Benefits through Innovative Cropping Patterns in the Hilly Regions of Southwest China: An Integrated Assessment of Emergy and Economic Returns
, Wei Chen 1,2,3, Fan Liu 1,2,3, Hongqian Yao 1,2,3, Qi Huo 1,2,3, Wei Zhang 1,2,3, Pijiang Yin 1,2,3, Dongju Feng 1,2,3, Jichao Yuan 1,2,3, Xinglong Wang 1,2,3,* and Fanlei Kong 1,2,3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Summary-The work objective is missing and should be copied verbatim from rows 95-100
Rows 95-100-the purpose of the work is too elaborate. I suggest stating the main objective and supporting objectives, making it more readable.
Rows 113 and 115 - 3267 ℃ and 3385 ℃ ? are you referring to the sum of daily average temperatures over the GDD period. If so, at least in parentheses give the average temperature during this period. There is also a very large difference in precipitation. I understand that there is no error. Independently, it would be useful to add what is the average of the last 10 years before the survey, so that we can compare which conditions were abnormal.
Rows 126-131- the text duplicates the description under figure 2- it is redundant. In addition, a sizable drawback of the study is the removal from the modified crop rotations of wheat, which was in the traditional crop rotation systems. Its removal requires at least justification. Unfortunately, such an experiment greatly reduces the comparability of the results obtained. The elimination of the basic feed and food grain from the proposed crop rotations will also limit the applicability of the obtained research results in practice.
Rows 145-151 - the yields of "forage oilseeds and potato" are incomparable to those of wheat grain, corn, etc. Have any conversions been made to make it a comparable yield?
Row 152 The title is inappropriate, because biomass refers to the natural weight of organisms, i.e., dry weight with water. The description indicates that the authors have done "drying to a constant mass." Therefore, it is not the mass of the product without water, Perhaps, therefore, the title of the subsection should read dried mass, dried harvest. the term dried biomass should not be used. The rest of the paper should also use the same term for this mass, e.g. Figure 2a the unit should read "Economic yield (Mg dried mass*hm2).
Row 293 - please describe the letters from A to F, which crop is under which name, this also applies to the following charts, except that the designations A-F and T1 and T8 if it is the practice of the publisher then you could write a description of the designations as in the chart ....
Rows 308-310 - sentence notation incorrect. "The two Novel Triple Cropping Systems of T5 and T6 were significantly higher" such constructions are used to determine the height of objects. Rather, it should read, "In the two Novel Triple Cropping Systems of T5 and T6 allowed higher yields. .......% than in the systems of ......
Rows 318-320 and on - what is the difference between "biomass productivity" and "biological yield" in the context of the definition discussed in rows 152- 158 it seems reasonable to use only the term biological yield".
from rows 416 - the subsections are mostly one paragraph, so I suggest removing the bullets and replacing them with bold only.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General Comments for Authors
The research work is interesting and falls within the scope of the journal. The authors have done research with the title “Benefits through Innovative Cropping Patterns in the Hilly Regions of Southwest China: An Integrated Assessment of Energy Value and Economic Returns”. There is good consistency between the title of the manuscript the results, and the overall representation of the manuscript. However, corrections and suggestions additions would make the manuscript more effective before publication. The manuscript dataset certainly has constructive information for the scientific community.
The following points may be addressed by the authors to enhance the worth of the manuscript.
Abstract
Line 12: Replace importance with important….
Line 16: Revise the sentence as the economic efficiency and sustainability between the new planting model and the traditional planting model.
Add the cropping patterns/experimental treatments before presenting results in the abstract part.
Need to make the abstract more attractive by writing in an innovative way.
Introduction
The write-up of the introduction part can be improved, and it should be more precise with the addition of the latest studies. Furthermore, the limitations/significances of the traditional cropping systems are not presented in the introduction part. Also, add one paragraph about the limitations/significances of the traditional cropping systems.
Materials and Methods
The materials and methods are well presented. However, minor suggestions may improve the worth of the manuscript. Also, add one/two sentences related to the significance or limitations of sowing time in novel triple cropping systems. Also, add the slope of the area where the experiment was carried out.
Discussion
The presented discussion needs to be improved by proper logical discussion with reference to study objectives.
Conclusion
The conclusion part is good and demonstrated the objectives of the study.
References
Make sure all the references are arranged according to the pattern of the journal.
Specific Comments
Line 152: Writeup of the heading 2.3.2 is weak. Rewrite this portion for a better understanding
Line 116-117: Superscript -1 for instance g kg-1 instead of g kg-1
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Indeed good efforts to justify the findings in the current version but still needs improvement (see the attachment).
Good luck!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Needs some minor grammatical improvement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript titled "Evaluation of Sustainability and Economic Efficiency of Cropping Patterns in Hilly Areas of Southwest China" presents a comprehensive analysis of different cropping patterns in hilly regions and their economic and sustainability implications. The study employs a novel analytical approach combining economic efficiency evaluation and energy value analysis, which adds valuable insights to the field of agricultural sustainability.
Major Strengths:
Originality and Contribution to the Field: The study addresses an important issue related to cropping patterns in hilly areas, which is a topic that has received limited attention in the existing literature. The combination of economic efficiency and energy value analysis is innovative and provides a holistic understanding of the sustainability of different cropping patterns.
Clear Presentation of Results: The results are presented in a clear and organized manner, making it easy for readers to understand the economic and energy-related impacts of the different cropping patterns. The use of percentages and quantitative data to describe the differences between the Novel Triple Cropping System and traditional systems is effective.
Policy Implications: The study discusses the economic benefits of the Novel Triple Cropping System, including increased economic yield and profits. These findings have significant policy implications for promoting sustainable agricultural practices in hilly regions and improving regional agricultural economic efficiency.
Minor Revisions:
Clarity of Abstract: While the abstract provides a good overview of the study, it would be beneficial to include a brief description of the methods used in the analysis. This would help readers understand the approach employed in the study without having to delve into the full manuscript.
Data Sources and Methodology: In the abstract, it would be helpful to briefly mention the data sources and the key methodologies used, such as the specific economic indicators evaluated and the energy value analysis technique applied. This would provide context for the results presented in the abstract.
Language and Grammar: Some sentences in the abstract could be revised for clarity and conciseness. For example, "The Novel Triple Cropping System increased energy value inputs by 6.56% and 4.25% and energy value outputs by 13.69% and 4.27%" could be rephrased as "The Novel Triple Cropping System increased energy value inputs by 6.56% and 4.25%, and energy value outputs by 13.69% and 4.27%, respectively."
Overall Assessment:
The manuscript presents valuable insights into the sustainability and economic efficiency of different cropping patterns in hilly areas of Southwest China. The combination of economic analysis and energy value assessment enhances the originality and contribution of the study. With some minor revisions to the clarity of the abstract and the inclusion of key methodological information, this paper has the potential for publication in agronomy.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
