PCLM-D-25-00158

Comparative Economic and Environmental Analysis of Open Field (Rainfed and Irrigated) and Environmental Agriculture (Screenhouse) Leafy and Pulpy Vegetables Production Systems in North West Nigeria.

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Ayinde,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 27 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Giuseppina Migliore

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex.

2. We have amended your Competing Interest statement to comply with journal style. We kindly ask that you double check the statement and let us know if anything is incorrect.

3. Your current Financial Disclosure states, “This study was conducted with the financial support of the CLIFF-GRADS Alliance. We also acknowledge with appreciation grants from the Norman E Borlaug Leadership Enhancement in Agriculture Program (LEAP) of USAID”. However, you do not have Funding information indicated in the submission. Please indicate by return email the full and correct funding information for your study and confirm the order in which funding contributions should appear. Please be sure to indicate whether the funders played any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

4. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript was revised by two reviewers. The manuscript is interesting and timely. However there are a few issues that the authors have to address before pubblication.

I suggest improving the formatting of the table and updating and adding more literature, especially in the discussion section, by using more recent publications.

Furthermore, I suggest citing the tables in the appendix in the main text where appropriate.

Please follow the reviewers' suggestions and resubmit the manuscript accordingly.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Journal: PLOS Climate

Article title: Comparative Economic and Environmental Analysis of Open Field (Rainfed and Irrigated) and Environmental Agriculture (Screenhouse) Leafy and Pulpy Vegetables

Production Systems in NorthwestNigeria

Manuscript ID: PCLM-D-25-00158

General Comments:

This article studies the comparative economic and environmental analysis of open field (rainfed and irrigated) and environmental agriculture (screenhouse) leafy and pulpy vegetable production systems in NorthwestNigeria.

The authors use screenhouse farming with water-use efficiency for comparison between cabbage, lettuce, spinach, rainfed cabbage, and rainfed pumpkin.

The authors concluded that the advantages of screenhouse farming are in reducing water consumption, emissions, and energy demand, while irrigated farming ensures stable moisture levels but requires substantial water resources, and rainfed farming minimizes irrigation dependency but lacks productivity efficiency, underscoring the need for sustainable irrigation strategies such as drip irrigation, fertigation, and rainwater harvesting to enhance long-term resource conservation in vegetable production.

Overview:

The paper is well-written, and the empirical work does appear to be carefully and correctly done. The research question is quite good, and it does make a sufficient new contribution to the literature to be suitable for PLOS Climate ONLY after MINOR revisions.

The literature on the comparative economic and environmental analysis of open field (rainfed and irrigated) and environmental agriculture (screenhouse) leafy and pulpy vegetable production systems is quite new.

The contribution of the paper is the use of screenhouse farming with water-use efficiency for comparison between cabbage, lettuce, spinach, rainfed cabbage, and rainfed pumpkin in NorthwestNigeria.

The paper is very interesting, and in my view, it needs to be MINOR improved to reach the standard required for publication in this journal.

Specific Comments:

1. Title: maximum 10 words

2. Abstract: very large, try to be more concise; remove most of the numerical explanations

3. Introduction: novelty + results (better explanation: introduce a paragraph); very large (4 pages); reduce it to a maximum of 2 pages

4. Literature review: missing, 1 page

5. Methodology: Why do the authors use only this country, region, and vegetables? Present some theoretical explanations for these indicators

6. Section 2.1: introduce at least 1 table with the variables

7. Discussions: at least 1 page

8. The article is too large; reduce it to a maximum of 25 pages

General considerations: The idea of the article is very good, but the construction of the article is sometimes very technical (statistical). The authors MUST improve the introduction, literature, methodology, and explanations and change the article accordingly. The length of the article is quite big (57 pages); reduce it to at most 25 pages.

I ONLY recommend this article be published in PLOS Climate after MINOR revisions (reduction of the article + more readable introduction, methodology, and discussion).

Reviewer #2: Below are some of my comments for the author's consideration

a. Clarity and Scope

The topic is highly relevant, especially in the context of climate adaptation and sustainable agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Clarify early in the introduction the distinction between “environmental agriculture” and “protected agriculture,” as “environmental agriculture” may cause some confusion.

b. Methodology

The comparative framework is useful, and the inclusion of both economic and environmental indicators is commendable. Clearly define how environmental impact was measured—were specific indicators

c. Data Analysis

Strengthen statistical analysis; for instance, ANOVA or regression techniques could better support your economic comparisons. Consider including sensitivity analysis to show robustness of your cost-benefit analysis under variable market prices or climate conditions.

d. Results and Discussion

Practical implications for smallholder farmers are well highlighted. Improve interpretation of yield differences between rainfed and greenhouse systems. Could other variables (e.g., seed variety, labor input) have influenced the outcomes?

e. Structure and Language

The paper would benefit from more concise writing and improved grammar in some sections. Proofreading is recommended.

e. Policy and Practical Implications

The conclusion rightly emphasizes the role of controlled agriculture in improving food security. Expand on how findings could inform agricultural policy or investment in irrigation infrastructure.

f. References and Citations

Some references are outdated. Please include recent studies (post-2020) related to smart agriculture and sustainable vegetable production.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Ndirangu Ngunjiri

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PCLM-D-25-00158R1

Economic and Environmental Comparison of Open Field and Screenhouse Vegetable Farming in Nigeria

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Ayinde,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for the thoughtful revisions you have made to your manuscript. The paper has clearly benefited from your careful work and is now in very good shape. Before we can proceed further, I would kindly ask you to address a few remaining minor points, which should help to further clarify and strengthen the paper. These are relatively small issues, and I trust they can be addressed without major difficulty.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript and thank you once again for your contribution.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 29 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Giuseppina Migliore

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Journal: PLOS Climate

Article title: Economic and Environmental Comparison of Open Field and Screenhouse Vegetable Farming in Nigeria

Manuscript Number: PCLM-D-25-00158R1

Dear Author (s);

Dear Editor,

The manuscript has been revised for improved interpretation in accordance with the suggestions of the Reviewer(s) by including the required information.

The author (s) change the interpretations, results, methodology, and conclusions accordingly, and therefore, the paper is much improved now. The author(s) reduce the article considerably, references are reduced, and the articles cited are diversified.

I recommend that this article be published in PLOS Climate.

Congratulations!

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors,

I appreciated your efforts to improve manuscript according to previous reviewers’ suggestions.

However, before paper can be accepted some comments should be addressed in methodology section:

1. I suggest that authors could report on Table 1 the exchange ratio of ₦ in euro or dollars to improve readability for non-Nigerian people.

2. It is not clear when the survey has been conducted. Please also specify which crop year revenues and cost are referred to. In addition, did authors conduct face-to-face interviews? How many farms have been analyzed? One (or more) for farming systems?

3. I think that authors have to specify that profit has been chosen to evaluate the economic performance, explaining how this parameter has been determined.

4. Please add some sentences about fixed and variable costs. First, authors could define them and then specify how both have been determined.

5. In “Yield and Saleable Output”, authors must add who do farmers sell their products to. It is pivotal to justify the market price.

6. Please specify why the range (₦400, ₦600, ₦800, and ₦1000/kg) has been adopted for sensitivity analysis.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

PCLM-D-25-00158R2

Economic and Environmental Comparison of Open Field and Screenhouse Vegetable Farming in Nigeria

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Ayinde,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 12 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Giuseppina Migliore

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors,

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful revisions to the manuscript. Your responses to the reviewer's comments are clear and well justified, and the revisions have significantly strengthened the paper. The manuscript now demonstrates excellent clarity, coherence, and overall quality.

I am pleased to recommend that the paper be accepted.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Economic and Environmental Comparison of Open Field and Screenhouse Vegetable Farming in Nigeria

PCLM-D-25-00158R3

Dear Mrs Ayinde,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Economic and Environmental Comparison of Open Field and Screenhouse Vegetable Farming in Nigeria' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Giuseppina Migliore

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors,

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful revisions to the manuscript. Your responses to the reviewer's comments are clear and well justified, and the revisions have significantly strengthened the paper. The manuscript now demonstrates excellent clarity, coherence, and overall quality.

I am pleased to recommend that the paper be accepted.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):