Review Reports - Do Small Livestock Producers Adapt to Climate Variability? An Approach to the Case of the Upper Fonce River Páramo in Santander, Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and suggestions to the authors

How many interviews and workshops were conducted in the study? Suggest to write in the abstract section too.
Need subheading for study area. In the study area, suggest writing about climatic conditions and land use land cover types of the study area.
Figure 1: Where is your study area? It's not clear, keep the study area boundary. The text of the map should be enlarged.
Line 128: revise the sentence; it looks like somebody has already done your research.
The methods and materials is not sufficiently described. Give several examples of the methods that were used in the previous studies. Suggest elaborating the Bergamini index by showing an equation or graphs a picture, or any suitable demonstration. If possible, show a methodological diagram of the study.
Your study conducted two workshops but it's not clear how many participants were involved? Who are they? How did you collect the information? Just discussion or also used checklist/ questionnaire/ voice record/ video record? How about the household sample for taking an interview? Suggest to keep photographs in a supplementary file or annex of the manuscript.
Suggest to merge figures 2 and 3, make it one figure.
Figure 3: How does the average annual precipitation vary in minus values?
Check the data for 2008, 2011, and 1997 in Figure 2.
How about the socio-economic status of the respondents?
To support your results, please discuss several previous studies in the discussion part.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is average, it is better to revise by professionals before publishing.

Author Response

How many interviews and workshops were conducted in the study? Suggest to write in the abstract section too. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We added the number of interviews and surveys in the abstract.
Need subheading for study area. In the study area, suggest writing about climatic conditions and land use land cover types of the study area. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We added subheading for the study area with climate conditions and cover use.
Figure 1: Where is your study area? It's not clear, keep the study area boundary. The text of the map should be enlarged. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We added explain for the study area in the figure.
Line 128: revise the sentence; it looks like somebody has already done your research. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We changed the sense of the sentence.
The methods and materials is not sufficiently described. Give several examples of the methods that were used in the previous studies. Suggest elaborating the Bergamini index by showing an equation or graphs a picture, or any suitable demonstration. If possible, show a methodological diagram of the study. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We explain better the description about methods.
Your study conducted two workshops but it's not clear how many participants were involved? Who are they? How did you collect the information? Just discussion or also used checklist/ questionnaire/ voice record/ video record? How about the household sample for taking an interview? Suggest to keep photographs in a supplementary file or annex of the manuscript. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We added a better explication of number of participants and other information.
Suggest to merge figures 2 and 3, make it one figure. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We merged the figure 2 and 3.
Figure 3: How does the average annual precipitation vary in minus values? Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We changed the figure 3 and merged with the figure 2.
Check the data for 2008, 2011, and 1997 in Figure 2. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We reviewed the information in this years and changed.
How about the socio-economic status of the respondents? Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The socioeconomic status is explain now in the lines 230 to 260.
To support your results, please discuss several previous studies in the discussion part. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We added studies for discussion and changed the discussion part.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

Consider expanding the introduction to include a clearer description of the research objectives and significance.
The references cited in the paper are outdated, lacking support from the latest research published within the past three years.
The study focuses on temperature and precipitation trends from 1987 to 2016, which limits its timeliness and relevance. This timeframe fails to comprehensively reflect the current characteristics of climate change. The authors should either supplement the analysis with recent data trends or explicitly address the limitations of the dataset used.
The paper lacks detailed explanations of the methodology and processes, undermining the reliability of the results and conclusions. The authors should provide additional information on the research procedures and data sources to ensure reproducibility.
The paper does not clearly articulate its innovative contributions or scientific value.

Overall Recommendation:

Based on the above, I recommend Major Revision.

Specific Comments:

Lines 78–91: These paragraphs would be better suited to the "Study Area" section.
Lines 98–101: The research content needs a more detailed description here. For example, clarify what specific field is referred to by the phrase "this field."
Line 103: Expand on the rationale and advantages of selecting this region as the study area.
Lines 235–236: The text does not provide direct evidence that changes in precipitation and temperature have caused the observed manifestations of vulnerability.
Line 275: The authors should supplement Table 1 with the data sources or calculation methods to verify its reliability.

Author Response

Consider expanding the introduction to include a clearer description of the research objectives and significance. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We changed some lines of the abstract to be clearer.
The references cited in the paper are outdated, lacking support from the latest research published within the past three years. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We added some references updated.
The study focuses on temperature and precipitation trends from 1987 to 2016, which limits its timeliness and relevance. This timeframe fails to comprehensively reflect the current characteristics of climate change. The authors should either supplement the analysis with recent data trends or explicitly address the limitations of the dataset used. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and we added the last years until 2024.
The paper lacks detailed explanations of the methodology and processes, undermining the reliability of the results and conclusions. The authors should provide additional information on the research procedures and data sources to ensure reproducibility. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment. We added major explain about methods and processes.
The paper does not clearly articulate its innovative contributions or scientific value. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We changed some explanaitions.

Specific Comments:

Lines 78–91: These paragraphs would be better suited to the "Study Area" section. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and we changed the paragraphs to the study area.
Lines 98–101: The research content needs a more detailed description here. For example, clarify what specific field is referred to by the phrase "this field." Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We changed this paragraph.
Line 103: Expand on the rationale and advantages of selecting this region as the study area. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We added some explanaitons about this in the study area.
Lines 235–236: The text does not provide direct evidence that changes in precipitation and temperature have caused the observed manifestations of vulnerability. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We changed the section about results precipitation and temperature.
Line 275: The authors should supplement Table 1 with the data sources or calculation methods to verify its reliability. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We changed this result with major explanaition.

Please see the attachment. Thank you so much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To authors,

The paper titled “Strategies for the Adaptation of Small Livestock Producers to Climate Variability in Paramo Ecosystems in Colombia” offers valuable insights and is likely to capture the attention of researchers in the field. The impact of climate change on the ecosystems of the high andes is a pressing global concern. This study addresses a significant research gap by examining the adaptation strategies of small livestock producers in the colombian paramo ecosystem, which has considerable academic and practical implications. Furthermore, the author utilizes the Bergamini index to evaluate vulnerability and response capacity, a relatively innovative approach in climate change adaptation research that offers a more comprehensive assessment of adaptive capacity. While the manuscript is straightforward, there are some areas that could benefit from further clarification and revision. Therefore, the authors are encouraged to carefully review the feedback provided below and make modifications accordingly:

Title: “STRATEGIES FOR THE ADAPTATION OF SMALL LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS TO CLIMATE VARIABILITY IN PARAMO ECOSYSTEMS IN COLOMBIA” should be “Strategies for the Adaptation of Small Livestock Producers to Climate Variability in Páramo Ecosystems in Colombia”.

（1）Line 128: The author should add a recent or updated reference to substantiate the exploratory nature of this research.

（2）Line 158: “Dynamics of climate variability” should be “Dynamics of Climate Variability”. Please check the formatting of other headings.

（3）Line 554: The writing format of all references does not meet the journal's requirements. Please carefully revise them according to the specifications.

In addition to the aforementioned minor details, I believe the author needs to focus on addressing the following points:

（2）Although the Bergamini index is a novel contribution, its applicability and accuracy may be contentious across various ecological and social contexts, necessitating further validation and adjustments. Consequently, it is anticipated that the authors will enhance the scientific rigor and persuasiveness of their research conclusions by supplementing the existing qualitative analysis with quantitative analyses and model validations.

（3）While this paper presents a wealth of qualitative data, the absence of quantitative analysis and model validation may undermine the universality and persuasiveness of the research conclusions. In addition to the Bergamini index, it is advisable to incorporate other evaluation methods, such as Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and system dynamics models, to offer a more comprehensive assessment of adaptive capacity.

My best wishes to the authors in their improvement of the manuscript.

Good luck!

Author Response

Line 128: The author should add a recent or updated reference to substantiate the exploratory nature of this research. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We added a updated reference, however, we believe that it is still valid.

（2）Line 158: “Dynamics of climate variability” should be “Dynamics of Climate Variability”. Please check the formatting of other headings. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree, we changed this subtitle.

（3）Line 554: The writing format of all references does not meet the journal's requirements. Please carefully revise them according to the specifications. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and changed the format.

In addition to the aforementioned minor details, I believe the author needs to focus on addressing the following points:

（1）Although this study conducted 33 interviews, the sample size is relatively small and may not comprehensively represent the circumstances of small-scale livestock producers across the entire Páramo ecosystem. It is recommended that future research expand the sample size to include a broader range of regions and producers. This enhancement will improve the representativeness and generalizability of the study's conclusions. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. That sample is due to the access of the area and the ease of working with population. We tried to make the sample as representative as possible of the participants.

Please see the attachment. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript “STRATEGIES FOR ADAPTATION OF SMALL LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS TO CLIMATE VARIABILITY IN PARAMO ECOSYSTEMS IN COLOMBIA” is a qualitative and exploratory study, but I believe it has the potential to be related to quantitative data to obtain more consistent and necessary answers on the subject.
Understanding that the study is a mix of literature review and questionnaire application that generated “qualitative information collection, the research is fragile and needs to be restructured in terms of the study objective, detailing and referencing of the applied methodology, and the results and discussion are superficial and subjective.
- The submissions must be in accordance with the standards of the Land journal, that is, in the numerical citation format.
- Introduction: the authors must clearly state the objective of the study.
- Figure 1: Increase the font of the location map information.
Material and methods: Authors must describe more specifically the variables used and their respective sources, Presenting the holistic index proposed by BerGaminni (2014) because the way the methodology was written, other researchers cannot reproduce the research for their area of activity or region.
- The soil and climate conditions of the region were not described.
- Line 134: insert the link to the platform of the information used for the study and the references used for the indicators and climate trend lines.
- Lines 151-156: Explain the criteria used for selection for the study sample.
- Lines 159-165: What is the source/reference for the rainfall and temperature data described in this paragraph? In addition, could you describe what temperature it is? Is it “air temperature”?
- The information presented in table 1 can be better described in the methodology, for example: what is S1 – S10?; and the results verified are not described in the material and methods. - Because it is a theoretical study/survey, the authors should look for more scientific articles from recent years to support the study's discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text written in English is good

Author Response

- Introduction: the authors must clearly state the objective of the study.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We added a explain in the abstract, we changed some sentences.
- Figure 1: Increase the font of the location map information.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We added a explain in the text of the figure for more explain.
- Material and methods: Authors must describe more specifically the variables used and their respective sources, Presenting the holistic index proposed by BerGaminni (2014) because the way the methodology was written, other researchers cannot reproduce the research for their area of activity or region.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with you. We added a major description of methods and explain it.
- The soil and climate conditions of the region were not described.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We added additional information related in the study area.
- Line 134: insert the link to the platform of the information used for the study and the references used for the indicators and climate trend lines.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We used the official information of Colombia IDEAM for the precipitation and temperature, and the indicators is based in Bergaminni and adaptation to perceptions of participants.
- Lines 151-156: Explain the criteria used for selection for the study sample.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We added additional information for the study area.
- Lines 159-165: What is the source/reference for the rainfall and temperature data described in this paragraph? In addition, could you describe what temperature it is? Is it “air temperature”?
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We used the IDEAM official information of Colombia about hidrometereological conditions.
- The information presented in table 1 can be better described in the methodology, for example: what is S1 – S10?; and the results verified are not described in the material and methods. - Because it is a theoretical study/survey, the authors should look for more scientific articles from recent years to support the study's discussion.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree, we added information below the table explain that.

Please see the attachment. Thank you so much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and suggestions to the authors.

Fig 2: Caption should be in English.

Section 4.4: Without revising, adding the text and writing, the authors added citations in the old version of the manuscript.

Discussion is not enough; revise it with several previous related studies.

Line 949: citation needs to be revised.

The study area is not marked by a boundary.

Author Response

Comment 1: Fig 2: Caption should be in English.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We’ve translated the title of figure 2.

Comment 2: Section 4.4: Without revising, adding the text and writing, the authors added citations in the old version of the manuscript.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment, we apologized because maybe we don't understand the comment, this section has text and references, we changed several aspects of the article based on reviewers' comments in round 1.

Comment 3: Discussion is not enough; revise it with several previous related studies.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We reviewed and added other studies.

Comment 4. Line 949: citation needs to be revised.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We don't find line 949. We didn't find line 949 because the template goes up to line 715, but we found revisions in other references. Thank you.

Comment 5. The study area is not marked by a boundary.

Response 5. Thank you for pointing this out. It doesn't have a border because we emphasize in sampling points with the producers regarding the páramo that is identified in the map convention. Thank you.

Please see the attachment, I’ve highlighted the changes in the attached file in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript is significantly improved. Authors have responded my concerns. I think it is acceptable for publication.

Author Response

The revised manuscript is significantly improved. Authors have responded my concerns. I think it is acceptable for publication.

Thank you so much!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We appreciate the author's meticulous revisions. The manuscript has significantly improved following these revisions, and the author's responses to my comments are commendable. I believe this manuscript is ready for publication after further editing, processing, and typesetting by the editorial department.

Author Response

Thank you so much!