Vulnerability of agriculture to climate change increases the risk of child malnutrition: Evidence from a large-scale observational study in India

Bidhubhusan Mahapatra; Monika Walia; Chitiprolu Anantha Rama Rao; Bellapukonda Murali Krishna Raju; Niranjan Saggurti

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253637

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 3, 2021
6 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Srinivas Goli, Editor PONE-D-21-00139 Vulnerability of agriculture to climate change increases the risk of child malnutrition: Evidence from a large-scale observational study in India PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mahapatra, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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. Considering the reviewer's suggestion, I am going with a decision of 'Revise and Resubmit'. In particular, reviewers believe that although the paper is interesting, the validity of the vulnerability index needs to be established. I have an additional comment for this paper. Considering that weather stations to measure different climatic indicators are not present in the every district, rather they are very few in rural areas. Thus, researchers depend on simulation and extrapolation methods to derive the indicators at the district level. In this process, there is a chance of errors that need to be examined and reported under the limitation section. I request you to add a limitation section for the paper and validate climatic data. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 21 2021 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Srinivas Goli, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Please add details of how others can access the climate dataset in the Data availability statement. We note that Figure S1 and Figure 2 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 3a, You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure S1 and Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 3b, If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ Additional Editor Comments: Considering the reviewer's suggestion, I am going with a decision of 'Revise and Resubmit'. In particular, reviewers believe that although the paper is interesting, the validity of the vulnerability index needs to be established. I have an additional comment for this paper. Considering that weather stations to measure different climatic indicators are not present in the every district, rather they are very few in rural areas. Thus, researchers depend on simulation and extrapolation methods to derive the indicators at the district level. In this process, there is a chance of errors that need to be examined and reported under the limitation section. I request you to add a limitation section for the paper and validate climatic data. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Generally, the topic of this manuscript is of high priority because it discusses the consequences of global warming threats on child malnutrition in India. Authors used an index on vulnerability of agriculture to climate change and linked it to child malnutrition indicators (stunting, wasting, underweight and anaemia) from the National Family Health Survey 4 (2015-16) and concluded that the global warming threat has negative impacts on child nutrition. However, I think authors should consider two main points before accepting this manuscript: L 32-33....the aim of this study that was written in the introduction is not acceptable. , the global warming treat negatively affects human nutrition all over the world not only in India. This is not the first study to examine such a relationship; however, the measuring tools and the data analyses style might provide an advantage for this research over many others. I think authors should re-write this aim The second point is related to the measuring tools that are used in this study. I think they should be rewritten in details. For these two reasons, I recommend accepting this manuscript; after considering minor revision Reviewer #2: This is an interesting manuscript and possibly first attempt to establish association of under-nutrition and vulnerability of agriculture climate change. While there are interesting finding, the manuscript need improvement in introduction, analyses and presentation. The following are major comments on the paper 1. Rewrite introduction. Brin first sentence (line no 302-04) to the begining of introduction. Line 53, introduction, avoid giving magnitude by 2080- which is very long. Put till 2050. line 60, avoid 10-60% give number 2. Para on India in intro and para on India in discussion can be combined and placed after literature review in intro 3.Review, 13-17, give finding and not listing studies 4.Data source: The climate vulnerability index is novelty of the paper. Describe adequately as many readers are not aware of it. Give a two way graph of vulnerability index with mean years of schooling (nfhs 4) or with Dist Devl Index by Mohanty et al to check its association with devl. 5. Describe detail of variables in table S1 6. Figure S1 and a map on stunting at dt level map be begining . Also give correlation coeffcient of these two 7. Table 1: I suppose t1 has been derived after merging dist index value in data file. In such cases the index is a constant across district. I suggest table 1 may be presented as dt level analyses and dt is the unit of analyses. It may be appropriate to do so 8. Mixed effect model, can you show the VPC? 9.T2 is univariate moran I? 10. How classification of very low----- very high of vulnerability index made 11. Authors may consider reduction in length of title ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes:** Sanjay K Mohanty [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253637.r001
Revision 1
11 May 2021 Author Response Editor’s comments Considering that weather stations to measure different climatic indicators are not present in the every district, rather they are very few in rural areas. Thus, researchers depend on simulation and extrapolation methods to derive the indicators at the district level. In this process, there is a chance of errors that need to be examined and reported under the limitation section. I request you to add a limitation section for the paper and validate climatic data. Response: Many thanks for bringing this to our attention. We have included the non-availability of climatic indicators in every district as a limitation of the vulnerability index under limitation section. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: 1. L 32-33....the aim of this study that was written in the introduction is not acceptable, the global warming treat negatively affects human nutrition all over the world not only in India. This is not the first study to examine such a relationship; however, the measuring tools and the data analyses style might provide an advantage for this research over many others. I think authors should re-write this aim. Response: We agree that our study is not the first one in India to study the negative effects of global warming, however, as also highlighted by Reviewer #2, it is the first of its kind wherein relationship between vulnerability of agriculture to climate change and child nutrition in India using vulnerability index has been studied. We have changed the text in introduction section of the abstract to as per the suggestion. 2. The second point is related to the measuring tools that are used in this study. I think they should be rewritten in details. Response: As suggested, we have provided more details about the measurement process and indicators. Accordingly, we have moved the supplementary table on indicators (Table S1) as a main table (Table 1) in the revised paper. Reviewer #2: 1. Rewrite introduction. Brin first sentence (line no 302-04) to the begining of introduction. \\ Line 53, introduction, avoid giving magnitude by 2080- which is very long. Put till 2050. line 60, avoid 10-60% give number Response: Thank you for your suggestion on rewriting introduction. As suggested, we have moved first line from discussion section to the beginning of introduction. Regarding, providing the estimate till year 2050 instead of 2080, as climatic changes take longer to reflect and transform, the models and predictions studying the impact over next 50 years or more tend to be more reliable. Also, since 2080 is only 59 years away, we feel the estimates for 2080 aren’t very far off in future. 2. Para on India in intro and para on India in discussion can be combined and placed after literature review in intro. Response: After reviewing the suggestion by the reviewer, we feel the para on India is better suited in discussion. Therefore, we have retained the paragraph on India in the discussion as it summarizes the situation in national context well and establishes a linkage between vulnerability of agriculture to climate change and child malnutrition. 3.Review, 13-17, give finding and not listing studies Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added summary of findings from the studies cited in reference 13-17 in the introduction. 4.Data source: The climate vulnerability index is novelty of the paper. Describe adequately as many readers are not aware of it. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. While reviewer thinks that vulnerability index is the novelty of the paper, we have a different opinion as the vulnerability index is already published in a separate form and this paper only extends the analysis by studying the impact of vulnerability of agriculture to climate change. Nevertheless, as suggested, we have revised the methods section to provide more details about the climate vulnerability index. 5. Give a two way graph of vulnerability index with mean years of schooling (nfhs 4) or with Dist Devl Index by Mohanty et al to check its association with devl. Response: We feel the linkages between climate vulnerability and development do not align with study’s objective. Also, the rationale of two-way graph with mean years of schooling is not clear. Therefore, we have not added the suggested graph. 6. Describe detail of variables in table S1 Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have tried to elaborate the indicator definitions. We have also moved Table S1 to the manuscript as Table 1. 7. Figure S1 and a map on stunting at dt level map be beginning. Also give correlation coeffcient of these two Response: We appreciate the suggestion on including a supplementary map on prevalence of stunting at the district level. Since the district level information on stunting (per NFHS) and the relevant maps on stunting are easily available elsewhere we have decided not to include it in the paper. Also, we have several other child nutrition indicators in this paper; hence, giving map only on stunting may not add any further value. 8. Table 1: I suppose t1 has been derived after merging dist index value in data file. In such cases the index is a constant across district. I suggest table 1 may be presented as dt level analyses and dt is the unit of analyses. It may be appropriate to do so Response: Yes, Table 1 (Now Table 2 in revised version) was derived by combining district level index with child level data. Since the outcome in this case is child nutrition, which is available at the child level, it is more appropriate to undertake the analysis at child level so that the socio-demographic differentials related to the outcome can be captured accurately. 9. Mixed effect model, can you show the VPC? Response: As suggested, we have included the intra-class correlation coefficient in the revised manuscript. 10.T2 is univariate moran I? Response: Yes, it is univariate. 11. How classification of very low----- very high of vulnerability index made Response: All the Indian districts were categorized into five equal quintiles. The bottom 20% were considered to have very low vulnerability and the top 20% were considered to have very high vulnerability. 12. Authors may consider reduction in length of title Response: We think the title is appropriate to reflect the essence of the paper. Therefore, we have refrained from changing the title. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253637.r002
10 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Srinivas Goli, Editor Vulnerability of agriculture to climate change increases the risk of child malnutrition: Evidence from a large-scale observational study in India PONE-D-21-00139R1 Dear Dr. Mahapatra, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. 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 onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Srinivas Goli, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Considering reviewer recommendation and my own reading of the paper, I am recommending this paper for publication. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: Most of my earlier comments were addressed. If authors can add the theoretical basis of linking climate change with malnutrition, it would be helpful to reader ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253637.r003
Formally Accepted
18 Jun 2021 Acceptance Letter - Srinivas Goli, Editor PONE-D-21-00139R1 Vulnerability of agriculture to climate change increases the risk of child malnutrition: Evidence from a large-scale observational study in India Dear Dr. Mahapatra: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Srinivas Goli Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253637.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .