Spatially Explicit Assessment of Suitable Conditions for the Sustainable Production of Aviation Fuels in Brazil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have done a geospatial analysis of crops that could be used for aviation fuel in Brazil. Their analysis is of interest and their methodology could apply to other areas.
I suggest a few minor revisions to the paper, most of them typographical.
Why was irrigation not included in the analysis? It seems relevant to all of suitability, yields, and production costs. If one can include waterways in the analysis, then surely proximity to sources of irrigation water could have been included.
Line 357. What are the criteria for deciding if pastureland is degraded, etc.?
Abstract - line 26 - remove "was"
Line 258, "corn being"
The formatting on the tables could be improved. There are instances where words are split unnecessarily, and even more problematic, where the units are split on different lines. This may be more of an issue for the publisher than the author.
In Tables 3-5, there should be an extra space inserted between the notes for each feedstock. They appear to all run together as shown now.
Author Response
Comments by Reviewer # 2
Thanks for the comments!
All comments by the referee were addressed by the authors. The description of actions is below.
In section 4.2 the comment about not considering irrigation was amended. Now, the current sentence about this topic is: “In all cases, rainfed cultivation was considered and, as a consequence, the availability of water for irrigation is not a matter of concern. On the other hand, in all cases rainfall is a crucial aspect for assessing suitability.”
In order to address the comment about degraded pastures, the following texts were included in section 4.5:
“According to [50-51], the classification is due to agronomic and biological aspects. The agronomic component corresponds to dirty pastures, while the biological component is due to the loss of soil fertility and the existence of exposed soil.”
“The classification of pastures into degradation levels was obtained from the stratification of a vegetative vigour index, based on 2018 images [52].”
Abstract, line 26: correction done, as requested.
Line 258 (last paragraph of section 4.1): correction done, as suggested.
The formatting of the tables has not been changed. To define the format and the style of tables, the authors checked papers published in Land. Anyway, authors can make changes if requested by the publisher.
Tables 3-5: lines inserted, as requested.
Additional corrections, besides those requested by the reviewers
Throughout the text, some corrections were done in order to improve clarity.
The paragraph after Table 4 was deleted, as the text was repeated.
Table 8: editorial changes were done (the information in the first line is now in bold).
Table 9 was improved (in two lines of the table), aiming to present more details.
Information presented in Table 10 was corrected. There were typo mistakes. As consequence, a single correction was done in the second paragraph of section 5.4.
Figure 10: the legend was amended.
First paragraph of section 5.6 was corrected in order to make the information clearer.
Table 11: a note was included, in order to clarify the information presented.
The Conclusions were improved to respond to the comments of one of the reviewers. Due to these changes, in order to maintain consistency, some changes were also made at the end of section 5; one paragraph was excluded to avoid repetition with the conclusions.
The Supplementary Material was edited in order to make the message clearer. One equation was edited.
Reviewer 2 Report
One of the most important economic and environmental challenges of our time, in the light of climate change, is the transition to an environmentally sustainable economy that allows reducing GHG emissions. This applies to all sectors of the economy.
The presented manuscript is a very interesting article presenting the assessment of the appropriate conditions for the sustainable production of biofuels in Brazil.
The paper’s title match its content. The issue presented in the paper have practical applications. The research topic presented clearly, aim of article clearly specified and realized. The article have a logical layout. The language of article correct. The paper’s conclusions follow logically from the development of the argument. The text adequately illustrated (tables and figures). Statistical analysis is sufficient and appropriate.
The article fully deserves publication in the Land journal, but the conclusions may be more precise.
Author Response
Thanks for the comments!
The authors agree that it was necessary to improve the conclusions. In this sense the last section was changed, but the authors tried to keep as much as possible the message of the original submission. The main changes are related to the last two paragraphs of the previous version, which were rewritten.
In line with the changes to the conclusions, changes were also made at the end of section 5. For instance, one paragraph was deleted, as the same message is now part of the conclusions.
Additional corrections, besides those requested by the reviewers
Throughout the text, some corrections were done in order to improve clarity.
The paragraph after Table 4 was deleted, as the text was repeated.
Table 8: editorial changes were done (the information in the first line is now in bold).
Table 9 was improved (in two lines of the table), aiming to present more details.
Information presented in Table 10 was corrected. There were typo mistakes. As consequence, a single correction was done in the second paragraph of section 5.4.
Figure 10: the legend was amended.
First paragraph of section 5.6 was corrected in order to make the information clearer.
Table 11: a note was included, in order to clarify the information presented.
The Conclusions were improved, as mentioned above. Due to these changes, in order to maintain consistency, some changes were also made at the end of section 5; one paragraph was excluded to avoid repetition with the conclusions.
The Supplementary Material was edited in order to make the message clearer. One equation was edited.
