The Sustainable Development of Wetlands and Agriculture: A Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a work that surprised by its integration of both cultural and cultural economic aspects, a complete complex analysis and that can be a practical guide for this type of studies.
However, although the essential points are touched upon, it lacks a deeper dive into the impact aspects and only indicates what could be done in the future. There is enough work to be able to carry out a more complete and in-depth analysis.
On the other hand, dates with something old are more than 20 years old. The most recent being only those taken as support for the example of fungi
I believe that if the analysis of the data that is already available is further developed, an interesting and noteworthy publication will be published that will really do a lot of work to integrate aspects that are rarely done, such as cultural heritage and the economy.
Specifically, it would be appreciated to update the quotes with more recent examples and quotes that allow for a more in-depth analysis, with specific conclusions and not just general quotes. The work is done, it only requires rewriting to clarify and specify conclusions.
Write in such a way that the conclusions are seen as that and not as reflections about the development of agriculture in wetlands, since that reduces the impact of something that has it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAgronomy – 3621034 Development of Wetland Ecological Agriculture on China
This is supposedly a review article on the historical development of wetland ecological agriculture in China. It is really a mix of review and case study, and the methods used are not adequately described throughout the article. Detailed comments follow.
Abstract- is very general and does not include methods used.
Introduction; lines 46- 47 the study objectives are clear but there is very limited literature review leading up to the need for the review.
Wetland Agricultural Development Process-Lines 56-57 what is the basis for the three stages mentioned here. Is this based on a literature review? Lines 81-82 why is the Songnen Plain mentioned here? Line 111 What is the source of the 55% figure?
Wetland Agricultural Development Methods-Lines 155-162 What is the basis for the four-part classification?
Factors affecting the Sustainable Development of Wetland Agriculture-Lines 194-201 what is the source for the internal factors? Lines -203-217 What is the source for the external factors?
Case Study of Wetland Ecological Agriculture on the Songnen Plain-Lines 264-277 How was the ecological benefit analysis done? There needs to be more detail on the methods used. Lines - 279-291 How as the economic-social benefits determined? There needs to be more detail on the methods used.
Thoughts on the Development of Wetland Agriculture- This appears to be a conclusion chapter including recommendations and future research needed but given the vagueness of methods used in the review and case study there is little substantiation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish usage is fine.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article Development of Wetland Ecological Agriculture in China is interesting and suitable for publication in Agronomy. On the other side I also have doubts about the number of articles on which the text was based, (37) items is not much.
This is review paper so maybe it is a good idea to improve it and a review of more articles not only by authors from China. Didn't this problem occur in other countries?
Abstract
The abstract is very general, perhaps it should be slightly modified with the information contained in the chapter No. 6 Thoughts on the Development of Wetland Agriculture.
Introduction
Line 32-33
“Wetland agriculture is developed based on wetland resource utilization”- this is not clear for me, describe it please.
At the end of the chapter, I miss the explanation-justification of the need for agricultural activities in wetlands-why can't these areas be excluded from agricultural activities in China?
Line 40 and 55
green development- what it means?
Line 103
Please describe more in your paper which was the basis of the National Wetland Protection Project Plan (2002–2030) and National Wetland Protection 13th Five-Year Plan (2015).
Line 193 and 202
Maybe it will be good idea to “create table from chapters 4.1 and 4.2 for internal and external factors affecting the sustainable development of wetland agriculture?
Line 218
What was the reason to analyze Wetland Ecological Agriculture in the Western Songnen Plain?
Line 256
What is yellow storage methods- describe it please
Chapter 6. Thoughts on the Development of Wetland Agriculture- maybe it will be more convenient to name this chapter- conclusions.
I think you should change position of figure 2 and describe in your text.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAuthors can improve language using native speaker
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am grateful to be able to evaluate this article on wetland cultivation, which a priori seems interesting.
But it suffers from serious defects, it is not possible to make a clear follow-up of the research because it is poorly structured, the introduction, objectives, methodology, results, discussion and conclusions are not well delimited. It is not possible to know where each of the sections begins and ends. In terms of references it is excessively poor. This article should be returned to the authors who should rewrite it completely before resubmitting it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAgronomy- 3521034 The Sustainable Development of Wetlands and Agriculture: A Literature Review
Revisions have somewhat improved the manuscript as it is now focused on the literature review. However, major structural changes are needed plus English usage editing throughout the revised manuscript. Detailed comments to the authors follow.
The abstract in much improved.
Introduction – lines 54-56 the purpose of the review is still a bit vague. The authors should state specific study objectives.
Data Sources and Methods- lines 59-63 This section is much too brief. Authors need to provide more detail on how key words were derived and used plus how the documents were analyzed for number of publications, countries, and research direction. Also why include the three case studies and how were they selected?
Results and Discussion- lines 65 through the whole section needs to be split into two sections- results followed by a separate discussion section. It is suggested that the following text move to the discussion section-lines 103-107, 160-161, 186-206, 209-251, 254-271, 272-302 -plus related to any other pertinent literature and comparable reviews.
Case Studies- line 304 – authors should state why these particular case studies are included. Lines 394-398 should be moved to the conclusions. Also, on line 341- the three cases do not “proof” anything- they support or illustrate.
Conclusion and Outlook – this section should clearly state major findings immediately followed by study limitations which then is followed by needed future research, and then by any future policy recommendations. Lines 40-417- it is not clear why this section of the EU’s “Nature Recovery” law is included here. This fits better with point 4 lines 431-434.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English usage still needs editing throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors for restructuring their article, and in my opinion the article is acceptable for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for reviewing my paper amidst your busy schedule. I have carefully revised the paper for the second time, hoping to meet the journal's requirements.
