The multi-faceted effects of technology-driven productivity surge in the crop & livestock sector in Greece: Evidence from the FABLE Calculator

Phoebe Koundouri; Konstantinos Dellis; Olympia Miziaki

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341900

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 17, 2024
11 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Federico Zilia, Editor Dear Dr. Dellis, 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. Thank you for your careful and well-written manuscript. Both reviewers find your paper interesting and well aligned with PLOS ONE’s scope, acknowledging the robustness of the analytical framework and the policy relevance of the results. Please revise the paper according to the reviewers’ specific points - particularly: expand the introduction to include more contextual references on technological innovation and sustainability in Greek agriculture; clearly describe the dataset used in the FABLE calculator and ensure consistency between numerical values in the abstract and main text; correct minor stylistic and typographical issues, and reorganize Section 3.1 for better readability. These refinements will further enhance the clarity and impact of your work. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 26 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 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, Federico Zilia 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. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found. 3. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author P. Koundouri and O. Miziaki. 4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 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. 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 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Using the analytical power of the FABLE calculator to quantify the impact of improved crop and livestock productivity on key agricultural, forestry and Other Land use (AFOLU) environmental indicators, this article explores the transformative potential of the Greek agricultural sector to enhance crop and livestock productivity. The whole article is clear, but the following changes still need to be made: 1. It is suggested that the author include in the introduction the relevant research of other scholars on the combination of technological innovation and sustainability in the Greek agricultural sector, and summarize and analyze the innovation and advantages of this study compared with it. 2. In section 3.1, it is suggested that the author divide the relevant description of the productivity improvement path and the relevant results of the productivity improvement path into two parts for discussion, such as adding corresponding subheadings respectively, so as to make the content of this part more clear. 3. In Section 3.2, the author compares and analyzes the results of national commitment scenario and BAU scenario in AFOLU emission and pastureland, but lacks quantitative analysis of relevant results. 4. In the third part, the author discussed the differences in results under different paths, but the reasons for this lack of more in-depth demonstration, such as the support of relevant literature. It is suggested that the author supplement this. 5. When the author discusses horizontal policy and vertical policy in the fourth part, he should start from the perspective of the results of various indicators under the various paths of this paper, and there is no correlation between the two. 6. It is suggested that the author add the relevant discussion on the shortcomings of this study and the research issues that can be further explored in the future in the summary of Section 6. Reviewer #2: The authors use the FABLE Calculator to assess the intricate relationship between improved productivity in crops and livestock on environment, showing that enhancing productivity reduced GHG emissions by up to 29% until 2030 and 62% by 2050. The authors compare BAU and Enhanced Productivity Pathways, taking into account policy documents. The authors provide evidence for the use of precision agriculture for increasing agricultural productivity in Greece. Moreover, horizontal and vertical policies for the development, adoption and dissemination of latest technologies are proposed. General comments: The paper elaborates on the use of technology-driven productivity surge in crop and livestock in Greece, using the FABLE calculator. However, the dataset summary is missing in the text. The reader therefore cannot make sense of what data was used for the analysis in the FABLE calculator. Specific comments: In the Abstract, the figures for reduction of GHG emissions are 21% until 2030 and 52 % until 2050. However, in the text, the values are 29% and 62% respectively. The authors must correct the values used. The abstract states that the study demonstrates the promotion of biodiversity conservation. Line 81. References to be inserted in brackets. Lines 87, 89, 92. Research questions should end with question marks. The figures in the papers are in reverse order with Figure 1 appearing as the last figure. Line 249. Period missing between costs and Total costs. Line 275 meat consumption is expected to fall and not deteriorate. Lines 352-354 are repeated in line 359-361. Line 400 is incomplete. Line 424 corroborate should be followed by ‘with’. ****** 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: 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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer PLOS ONE.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341900.r001
Revision 1
24 Dec 2025 Author Response We would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and for their constructive and insightful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in evaluating our work. The comments have helped us to clarify the novelty of the paper, strengthen the methodological transparency of the review, improve the consistency and precision of terminology, and sharpen the policy relevance of the analysis, particularly in the Greek context. We have carefully considered all major and minor comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. In doing so, we have expanded and refined the introduction to better articulate the contribution of the review, clarified the rationale for model selection and evaluation criteria, corrected and calibrated specific model descriptions, and improved the overall structure, readability, and presentation of results. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment, indicating how and where the manuscript has been revised. Main Comments 1. The dataset summary is missing in the text. The reader therefore cannot make sense of what data was used for the analysis in the FABLE calculator. Following a very helpful exchange with the Journal we have included the data required to produce the results and the graphs in the manuscript (based on projections with the FABLE Calculator) in the form of Supporting Information files uploaded to the submission system and explicitly stated “Data was generated for this study using the FABLE Calculator, which is publicly available via the following URL (Zenodo): https://zenodo.org/records/14638582. Additional data, including a projection of the variables and other relevant information, have been provided in the form of Supporting Information files”. 2. It is suggested that the author include in the introduction the relevant research of other scholars on the combination of technological innovation and sustainability in the Greek agricultural sector and summarize and analyze the innovation and advantages of this study compared with it. We have enhanced the introduction in the revised manuscript to include the work of other scholars in the Greek context (pp. 2-3). Despite the limited contributions on this specific topic, we include significant contributions and underscore the integration of the theoretical hypotheses with the data-driven projections from the FABLE Calculator, which is unique to our study. Furthermore, we complement the policy recommendations with the evidence from the projections to substantially contribute to the existing literature (p. 4). 3. In section 3.1, it is suggested that the author divide the relevant description of the productivity improvement path and the relevant results of the productivity improvement path into two parts for discussion, such as adding corresponding subheadings respectively, to make the content of this part clearer. Section 3.1 has been explicitly divided into 2 subsections, namely “Construction of Pathways” and “Results”. This improves readability, with the first subsection preparing the ground for and facilitating the interpretation of the results (the FABLE projections for the key variables) described in the second subsection. (pp. 7-9) 4. In Section 3.2, the author compares and analyzes the results of national commitment scenario and BAU scenario in AFOLU emission and pastureland but lacks quantitative analysis of relevant results. In the revised version of the paper, we have enhanced the discussion on AFOLU emissions and pastureland (hectares) for the comparison between the National Commitments and Current Trends Pathways in pp. 12-13. Furthermore, we explicitly refer to the components of GHG emissions in the crop and livestock sector (by pollutant, namely CH4 and N2O) to enhance the granularity of the analysis in both Sections 3.1 and 3.2. 5. In the third part, the author discussed the differences in results under different paths, but the reasons for this lack of more in-depth demonstration, such as the support of relevant literature. It is suggested that the author supplement this. In both Sections 3.1 and 3.2 we complement the analysis of the results (projections) with a comparison with the relevant literature for the Greek case and beyond. We distinguish between corroborating findings in the literature for AFOLU GHG emissions (p.10 and p.13), land use and agricultural production costs (p.11 and p.15). Overall, this enhances the validity and relevance of our results, as the hypotheses are supported by an array of studies in literature. 6. When the author discusses horizontal policy and vertical policy in the fourth part, he should start from the perspective of the results of various indicators under the various paths of this paper, and there is no correlation between the two. The first introductory paragraph in Section 4 (p. 16), before diving into the horizontal and vertical policies to support productivity growth, links the discussion with the results presented in Section 3 and underlines the main pillars of these policies. Furthermore, within sections 4.1 and 4.2 we have identified the correlation between the two policy sets and the implications they have for key variables as expressed in the FABLE C projections in Section 3 (p. 17 for horizontal policies and pp. 18-19 for vertical policies). 7. It is suggested that the author add the relevant discussion on the shortcomings of this study and the research issues that can be further explored in the future in the summary of Section 6 A paragraph of the limitation of the current research has been added to the Conclusion (p.24) Specific Comments 1. In the Abstract, the figures for reduction of GHG emissions are 21% until 2030 and 52 % until 2050. However, in the text, the values are 29% and 62% respectively. The authors must correct the values used. All values and statements in the Abstract are corrected in the revised manuscript. 2. The abstract states that the study demonstrates the promotion of biodiversity conservation We have revised the Abstract accordingly and it now summarizes the key outputs included in the Results section 3. Line 81. References to be inserted in brackets. All references in text are in brackets in the revised manuscript 4. Lines 87, 89, 92. Research questions should end with question marks. Question marks have been inserted 5. The figures in the papers are in reverse order with Figure 1 appearing as the last figure. The order of the figures has been corrected for consistency 6. Line 249. Period missing between costs and Total costs. Period inserted 7. Line 275 meat consumption is expected to fall and not deteriorate. Wording corrected 8. Lines 352-354 are repeated in line 359-361. Duplicate lines have been removed 9. Line 400 is incomplete. All typos and ambiguities in text have been corrected in the revised manuscript 10. Line 424 corroborate should be followed by ‘with’. Wording has now been corrected Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reply_Letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341900.r002
14 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - Federico Zilia, Editor The multi-faceted effects of technology-driven productivity surge in the crop & livestock sector in Greece: Evidence from the FABLE Calculator PONE-D-24-52271R1 Dear Dr. Konstantinos Dellis, 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, Federico Zilia Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341900.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Federico Zilia, Editor PONE-D-24-52271R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Dellis, 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. Federico Zilia Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341900.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 .