47, 55, 59 - 62, 71, 80 - 84). This is almost 30% of the references in the paper. Do remember that this online information are usually updated always, hence the information must have change now from the date it was obtained. It will be better to consider some related references or update the information accordingly
9) Consider the inclusion of some related references, such as: Soil Fertility Management: Issues and Challenges in Tropical Areas of Nigeria (10.52305/PFZA6988), 10.3390/agriculture14070976; 10.1007/s00425-022-03903-5, 10.3390/su152115444, and 10.5772/intechopen.1001465
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor English Editing is required
Author Response
|
Reviewer 2 |
|
|
|
|
The method/methodology of selecting the literature for this review should be clearly stated in the Abstract section and also in the body of the contents |
The methodology or approach for the literature review has now been included both in the abstract and introduction sections (see line 96 to109 of the revised document) |
|
|
Before the second section (Line 91), there is need to insert the motivation, research gap and objective of the study |
This has been taken care of in the introduction section. A paragraph has been added to show knowledge gap the need for undertaking this study (see line 91 to 109) |
|
|
Abbreviation shouldn't be use in the table/figure caption (Line 126). |
The title has been amended, abbreviation removed |
|
|
It is better to consider streamlining the review to cover "Sub Saharan Africa" than the whole Africa |
Although much of agriculture referred to in this manuscript draws examples from sub Saharan Africa, we feel that reference to the whole of Africa is important |
|
|
) Table 1 & Table 2 should be made more complex (some more heading should be included such as production percentage, mechanism, limitations, results etc) |
We appreciate for the comment but we strongly feel that the information included in the tables are sufficiently encompassing and exhaustive by nature |
|
|
At least 2 or more figures should be included which which explain more about the regenerative agricultural practices |
We have added a figure (currently Figure 2) to respond to this suggestion |
|
|
The references contain many online sources information (Refs - 2, 4 - 6, 14, 21 - 26, 29 - 31, 35 - 39, 47, 55, 59 - 62, 71, 80 - 84). This is almost 30% of the references in the paper. Do remember that this online information are usually updated always, hence the information must have change now from the date it was obtained. It will be better to consider some related references or update the information accordingly |
We have made sure only necessary online references are used especially where alternative references are hard to find, However, we ensured that all online references are up to date and accessible at the time of submission of this manuscript |
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
please see attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some minor improvements are required for example, some spaces should be erased
Author Response
|
Reviewer 3 |
|
|
|
|
â–ª Keywords: Please change them to be different from the title of the manuscript â–ª All the references should be in the proper format and some references are old and need to be replaced by new ones |
Key words have been reworked. All references have been rechecked and retained only those to which newer relevant alternative are unavailable |
|
|
â–ª Table 1: please it put it in the proper format â–ª Please explain the originality of this manuscript â–ª |
The originality of this report has been justified by the motivation paragraph added. Please see line 91-109 |
|
|
In section 5. Restoration of soil health through circular regenerative agricultural practices: Selected examples for extensification in Africa. The authors mentioned only compost but there are many other sources to improve soil fertility and health, why did not the authors mention them? â–ª The authors write on crop rotation, intercropping, using organic amendments like manure and compost but all of this was mixed. Why did not the authors write separate paragraphs on each one of them (biogas; intercropping; organic amendments) and the authors should confirm their study by the previous studies? |
Based on this comment, we have reworked on section 5, enriched the content with more relevant citations |
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors followed the instructions and suggestions of the reviewers to the letter and now the revised manuscript meets the requirements for publication in the journal.
Author Response
Please see the response to reviewer-round 2 for our answers to all questions raised by the referee.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Please answer all my comments point by point
Circular Regenerative Agricultural Practices in Africa: Techniques and their Potential for Soil Restoration and Sustainable Food Production
The topic of the manuscript is Ok but there are some necessary improvements that should be made by the authors to be eligible for publication in an agronomy journal
Comments
- Keywords: Please change them to be different from the title of the manuscript
- All the references should be in the proper format and some references are old and need to be replaced by new ones:
- Many paragraphs are without references, please add references (48- 56; 67-76; 93-99; 109-116; 226-234).
- Table 1: please it put it in the proper format
- Please explain the originality of this manuscript
- The authors did not mention any previous study to confirm their study why?
- The authors should explain the importance of their study to the agricultural sector.
- In section 5 Restoration of soil health through circular regenerative agricultural practices: Selected examples for extensification in Africa. The authors mentioned only compost but there are many other sources to improve soil fertility and health, why did not the authors mention them?
- The authors write on crop rotation, intercropping, using organic amendments like manure and compost but all of this was mixed. Why did not the authors write separate paragraphs on each one of them (biogas; intercropping; organic amendments) and the authors should confirm their study by the previous studies?
Author Response
Please see the response to reviewer-round 2 for our answers for questions by the referee.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
