Typology of Production Units for Improving Banana Agronomic Management in Ecuador

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the manuscript ‘Typology of production units for improving banana agronomic management in Ecuador’ with interest, and I find the work interesting. However, the methodology of the work must be seriously revised. The comments to be considered to seriously improve the analytical approach in the methodology can be found below:

-          The abstract and introduction are well writing

-          In the introductory part, in lines 83 - 86, it should be written as ‘The specific objectives were to: (i)  ….………… (ii) …….. and; (iii)

-          The last objective should be re-written to make it clear and appear as objective, rather than appearing like another topic… Objective should be actionable

-          Line 90, avoid the use of pronoun like ‘we’ …. Rephrase the sentence

-          Line 93, authors mention literature review, any citation or reference according to the literature review consulted or you could put a link to the information source

-          The sentence in line 94 appear like authors are writing proposal ‘The second step was to verify…… Methodology must be actionable, reporting what was done and how it was done

-          Re-edit line 120 to close the gap

-          Line 140 – 149 describe the multivariate technique; PCA and cluster analysis. Did authors test data suitability for the PCA by determining the KMO value. So what is the KMO value

-          In the materials and method, I expect authors to present the correlation between the Agronomic managements, Access to agricultural extension and knowledge, Socio-economic characteristics and agronomic attributes

-          Therefore, I expect to see the pearson correlation between the parameters in the results and discussion

-          The multiple regression equation (MLR) presented in Table 4, was the stepwise regression considered, to determine the factors retained in the model, very important

-          Why is the r-square value of the MLR so low. Is that efficient? can we accept this?

-          You reported model for the cluster analysis, what about the principal component regression (PCR)

-          Even the description of the PCA is not detailed, did you consider rotation for the PCA ?

-          I look forward for the consideration of the above points to improve the results and discussion

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I read the manuscript ‘Typology of production units for improving banana agronomic management in Ecuador’ with interest, and I find the work interesting. However, the methodology of the work must be seriously revised. The comments to be considered to seriously improve the analytical approach in the methodology can be found below:

-          The abstract and introduction are well writing

-          In the introductory part, in lines 83 - 86, it should be written as ‘The specific objectives were to: (i)  ….………… (ii) …….. and; (iii)

-          The last objective should be re-written to make it clear and appear as objective, rather than appearing like another topic… Objective should be actionable

-          Line 90, avoid the use of pronoun like ‘we’ …. Rephrase the sentence

-          Line 93, authors mention literature review, any citation or reference according to the literature review consulted or you could put a link to the information source

-          The sentence in line 94 appear like authors are writing proposal ‘The second step was to verify…… Methodology must be actionable, reporting what was done and how it was done

-          Re-edit line 120 to close the gap

-          Line 140 – 149 describe the multivariate technique; PCA and cluster analysis. Did authors test data suitability for the PCA by determining the KMO value. So what is the KMO value

-          In the materials and method, I expect authors to present the correlation between the Agronomic managements, Access to agricultural extension and knowledge, Socio-economic characteristics and agronomic attributes

-          Therefore, I expect to see the pearson correlation between the parameters in the results and discussion

-          The multiple regression equation (MLR) presented in Table 4, was the stepwise regression considered, to determine the factors retained in the model, very important

-          Why is the r-square value of the MLR so low. Is that efficient? can we accept this?

-          You reported model for the cluster analysis, what about the principal component regression (PCR)

-          Even the description of the PCA is not detailed, did you consider rotation for the PCA ?

-          I look forward for the consideration of the above points to improve the results and discussion

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

• In the introductory part, in lines 83 - 86, it should be written as ‘The specific objectives were to: (i) ….………… (ii) …….. and; (iii)

We have made the necessary corrections.

• The last objective should be re-written to make it clear and appear as objective, rather than appearing like another topic… Objective should be actionable

We rewrote our objective.

• Line 90, avoid the use of pronoun like ‘we’ …. Rephrase the sentence

We have made the necessary corrections.

• Line 93, authors mention literature review, any citation or reference according to the literature review consulted or you could put a link to the information source.

We have added references to support this statement.

• The sentence in line 94 appear like authors are writing proposal ‘The second step was to verify…… Methodology must be actionable, reporting what was done and how it was done

We have modified this sentence.

• Re-edit line 120 to close the gap

We edit this line.

• Line 140 – 149 describe the multivariate technique; PCA and cluster analysis. Did authors test data suitability for the PCA by determining the KMO value. So what is the KMO value

We have added the KMO value.

• In the materials and method, I expect authors to present the correlation between the Agronomic managements, Access to agricultural extension and knowledge, Socio-economic characteristics and agronomic attributes

We have added the correlations of these variables. Thus, we adjusted the text of Methodology, and Results and discussion.

• Therefore, I expect to see the pearson correlation between the parameters in the results and discussion

We have added the correlations of these variables. Thus, we adjusted the text of Methodology, and Results and discussion.

 

• Why is the r-square value of the MLR so low. Is that efficient? can we accept this?

The low r-square is due to the variability in the groups. We believe that it is suitable because our objective is “to identify significant explanatory variables for yield (Mg of banana per ha) rather than for prediction.” Line 99 – 100.

• You reported model for the cluster analysis, what about the principal component regression (PCR)

We removed the figure (CA), as the key information is provided in the supplementary data sheet. Thus, we maintain only Tables (CA and PCA).

• Even the description of the PCA is not detailed, did you consider rotation for the PCA?

We tried to use the Varimax rotation (below) to simplify the interpretation of the loads. However, as observed in Table 3 of our manuscript, the groups are not associated only with a specific set of variables.

               RC1   RC4   RC2   RC3   h2

fertilizer  0.85  0.23 -0.13 -0.03 0.80

organic     -0.73  0.06 -0.24 -0.12 0.61

fungicide     0.22  0.95 -0.02  0.02 0.95

pesticides   0.82  0.36 -0.16 -0.04 0.82

density       0.03  0.02  0.06  0.99 0.99

genotype      -0.02 -0.02  0.97  0.06 0.94

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments,

1.      You should define Cluster 1, Cluster 2, Cluster 3, and Cluster 4 for the first time.

2.      Upload one data sheet for principal component analysis (PCA), as a supplementary file, showing how you measure it, in an Excel file.

3.      Figure 2. The dendrogram derived from the cluster analysis (CA), is not clear, without any information.

4.      Insert all the equations for the Multiple linear regressions used in this study.

5.      All your data were generated from the literature, how to ensure the homogenization of the extracted data, Have you used some models or analyses?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English

Author Response

Reviewer 2

• You should define Cluster 1, Cluster 2, Cluster 3, and Cluster 4 for the first time.

We have defined the Clusters in our abstract.

• Upload one data sheet for principal component analysis (PCA), as a supplementary file, showing how you measure it, in an Excel file.

We have shared our data sheet in an Excel file as a supplementary file.

• Figure 2. The dendrogram derived from the cluster analysis (CA), is not clear, without any information.

We removed the figure (CA), as the key information is provided in the supplementary data sheet.

• Insert all the equations for the Multiple linear regressions used in this study.

We did not insert the equations resulted from the multiple regression analysis because our objective is: to identify significant explanatory variables for yield (Mg of banana per ha) rather than for prediction.

• All your data were generated from the literature, how to ensure the homogenization of the extracted data, Have you used some models or analyses?

The ESPAC framework was designed using a sampling methodology recommended by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), ensuring a robust and representative sampling process. Regard to banana crop, Guayas and Los Rios accounted for more than 70% of the production in Ecuador and these two provinces presented almost the same number of production units (balanced data).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research paper aims to define the types of banana production units based on the different agronomic management practices adopted by producers in two Ecuadorian provinces, which it is in line with the theme of this scientific journal

Title, in general, reflects the content.

The abstract is informative and reflects background, methods, and results in a proper summarised form.

Keywords are proper but it should be placed in alphabetical order.

The article is well organised and figures & tables are necessary. The introduction describes in an organised fashion the interest it has in the scientific context, the previous work that has been done on the topic and other important topics for this research. In general, the Materials and methods outline properly what was done and how it was done.

Figure 1- the figure quality should be improved.

Line 131 – 132 The authors state that 319 units were included in the study, specifying 151 properties in Los Rios and 169 properties in Guayas. But this sum 151 + 169 = 320, please explain

Figure 2- the dendrogram is not in the correct position. The x axis (productive units) must be horizontal and the y axis (Height) must be vertical.

In fact, this figure 2 belongs to the results and discussion section where it is explained between lines 223 and 231 “The cluster analysis resulted… to factor four).”

Homogenize the number of digits after the decimal point in decimal notation showed in Table 2 e.g, Use of fungicides Factor 1 – 0.42 (two digits), Factor 3 - 0.064 (three digits).

The results are in line with the theme.

The discussion is adequate and explains what the study results mean. However, I suggest that the following comments be clarified in the corresponding sections: Materials and methods and Results & discussion:

-   The authors in the Introduction section (Lines 65 – 66 “…the integration of diverse irrigation techniques on all banana farms) refer to the fact that to obtain top-quality bananas, among other aspects, irrigation techniques are an important factor. However, in materials and methods and in results and discussion sections, no reference is made to the irrigation techniques used in these production units, only irrigation efficiency (%) is mentioned in the cluster analysis.

-   In the same way the authors express in lines 296 – 297 “…suggesting a higher dependence on spatial characteristics, such as climatic and soil variables”, then Why do they not mention the type (or types) of soil (according to a soil genetic classification system) of these units? if it is well known that a healthy and balanced soil is the basis of a successful banana crop and the soil texture, structure and chemical composition are determining factors for plant growth and fruit quality.

The authors have drawn up acceptable conclusions.

The references are acceptable.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

• Keywords are proper but it should be placed in alphabetical order.

We have corrected it.

• Figure 1- the figure quality should be improved.

We modified this figure

• Line 131 – 132 The authors state that 319 units were included in the study, specifying 151 properties in Los Rios and 169 properties in Guayas. But this sum 151 + 169 = 320, please explain

This phrase was wrong. There are 150 properties in Los Rios (as can see detailed in the datasheet added).

• Figure 2- the dendrogram is not in the correct position. The x axis (productive units) must be horizontal and the y axis (Height) must be vertical.

We removed the figure (CA), as the key information is provided in the supplementary data sheet.

• In fact, this figure 2 belongs to the results and discussion section where it is explained between lines 223 and 231 “The cluster analysis resulted… to factor four).”

We removed the figure (CA), as the key information is provided in the supplementary data sheet.

• Homogenize the number of digits after the decimal point in decimal notation showed in Table 2 e.g, Use of fungicides Factor 1 – 0.42 (two digits), Factor 3 - 0.064 (three digits).

We have homogenized the digits after the decimal point (two digits).

• The discussion is adequate and explains what the study results mean. However, I suggest that the following comments be clarified in the corresponding sections: Materials and methods and Results & discussion: The authors in the Introduction section (Lines 65 – 66 “…the integration of diverse irrigation techniques on all banana farms) refer to the fact that to obtain top-quality bananas, among other aspects, irrigation techniques are an important factor. However, in materials and methods and in results and discussion sections, no reference is made to the irrigation techniques used in these production units, only irrigation efficiency (%) is mentioned in the cluster analysis.

Each production unit employs a specific irrigation technique or a combination of techniques (furrows, sprinklers, micro-sprinklers, or drip irrigation). The original datasheet (INEC) includes the following variables: total area and the area irrigated by each technique. We used the efficiency values for each technique proposed by Mantovani: furrows (0.5), sprinklers (0.8), micro-sprinklers (0.85), and drip irrigation (0.9). When a combination of techniques was observed, we calculated a weighted average based on the area irrigated by each technique.

In the same way the authors express in lines 296 – 297 “…suggesting a higher dependence on spatial characteristics, such as climatic and soil variables”, then Why do they not mention the type (or types) of soil (according to a soil genetic classification system) of these units? if it is well known that a healthy and balanced soil is the basis of a successful banana crop and the soil texture, structure and chemical composition are determining factors for plant growth and fruit quality.

We agree with this suggestion. However, it is not available the spatial data (X,Y) of each production unit. It is possible to know only at county level (municipality). Thus, it could be very interesting in future works include these spatial variables since there is available detailed information of soils in Ecuador: Armas, D.I., M. Guevara, F. Bezares, R. Vargas, P. Durante, V.H. Osorio, W.A. Jimenez, and C. Oyonarte. 2022. Harmonized Soil Database of Ecuador 2021 ver 3. Environmental Data Initiative. https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/1560e803953c839e7aedef78ff7d3f6c. In any way, we have added information of the soil predominant in each province in our methodology.

• The authors have drawn up acceptable conclusions.

We modify this section to highlight the findings of our study.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All points raised in the first review have been adequately addressed

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor errors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the comments by including the improvements based on the points out and suggestions made by this reviewer:

The subject falls within the general scope of this journal.

The organization of the article is satisfactory and it is written at a good level.

The abstract is sufficiently informative and reflect background, methodology and results. 

Keywords are proper.

The introduction stated in an organized fashion the background and goal of the research.

Materials and methods are clear and specific.

The results are in line with the theme and proposed objective.

The discussion is adequate based on the criteria and results obtained by several authors.

The conclusions are proper.

The referentes are suitable.