Economic analysis of avocado production systems: Market failures and policy distortions

Ana Luisa Velázquez-Torres; Francisco Ernesto Martínez-Castañeda; Nathaniel Alec Rogers-Montoya; Nicolás Callejas-Juárez; Elein Hernandez

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0330326

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 7, 2024
8 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Noé Aguilar-Rivera, Editor Dear Dr. Hernandez, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: 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: 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? 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: Abstract: ok Introduction: Line 33 Don't you have a more up-to-date figure? The topic should be delved into if there are studies related to the cultivation of avocado, at the Mexico and state level, or related studies to see the methodological viability in important crops, in Michoacán or Jalisco. Material and methods: Line 52 – 54 add a location map. Delve into the place of study, if it is important in the production of avocado, what ranking it occupies in the state, among other characteristics that describe the relevance of the crop in the place. Line 64 What was the density? Line 115 – 116 Is the product produced in this area imported to the USA? How much? It is understood that the avocado produced at this site is the same as that produced in Michoacán. The characteristics of avocados in both areas must be different. These differences must be clarified. On the political side, it is homogenized in the country. Results: line 201 – 216 this part should go in methodology. Line 218-220 compare it with the production of Michoacán or Jalisco. Line 320 -322 What is mentioned is relevant. Since production is new in the municipality and wild avocado is used, are these studies relevant to this type of avocado? Line 335 And to national yield? Line 345-349 Is it the same setting as your studio? Line 356-357 Go deeper into the topic Line 366 I don't think it's nationwide. Line 387-389 national or foreign consumers? Line 398-399 It is a confusing conclusion. Is the scenario presented in this study representative of the situation in Mexico? It is important to put similar studies done in the most productive avocado municipalities Line 399 – 400 They are not developing countries, they are emerging countries. Line 410-412 This part is worth highlighting in the manuscript, it presents 2 or more scenarios in the case of avocado production and marketing in Mexico. Which one is this? Line 431-433 This happens in many crops in Mexico. Conclusions: go deeper into the conclusions The study is important; however, it presents a scenario that does not correspond to the Mexican avocado. It should be particularized only in the situation of the State of Edomex and in the municipality. What happens with production, marketing, export, etc., is more complicated than the scenario presented in this manuscript. Reviewer #2: 33: the author referred to export information in 2020 during Covid-19. Such a year was the exception, so I suggest using export data for the time after that. Also, the data was collected during/right after the pandemic, so it is important to discuss the applicability of the results after that. The introduction needs to expand more, detailing related policies within Mexico and providing information about international trade, such as the trade balance for avocados, and information about the importance of avocados, such as the ratio of planted areas or agricultural production or the contribution to the agricultural GDP. Also, it needs to detail relevant previous studies, identify the gap in the literature, and the contribution of this paper in filling this gap. 78: equation 1 is not clear; please explain more. 79: what does “dose per lot” mean? Not clear. Also, a typo-delete one parenthesis. 132: I suggest starting the sentence with the “private profitability” phrase. 137: it says that “(J=B-F); transfers due to the price of internal factors.” This is inconsistent with table 1 indicating “(J=B-F) as transfer by commercial inputs, not internal factors. Please clarify. 236: not clear how APU2 is more profitable than APU1, while the average harvest is 44kg/ tree, which is lower than that of APU1. Please clarify. 330: The studies by [7, 23, 25] reported… 383: typo within, not withing. 387: it could also be that the avocado demand is inelastic, in which the tax is passed on to the consumers. Finally, I suggest discussing limitations, policy implications, and future research. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 22 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 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. 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: https://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, Noé Aguilar-Rivera Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. 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 2. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. [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? 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??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Abstract: ok Introduction: Line 33 Don't you have a more up-to-date figure? The topic should be delved into if there are studies related to the cultivation of avocado, at the Mexico and state level, or related studies to see the methodological viability in important crops, in Michoacán or Jalisco. Material and methods: Line 52 – 54 add a location map. Delve into the place of study, if it is important in the production of avocado, what ranking it occupies in the state, among other characteristics that describe the relevance of the crop in the place. Line 64 What was the density? Line 115 – 116 Is the product produced in this area imported to the USA? How much? It is understood that the avocado produced at this site is the same as that produced in Michoacán. The characteristics of avocados in both areas must be different. These differences must be clarified. On the political side, it is homogenized in the country. Results: line 201 – 216 this part should go in methodology. Line 218-220 compare it with the production of Michoacán or Jalisco. Line 320 -322 What is mentioned is relevant. Since production is new in the municipality and wild avocado is used, are these studies relevant to this type of avocado? Line 335 And to national yield? Line 345-349 Is it the same setting as your studio? Line 356-357 Go deeper into the topic Line 366 I don't think it's nationwide. Line 387-389 national or foreign consumers? Line 398-399 It is a confusing conclusion. Is the scenario presented in this study representative of the situation in Mexico? It is important to put similar studies done in the most productive avocado municipalities Line 399 – 400 They are not developing countries, they are emerging countries. Line 410-412 This part is worth highlighting in the manuscript, it presents 2 or more scenarios in the case of avocado production and marketing in Mexico. Which one is this? Line 431-433 This happens in many crops in Mexico. Conclusions: go deeper into the conclusions The study is important; however, it presents a scenario that does not correspond to the Mexican avocado. It should be particularized only in the situation of the State of Edomex and in the municipality. What happens with production, marketing, export, etc., is more complicated than the scenario presented in this manuscript. Reviewer #2: 33: the author referred to export information in 2020 during Covid-19. Such a year was the exception, so I suggest using export data for the time after that. Also, the data was collected during/right after the pandemic, so it is important to discuss the applicability of the results after that. The introduction needs to expand more, detailing related policies within Mexico and providing information about international trade, such as the trade balance for avocados, and information about the importance of avocados, such as the ratio of planted areas or agricultural production or the contribution to the agricultural GDP. Also, it needs to detail relevant previous studies, identify the gap in the literature, and the contribution of this paper in filling this gap. 78: equation 1 is not clear; please explain more. 79: what does “dose per lot” mean? Not clear. Also, a typo-delete one parenthesis. 132: I suggest starting the sentence with the “private profitability” phrase. 137: it says that “(J=B-F); transfers due to the price of internal factors.” This is inconsistent with table 1 indicating “(J=B-F) as transfer by commercial inputs, not internal factors. Please clarify. 236: not clear how APU2 is more profitable than APU1, while the average harvest is 44kg/ tree, which is lower than that of APU1. Please clarify. 330: The studies by [7, 23, 25] reported… 383: typo within, not withing. 387: it could also be that the avocado demand is inelastic, in which the tax is passed on to the consumers. Finally, I suggest discussing limitations, policy implications, and future research. ****** 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: Yes: Olvera-Vargas, Luis Alberto Reviewer #2: 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.] 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.0330326.r001
Revision 1
16 Feb 2025 Author Response Reviewer 1: In response to the reviewers' feedback, the following revisions were made to the original manuscript: New paragraphs were included: Lines 32-37 in the revised manuscript: “Mexico leads… …3, 4]” Lines 38-45: “The avocado… … [6]”. to reflect updated data. New paragraphs were added to the introduction to address avocado studies in Mexico and demonstrate the methodology's relevance to key crops at both national and global levels. Lines 46-52: “In recent… …[8].” Lines 53-57: “In Mexico,… …[9].” Lines 58-63: “The State of Mexico… …[3].” Lines 64-74: “Comparative… ….resource allocation.” Lines 75-77: “The policy… …[16, 17].” Lines 78-84: “This methodology… …Malaysia.” The final paragraph of the introduction was refined for improved clarity. Lines 85-91: “This study… …region of Mexico.” A properly cited map showing Ocuilan's relief and coordinates was included. Line 97: “Figure 1: Map … …. Mexico.” Ocuilan's temperature range and precipitation were included, along with its ranking in avocado production within the State of Mexico.. Line 95-96: “The area… … agroecological zone.” Line 109: “120-366 trees per hectare” It was clarified in the revised manuscript that exports to the U.S. do not occur Lines 181-183: “Both analyzed… …[9].” New lines were added to specify that the analyzed avocado systems are small-scale. It is also noted that Mexico's support policies apply uniformly to all avocado systems. Lines 108: “All APUs were small… …technology.” Lines 109-111: “The support… …climatic región.” The paragraphs were moved to the methodology section, under Modelling of production systems. Lines 124-141. Literature was added to align with studies from Michoacán, Jalisco, and the State of Mexico. Lines 268-269: “These tree… …36].” The study focused on commercial plantations (non-subsistence) cultivating Hass avocados. Older plantations are 8–14 years old, while younger ones are 6 years old. Additional details were added to discuss the impact of the Hass variety on native avocados. Lines 370-372: “A clear trend… …[39].” The national yield was included. Line 386: “, while the national… …hectare.” It is a comparable study conducted in the State of Mexico, but in a different region. Additional lines were added to delve deeper into the topic. Lines 410-414: “In 2020,… …transfers.” This point was clarified in the manuscript: Lines 109-111: “The support… …climatic región.” It was clarified that taxes are borne by the domestic consumer. Line 446: “the end national consumer…” To avoid confusión the following lines were included: Lines 455-460: “Small-scale… …[17, 46].” Developing was changed to emerging. The scenarios cover both production and marketing. A paragraph was added to clarify this point. Lines 484-490: “An effect… …deprivation”. This indeed occurs with many crops in Mexico. The conclusion of the study was expanded. Lines 513-536: “To assess… …this study.” The study represents 2% of the avocado cultivation area in the State of Mexico but is considered representative of its production system. Consensus panel results reflect not only this 2% but also 44% of the state’s total avocado production. Reviewer 2: New paragraphs were added to include post-COVID literature, along with a discussion on the results' applicability. Lines 32-84: “Mexico leads… …Malaysia.” Lines 560-562: “The authors… …consumption.” The introduction was revised to expand the literature and include updated figures. The final paragraph was rewritten to emphasize the significance of this study Lines 32-84. Lines 85-91: “This study… …of Mexico.” The equation was rewritten. Line 142 “dose per lot” was changed to “dose per surface”. Line 143 The observation has been addressed. Line 197 There was indeed an error, which has been corrected in the text. Line 228 was removed: “Transfers due to the price of internal factors” The error was corrected: the average is 144 kg, not 44. Line 267. The observation has been addressed. Line 380. The observation has been addressed. Our study focuses on evaluating the impact of policy or tax cascades on avocado producers, not elasticity. To clarify the conclusions, the hypothesis is addressed through two questions, each answered and supported with arguments. Proposals for future research are also included, considering the paper's limitations. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330326.r002
28 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Noé Aguilar-Rivera, Editor Economic Analysis of Avocado Production Systems: Market Failures and Policy Distortions PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hernandez, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 11 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 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: https://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, Noé Aguilar-Rivera Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Abstract: ok Introduction: Line 33 Mexico is not a price setter. Line 49 – 50 the problems are stronger in states that want to excel in avocado exports. Line 53 – 54 phytosanitary programs are concentrated in the state that produces and exports the most to the USA. Materials and methods: Lines 93 – 94 topographical conditions are not comparable to the national average; the most favorable conditions for avocado cultivation are in an altitude range between 1000 and 2300 meters above sea level. Won't this variability of conditions generate an error in your method? In Figure 1, the level curves confuse with the flat areas, it seems that the flattest areas are to the northwest of the municipality. Remove the level curves or the physiographic legend. Modeling of production systems: the conditions of your UPA are different from those of avocado crops in Michoacán and Jalisco. Consider this information if you are going to make national comparisons. In general, the methodology seems very solid Results: line 268 – 269 Are the yield values average across the three states? There may be a lot of variability between production types in these three states. The results presented are precise and concrete. Discussion: lines 378 – 370 This data is relevant to your results. Can it be said that production in this municipality is not economically and socially profitable? When comparing data from other states or countries, it seems that the result is always different. Is this because the crop is relatively new in the area? Line 408 – 409 It is clear that protection for export producers is always more important, including plant health protection. Line 442 -444 This data is relevant. It should be discussed further. Line 469 Could it be that avocado cultivation is not favorable for small farmers? Your discussion highlights that international and export trade is not viable or favorable for poor farmers, or at least Mexico's public policies do not favor them. Conclusions: clear and consistent with the results and discussion Reviewer #3: This manuscript presents a notable strength by collecting primary data directly from 11 farmers and using numerical evidence to evaluate the impact of agricultural policies. The application of the Policy Analysis Matrix (PAM) effectively highlights distortions between private and social prices. Additionally, the comparison of Mexican agricultural subsidies with those in the United States and Canada provides insightful discussion on policy inefficiencies. The study is timely and relevant, but I would like to suggest the following points for revision and clarification: 1. Please consider including the standard deviations for the data obtained from the 11 surveyed farms. This would enhance the reliability of the analysis. This could be presented in the Supplemental Data if space is limited in the main text. 1. The resolution of the map provided is low, making the legend difficult to read. A higher-resolution version would be appreciated. 2. The term "CNMPP" is used without a clear definition in the main text. Please provide an explanation. 3. While "NPCI" is defined in the Materials and Methods section, it does not appear to be reported in the Results. Please clarify or include the relevant results. 4. Results – Yield (Line 265–): The fruit quality classification is said to follow reference [37], but the explanation is not sufficiently clear. Please provide more detail on how the classification was carried out. 5. Tables 2–4: The captions should include a brief explanation of the term “Divergences” for better reader understanding. 6. Tables 3–4: Some formatting issues are present in the tables. Please revise to ensure all contents are clearly readable. 7. Tables 2–4: Presenting the information for APU1 to APU3 in a single consolidated table may improve readability. Alternatively, showing the profitability by tree age using a time-series graph could help better illustrate the policy impact. 8. Table 5: Please revise the column header “Age” to “Age of Avocado Trees” for greater clarity. 9. Line 309: The reference to “Table 1, 2, and 3” should be corrected to “Table 2, 3, and 4.” 10. Line 309: The sentence “[The main outlays, constituting 43%, 48%, 55% of total costs respectively, were for fertilizers.]” is unclear. Which figure or table supports this claim? If the data are not presented, please consider including them. 11. Discussion: The paper attributes market failure primarily to low wages. However, could other factors also be contributing? A more nuanced discussion would strengthen the argument. 12. Discussion: The authors mention that support for smallholder farmers is necessary. It would be helpful to suggest specific policy measures or practical approaches to make this recommendation more actionable. Overall, this is a valuable contribution, and I believe the above revisions will significantly improve the clarity, rigor, and practical relevance of the manuscript. ****** 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: Yes: Luis Alberto Olvera-Vargas 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.] 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.0330326.r003
Revision 2
9 Jun 2025 Author Response In response to the reviewers' feedback, the following changes were made to the original manuscript: Reviewer 1: Introduction: Line 33 Mexico is not a price setter. Line 49 – 50 the problems are stronger in states that want to excel in avocado exports Response: Line 33 was removed, and a new paragraph was added to highlight the related issue. Lines 48-54: “Avocado cultivation… … [4, 6].” Reviewer: Line 53 – 54 phytosanitary programs are concentrated in the state that produces and exports the most to the USA. Response: The suggested line was included in the manuscript. Lines 60-61: “Phytosanitary… … USA.” Reviewer: Materials and methods: Lines 93 – 94 topographical conditions are not comparable to the national average; the most favorable conditions for avocado cultivation are in an altitude range between 1000 and 2300 meters above sea level. Won't this variability of conditions generate an error in your method? Response: The altitude value for the study region has been corrected, including only the altitude range of producing regions. Lines 97-99: “Between… …sea level.” Reviewer:In Figure 1, the level curves confuse with the flat areas, it seems that the flattest areas are to the northwest of the municipality. Remove the level curves or the physiographic legend. Response:Figure 1 was modified to avoid confusion. Reviewer: Modeling of production systems: the conditions of your UPA are different from those of avocado crops in Michoacán and Jalisco. Consider this information if you are going to make national comparisons. In general, the methodology seems very solid Response: It was clarified that the system operates under rain-fed conditions to avoid confusion with other methods used nationwide. Lines 137-138: “These… … rainfed.” Reviewer:Results: line 268 – 269 Are the yield values average across the three states? There may be a lot of variability between production types in these three states. The results presented are precise and concrete. Response: The paragraph was revised to emphasize the differences in average avocado yield according to tree age. Lines 273-277: “Plantations… … [20, 36].” Reviewer:Discussion: lines 378 – 370 This data is relevant to your results. Can it be said that production in this municipality is not economically and socially profitable? When comparing data from other states or countries, it seems that the result is always different. Is this because the crop is relatively new in the area? Response: A new sentence was added to further elaborate on the profitability of avocado production. Lines 392-394: “Developing… … profitable.” Reviewer:Line 408 – 409 It is clear that protection for export producers is always more important, including plant health protection. Response:A sentence was added to address the comment. Lines 456-457: “This… … [16].” Reviewer:Line 442 -444 This data is relevant. It should be discussed further. Response: The idea was expanded to emphasize the impact of indirect taxes on small-scale avocado producers. Lines 463-469: “These indirect… … mechanisms.” Reviewer:Line 469 Could it be that avocado cultivation is not favorable for small farmers? Your discussion highlights that international and export trade is not viable or favorable for poor farmers, or at least Mexico's public policies do not favor them. Response:A sentence was included to highlight the importance of small-scale avocado farmers. Line 494: “However… … fruit.” Reviewer 3 Reviewer:Please consider including the standard deviations for the data obtained from the 11 surveyed farms. This would enhance the reliability of the analysis. This could be presented in the Supplemental Data if space is limited in the main text. Response:A new table was included with weighted standard deviation based on technical coefficients. Line 280: “Table 2…. …. coefficients.” Reviewer:The resolution of the map provided is low, making the legend difficult to read. A higher-resolution version would be appreciated. Response:Figure 1 was modified for better understanding of the analyzed region. The Legend was simplified, and text resolution was improved. Line 103 Reviewer:The term "CNMPP" is used without a clear definition in the main text. Please provide an explanation. Response:The correct term is NPCI (Nominal Protection Coefficient for Marketable Inputs), and this abbreviation has been applied consistently across the manuscript. Reviewer:While "NPCI" is defined in the Materials and Methods section, it does not appear to be reported in the Results. Please clarify or include the relevant results. Response: There was some confusion regarding the term CNMPP; it has been replaced with NPCI, and the corresponding paragraph has been added. Line 347: “Nominal… … (NPCI). Reviewer:Results – Yield (Line 265–): The fruit quality classification is said to follow reference [37], but the explanation is not sufficiently clear. Please provide more detail on how the classification was carried out. Response:The classification in accordance with Mexican regulations was expanded, and a table was added. Line 291: “Table 3. Fruit… Reviewer: Tables 2–4: The captions should include a brief explanation of the term “Divergences” for better reader understanding Response: The tables including the term “divergences” were removed and a figure was included as replacement. A brief explanation of the term “divergence” is included in lines 180-182. Reviewer:Tables 3–4: Some formatting issues are present in the tables. Please revise to ensure all contents are clearly readable. Response: The tables mentioned were removed. Reviewer: Tables 2–4: Presenting the information for APU1 to APU3 in a single consolidated table may improve readability. Alternatively, showing the profitability by tree age using a time-series graph could help better illustrate the policy impact. Response: Tables 2, 3, and 4 were removed, and a new figure was added to summarize the results. Line 302: “Figure 2. Profitability…”. Reviewer: Table 5: Please revise the column header “Age” to “Age of Avocado Trees” for greater clarity. Response:The comment has been addressed. Reviewer:Line 309: The reference to “Table 1, 2, and 3” should be corrected to “Table 2, 3, and 4.” Response: The tables mentioned were removed. Reviewer: Line 309: The sentence “[The main outlays, constituting 43%, 48%, 55% of total costs respectively, were for fertilizers.]” is unclear. Which figure or table supports this claim? If the data are not presented, please consider including them. Response: A figure was added to support the argument. Lines 322: “Figure 3. Marketable…” Reviewer: Discussion: The paper attributes market failure primarily to low wages. However, could other factors also be contributing? A more nuanced discussion would strengthen the argument. Response: The discussion was expanded to include additional factors that may contribute to avocado market failures. Lines 534-542: “Market failures… … [54].” Reviewer: The authors mention that support for smallholder farmers is necessary. It would be helpful to suggest specific policy measures or practical approaches to make this recommendation more actionable. Response: A practical focus was incorporated into the recommendations. Lines 516-519: “Addressing… …. Development.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-45504R1 (Rebuttal letter) .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330326.r004
2 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Noé Aguilar-Rivera, Editor Economic Analysis of Avocado Production Systems: Market Failures and Policy Distortions PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hernandez, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 15 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 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. 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. https://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, Noé Aguilar-Rivera Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. [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 #4: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The authors made improvements and comments. They justified questions and improved the discussion for a better understanding of the manuscript. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 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: Yes: Luis Alberto Olvera-Vargas Reviewer #4: 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.] 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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comment_SSM.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330326.r005
Revision 3
25 Jul 2025 Author Response In response to the reviewers' feedback, the following changes were made to the original manuscript: Reviewer: Line 131, “with ranges” should be replaced with “with age ranges”. Answer: The correction has been addressed. R:Line 280, you mentioned in Table 2 for APU2 (7-9), APU3 (10 to 14), in Table 3 for APU3 (7m10a14) and in Table 5 for APU2 (6-9), APU3 (>10), with respective age ranges, but they are not in line with what in materials and methods (Line 132-133, where APU1 (4-6 years), APU2 (8-9 years), APU3 (10-15 years). Their descriptions should be consistent throughout the paper A: The terminology was homogenized throughout the manuscript. R: In Table 2 (Line 280), there is a misspelling, “tres”, which should be “trees”. A: The correction has been addressed. R:The names of Table 1, 2, and 3 are too short and not self-explained, which need a bit more words. A: The title of tables 1, 2 and 3 were modified. R:Figure 2 does not show any unit. A: Units were included in figure 2. R:Line 498, 542, the quotes (“”) are not necessary for the words “harms” and “distorting” A. The correction has been addressed. R.You referred Table 6 in Lines, 341, 354, 459, 467, 375, but I could not find Table 6 anywhere. A:The table that was referred was Table 5 not 6 R:In Table 4, you need the unit (m or meter) in column 2. A:The unit of measure for Table 4 was included. R:In Figure 3, the APUs is described in title, but it was not included in figure, instead you mentioned 6m4a6, 6m7a9 and 7m10a14, for which I would suggest just to write APU1, APU2 and APU3 simply. A:The legend in figure 3 was modified. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-45504R1 (Rebuttal letter 2).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330326.r006
31 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Noé Aguilar-Rivera, Editor Economic Analysis of Avocado Production Systems: Market Failures and Policy Distortions PONE-D-24-45504R3 Dear Dr. Elein Hernandez 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Noé Aguilar-Rivera Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330326.r007
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Noé Aguilar-Rivera, Editor PONE-D-24-45504R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hernandez, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@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. Noé Aguilar-Rivera Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330326.r008

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 .