Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please merge the preambular paragraphs

2. Please add introduction and research on background

3. Please add about crop modeling in the foreword

4. Please revise the last paragraph of the foreword, by reading your foreword i did not understand the need for your research

5. Further embellish the diagrams

6. Add further discussion to improve the discussion, currently it doesn't seem to have much connection with the results and the linkage

7. It is recommended that the authors reconsider the linkage between the discussion section and the results section, making it as complete as possible.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

En cuanto a los comentarios generales, los mismos fueron tomados en cuenta, lo que nos permitió ajustar y mejorar el manuscrito. Agradecemos mucho sus comentarios que nos permitieron enriquecer la presentación del manuscrito.

1. Por favor fusionar los párrafos del preámbulo

Respuesta: La solicitud ha sido atendida, consulte la versión adjunta.

2. Agregue una introducción e investigación sobre los antecedentes.

Respuesta: La solicitud ha sido atendida, consulte la versión adjunta.

3. Agregue información sobre el modelado de cultivos en el prólogo.

Respuesta: Se ha atendido la solicitud y se ha proporcionado una explicación más detallada del modelo. Consulte la versión adjunta.

4. Por favor revise el último párrafo del prólogo, al leer su prólogo no entendí la necesidad de su investigación.

Respuesta/ Se atendió solicitud, en el último párrafo se explicó y se redactó el objetivo de la investigación de forma más específica, ver versión adjunta

5. Embellecer aún más los diagramas

Respuesta: La solicitud ha sido atendida, consulte la versión adjunta.

6. Agregue más discusión para mejorar la discusión, actualmente no parece tener mucha conexión con los resultados y el vínculo.

Respuesta: La solicitud ha sido atendida, consulte la versión adjunta.

7. Se recomienda a los autores reconsiderar la vinculación entre la sección de discusión y la sección de resultados, haciéndola lo más completa posible.

Respuesta: Se ha reconstruido la discusión, incorporando aspectos implícitos de los resultados como: Impacto de la variabilidad climática en la gestión agrícola , Relevancia de los modelos de simulación para la gestión sostenible , Estrés hídrico y adaptaciones tecnológicas , Vulnerabilidad económica de los sistemas ganaderos , Implicaciones globales y transferibilidad de resultados , y Gestión de riesgos como pilar de la sostenibilidad .

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The topic chosen for your article, which examines climate change, is both interesting and aligns well with the objectives of the journal. Therefore, it has the potential to be published here. However, I believe that before this can happen, some further effort is needed on your part to improve the writing.

Overall, the work is well done, but while reading it, one might feel (at least I did) that there are aspects left unsaid. It is not my intention to offend, but the writing sometimes comes across as superficial—it mentions certain points without delving deeply into them, leaving the reader with a sense of potential incompleteness. I suggest a thorough review of the manuscript to address these gaps. Additionally, I recommend paying more attention to the organization into subparagraphs, as some sections could be simplified and reorganized for better clarity.

For example, the entire section on the description of the climate (found under “Climatic characteristics of the study area”) should be moved to the methodology section (the previous paragraph), along with the description of the study area. Please also pay particular attention to the description of the analysis methodology, as this is the part that makes the paper internationally relevant.

Lastly, I believe that the presentation of the results needs to be reorganized. It should be better aligned with the stated objectives of the work and, above all, with the methodology used.

Below, I have provided specific suggestions and advice based on the individual paragraphs to help guide you in improving the manuscript.

• The affiliations and email contacts of all authors must be included.

Abstract: The abstract should briefly reflect the structure of the paper. Therefore, it needs a sentence introducing the topic of the study. More emphasis should be placed on the consequences of the study, and acronyms should be spelled out in full.

Introduction: Review the numbering of references. They should follow the order in which they are cited in the text. For example, reference [38] on line 33 must be [1], and the rest should follow suit. The reference list at the end of the manuscript should also be reordered. The objective of the work should be more clearly defined (even if implied) and, most importantly, the added value of the proposed study compared to existing literature should be highlighted. At the end of the paragraph, please include a description of the manuscript structure. In general, a more critical revision of this section is necessary to improve its coherence, fluidity, and overall readability. Currently, some parts feel like a disjointed collection of sentences, lacking smooth transitions between ideas.

Materials and Methods: The study area should be clearly defined, including a brief description of the local agriculture and livestock. It would be better to include a map instead of just providing geographical coordinates. The subparagraphs should be numbered: first, the study area, and then the analysis methodology with descriptions of the data sources. Line 109: “Eq. 1” must be written as “(1)”, and this applies to all equations in the manuscript. Is it necessary to use bold for equations? Lines 154 and 155: “Para” seems to be in Spanish rather than English, so this needs to be corrected. This section should also include more bibliographical references, especially when introducing values or constants used in the equations.

Results: Figures and tables should be separated from the text by a blank line before and after them. The figures currently have double titles—please remove the one at the top. Some of the figures need to be reconsidered because they are difficult to interpret. Additionally, the text should be better organized into clear paragraphs and subparagraphs. For Figure 3, the legend needs to be clarified—currently, it is not clear what “Rend” indicates (consider renaming it to something like “production” or “yield” after evaluating the context). Table and figure titles should be simplified. For example, the title “Table 2. Shows the livestock units (LU) per hectare of warm-climate ovine husbandry, based on forage availability and lot rotation...” can simply be written as “Table 2. Livestock units (LU) per hectare of warm-climate ovine husbandry”, and the detailed explanation should go in the text.

Discussion: This section is good. Although it is somewhat concise, it effectively compares your results with those found in existing literature.

Conclusions: The conclusions appear too brief and essential. Furthermore, there is no mention of the limitations of the study or suggestions for future research.

References: These must be ordered in the same sequence as they appear in the text, rather than alphabetically. Additionally, they should be formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.

 

Author Response

Regarding the general comments, they were taken into account, which allowed us to adjust and improve the manuscript. We are very grateful for your comments that allowed us to enrich the presentation of the manuscript.

Abstract: The abstract should briefly reflect the structure of the paper. Therefore, it needs a sentence introducing the topic of the study. More emphasis should be placed on the consequences of the study, and acronyms should be spelled out in full.

Response: The request was attended to and it is explained with a more specific objective.

Introduction: Review the numbering of references. They should follow the order in which they are cited in the text. For example, reference [38] on line 33 must be [1], and the rest should follow suit. The reference list at the end of the manuscript should also be reordered. The objective of the work should be more clearly defined (even if implied) and, most importantly, the added value of the proposed study compared to existing literature should be highlighted. At the end of the paragraph, please include a description of the manuscript structure. In general, a more critical revision of this section is necessary to improve its coherence, fluidity, and overall readability. Currently, some parts feel like a disjointed collection of sentences, lacking smooth transitions between ideas.

Response: Request was attended to, reference was listed in the suggested form, and this section was improved; please review attached manuscript.

Materials and Methods: The study area should be clearly defined, including a brief description of the local agriculture and livestock. It would be better to include a map instead of just providing geographical coordinates. The subparagraphs should be numbered: first, the study area, and then the analysis methodology with descriptions of the data sources. Line 109: “Eq. 1” must be written as “(1)”, and this applies to all equations in the manuscript. Is it necessary to use bold for equations? Lines 154 and 155: “Para” seems to be in Spanish rather than English, so this needs to be corrected. This section should also include more bibliographical references, especially when introducing values or constants used in the equations.

Response: Request was accepted, reference and equations were listed in the suggested form, and this section was improved with more methodological detail; please review attached manuscript.

Response:

Results: Figures and tables should be separated from the text by a blank line before and after them. The figures currently have double titles—please remove the one at the top. Some of the figures need to be reconsidered because they are difficult to interpret. Additionally, the text should be better organized into clear paragraphs and subparagraphs. For Figure 3, the legend needs to be clarified—currently, it is not clear what “Rend” indicates (consider renaming it to something like “production” or “yield” after evaluating the context). Table and figure titles should be simplified. For example, the title “Table 2. Shows the livestock units (LU) per hectare of warm-climate ovine husbandry, based on forage availability and lot rotation...” can simply be written as “Table 2. Livestock units (LU) per hectare of warm-climate ovine husbandry”, and the detailed explanation should go in the text.

Response: Request was accepted, figures and tables are adjusted and presented as suggested, and this section is improved; please review attached manuscript.

Discussion: This section is good. Although it is somewhat concise, it effectively compares your results with those found in existing literature.

Response: The discussion has been reconstructed, incorporating implicit aspects of the results such as: Impact of Climatic Variability on Agricultural Management, Relevance of Simulation Models for Sustainable Management, Water Stress and Technological Adaptations, Economic Vulnerability of Livestock Systems, Global Implications and Transferability of Results, and Risk Management as a Pillar of Sustainability.

 

Conclusions: The conclusions appear too brief and essential. Furthermore, there is no mention of the limitations of the study or suggestions for future research.

Response, the request was attended to, the conclusions are detailed, and a paragraph of limitations and recommendations for future research was added.

References: These must be ordered in the same sequence as they appear in the text, rather than alphabetically. Additionally, they should be formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper could be accepted

Author Response

Dear 

Thank you very much for your observations, which have helped to strengthen and clarify the manuscript, as our aim is to disseminate and share our research with the international community. Below, we respond to each of your comments:  Adjusted according to your suggestions; please see the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the effort you have put into revising your manuscript. The quality of the draft has certainly improved as a result of this revision process. However, there are still a few minor adjustments needed before it can be definitively considered ready for publication. Below, I have highlighted the key aspects that I believe require attention. In my opinion, once these changes are made, the paper will be ready for publication.

1. Author Contacts: The email contact for each author has not been included; only the corresponding author’s email has been added. Please add the emails of all authors and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

2. Abstract: While the abstract has been corrected in one sentence (and the acronyms have been defined), an introduction to the topic of the article is still missing.

3. Introduction:

o Lines 38-39: The citations [3] and [4] can (and in my opinion, should) be combined as [3-4]. This rule should be applied consistently throughout the manuscript.

o At the end of the introduction paragraph, please include a description of the manuscript structure.

4. Figures and Tables: Both figures and tables should be separated from the text by a blank line before and after them.

5. Materials and Methods:

o “Study area and information” should be numbered (i.e., 2.1 Study Area and Information). I suggest renaming it to “Study Area” for clarity. This applies to the following paragraphs as well.

o Line 107: The term “Climatic characteristics” should be removed, as you are describing the climatic conditions of the study area, which should be included in the previous section.

o Please review the titles of Figures 1 and 2. It seems they might be swapped; please double-check.

o Line 158: The citation “Doorenbos and Kassam [22]” should be corrected to “Doorenbos and Kassam [22].” (The period is missing.)

o Bold formatting of equations and the word "where" is unnecessary. Please remove it.

o Use square brackets exclusively for bibliographic references. For example, everything between lines 161 and 214 should be in round brackets, not square brackets.

o Review punctuation at the end of sentences, as several are missing.

6. Results:

o The same formatting suggestions apply to subparagraphs as mentioned above.

o The title of Figure 3 (which I believe should be split into two: Figure 3a and Figure 3b) should come after the respective figure, not before.

o Line 262: “(Figure 2a)” must be “(Figure 3a)”.

o Line 265: “(Figure 2b)” must be “(Figure 3b)”.

o The title of Figure 4 should also appear after the figure, not before.

o Line 314: The acronym “Livestock Units (AU)” must be changed to “LU” (Livestock Units). This change should be made consistently throughout the manuscript.

7. References: Please review the reference formatting to ensure it aligns with the journal's guidelines.

Author Response

Dear

Thank you very much for your observations, which have helped to strengthen and clarify the manuscript, as our aim is to disseminate and share our research with the international community. Below, we respond to each of your comments:

1. Author Contacts: The email contact for each author has not been included; only the corresponding author’s email has been added. Please add the emails of all authors and clearly indicate the corresponding author.  Response 1: Adjusted according to your suggestions; please see the manuscript.

2. Abstract: While the abstract has been corrected in one sentence (and the acronyms have been defined), an introduction to the topic of the article is still missing.   Response 2: Adjusted according to your suggestions; please see the manuscript.

3. Introduction:

o Lines 38-39: The citations [3] and [4] can (and in my opinion, should) be combined as [3-4]. This rule should be applied consistently throughout the manuscript.

o At the end of the introduction paragraph, please include a description of the manuscript structure.

Response 3: Adjusted according to your suggestions; please see the manuscript.

4. Figures and Tables: Both figures and tables should be separated from the text by a blank line before and after them.  Response 4: Adjusted according to your suggestions; please see the manuscript.

5. Materials and Methods:

o “Study area and information” should be numbered (i.e., 2.1 Study Area and Information). I suggest renaming it to “Study Area” for clarity. This applies to the following paragraphs as well.

o Line 107: The term “Climatic characteristics” should be removed, as you are describing the climatic conditions of the study area, which should be included in the previous section.

o Please review the titles of Figures 1 and 2. It seems they might be swapped; please double-check.

o Line 158: The citation “Doorenbos and Kassam [22]” should be corrected to “Doorenbos and Kassam [22].” (The period is missing.)

o Bold formatting of equations and the word "where" is unnecessary. Please remove it.

o Use square brackets exclusively for bibliographic references. For example, everything between lines 161 and 214 should be in round brackets, not square brackets.

o Review punctuation at the end of sentences, as several are missing.

Response 5: Adjusted according to your suggestions; please see the manuscript.

6. Results:

o The same formatting suggestions apply to subparagraphs as mentioned above.

o The title of Figure 3 (which I believe should be split into two: Figure 3a and Figure 3b) should come after the respective figure, not before.

o Line 262: “(Figure 2a)” must be “(Figure 3a)”.

o Line 265: “(Figure 2b)” must be “(Figure 3b)”.

o The title of Figure 4 should also appear after the figure, not before.

o Line 314: The acronym “Livestock Units (AU)” must be changed to “LU” (Livestock Units). This change should be made consistently throughout the manuscript.

Response 6: Adjusted according to your suggestions; please see the manuscript.

7. References: Please review the reference formatting to ensure it aligns with the journal's guidelines.

Response: Adjusted according to your suggestions;  this final section will be reviewed in more detail during the final editing of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf