Quantifying Land Fragmentation in Northern Irish Cattle Enterprises

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting article.

Regarding Introduction:

1. The authors should start like fragmentation is an universal portrait of agricultural production in the world. Now they start with the definition of fragmentation, which is not good.  You have to convince us, the readers, why it is important to look at LF. 
2. Page 1, line 42-46:” More recently, farmland fragmentation has been defined as the process whereby farming households possess a number of non-contiguous land plots, scattered over a wide range of area and defined by spatial characteristics such as farm size, the size and shape of land parcels, the number of land parcels belonging to the farm, the size distribution of plots and the spatial distribution of plots”.  Please consider rewording.
3. Page 2, line62-63：“Farmland fragmentation can influence agricultural production, biodiversity and ecosystem functions in diverse ways”. This appears to be a personal opinion of the Authors. Please provide references that support the statement. Is the influence positive, negative or dual? 
4. The second paragraph should be reorganized (like I mentioned above). 

Regarding Materials and Methods:

1. Very poor description of the study area, most readers will not be familiar with Northern Irish, so explain it better. I have no idea about the study area, even after reading the description. 

Regarding Results: 

1. page 7, line 282: Change “Figure 2A-B” to “Figure 2a-b”, or changethe content in the picture 1, meaing that change “a/b” to “A/B”.

Regarding Discussion:

1. The discussion section is too long, the authors can divide it into several sections by utilizing subtitle.
2. Land rental and land consolidation are emphasized as the two most effective solutions to land fragmentation, the authors should add how your findings can serve them.

Regarding References:

1. More than half of the references are not from the last 5 years, it is recommended to update them to the last 5 years.

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers,

We thank you for taking the time to go review our manuscript and offer comments for improvement.  Please see below how each item has been dealt with,

On behalf of all the authors,

Dr Georgina Milne

REVIEWER 1

We wish to thank R1 for their helpful and constructive comments.  We hope that the following addresses the points raised:

1. The authors should start like fragmentation is an universal portrait of agricultural production in the world. Now they start with the definition of fragmentation, which is not good. You have to convince us, the readers, why it is important to look at LF.

Response: We have changed the order of the introduction to say that LF is a global phenomena before discussing the definitions.

2. Page 1, line 42-46:”…please consider rewording (line 57)

Response: Complete

3. Farmland fragmentation can influence agricultural production, biodiversity and ecosystem functions in diverse ways”. This appears to be a personal opinion of the Authors. Please provide references that support the statement. Is the influence positive, negative or dual?

Response: Complete (line 67 and references hereafter)

4. The second paragraph should be reorganized (like I mentioned above).

Response: Complete (section reorgansied)

5. Very poor description of the study area, most readers will not be familiar with Northern Irish, so explain it better. I have no idea about the study area, even after reading the description

Response: Complete (line 133-148)

6. page 7, line 282: Change “Figure 2A-B” to “Figure 2a-b”, or changethe content in the picture 1, meaing that change “a/b” to “A/B

Response: Complete

7. The discussion section is too long, the authors can divide it into several sections by utilizing subtitle.

Response: Complete (subheadings included and discussion shorter)

8. Land rental and land consolidation are emphasized as the two most effective solutions to land fragmentation, the authors should add how your findings can serve them.

Response: We argue that these findings are evidence for policymakers, who will make effective decisions on land fragmentation.  However, we cannot advise on the best way to do this.  We did rewrite the introduction (lines 109-129) to include policy considerations, and added to the discussion: “Our findings have implication for land use policy development, and we argue that these results will be useful in designing appropriate policy to promote economic viability of rural areas through maintaining efficient use and distribution of farmlands, to ensure farm productivity improvement as well as maintaining biodiversity and habitat heterogeneity in rural areas of NI”

9. More than half of the references are not from the last 5 years, it is recommended to update them to the last 5 years.

Response: we appreciate that some of the references are older, however many of the important studies looking at farm fragmentation in UK/Ireland, which link directly to our work, are more than five years old.  This does not make them outdated or invalid.  Approximately 2/3 of our references are from within the last decade which is sufficiently modern.  We do not believe that have overlooked critical contemporary references from within the last 5 years, however we will be happy to include them if R1 can advise which ones we are missing.

Reviewer 2 Report

This subject is relevant and the authors deserve credit for trying to give the study of fragmentation 'hands and feet' in relation to livestock epidemiology. Concerning the analytical procedure this article is sound and the authors seem to have exhausted the possibilities to extract information from the extant geographic datasources. The text is clearly written.

There are however major remarks to be made.

1. Boiled down to the essentials, this paper results in a purely spatial analysis and description. There is no quantitative link to the epidemiological problems, we do not get any specific information about the nature and severity of livestock epidemiology in NI. Maybe this was not the direct objective of the paper, but at least the authors should give more background on the epidemiology, and from here, define some working hypothesis. I am not an expert in epidemiology, but I imagine that a spatial behaviour might differ from one livestock disease to other diseases.
2. The description of an overarching programmatic goal seems to be missing, including proposing the headlines of research ahead. This paper appears to be quite 'naked' (sorry for this expression).
3. The first aim of the paper is to define 'epidemiological relevant metrics of farmland fragmentation'. The relevance of the metrics chosen is however not sufficiently described and argumented.
4. The 'state of the art' is largely missing. The paper shows an impressive list of interesting and relevant papers, but this literature does not seem to be sufficiently exploited. Just one example: reference 42, which is about intraherd cattle movement metrics. I come back on the state of the art in 7. and 8.
5. This being said, one could doubt about the relevance of putting 'fragmentation' first, as key factor. Rather, I would think 'connectivity' as being the first factor of consideration. Isn't the key problem the risk of interconnection of animals, farms? Fragmentation certainly can provide a set of indicators, but probably there are other sets of factors/indicators of connectivity: transport (livestock, people, vehicles), natural factors (windborne disease causing particles, contact with wildlife,...). It is only in the very last sentence (line 537) that the term connectivity appears.
6. Fragmentation may either enhance or limit the risk of contamination, depending on among other the scale of approach. Avoid an a priori negative bias.
7. What about the many studies about agricultural fragmentation ouside ROI and GB? Fragmentation is a centuries old issue, and in the core of land consolidation. I wonder why not more reference is made to the many studies about land consolidation (there are however some references in the literature list).
8. Fragmentation (including connectivity etc.) has been in the core of research in landscape ecology. Also here, I miss some digging of expertise, methods, etc from this broad field of research.

Some more detailed remarks:

9. The title shows a redundancy: use either 'quantification' or 'metrics'
10. Line 42: 'more recently'... as put in 7. this definition is not recent but old
11. About line 68: cf. remark 6: one extreme is the condition of no fragmentation, as in the case of 'closed' systems (livestock remaining in one, eventually covered, unit). In such case outbreak of disease can be dramatic. Maybe there is a downward curve of costs related to fragmentation, with a minimum at a limited degree of fragmentation. The text lines 71 to 76 might eventually be expanded

12 about line 103. Can generational succession not be a factor of stability rather than a factor of farmland fragmentation?

13. about line 118: expand, here the remain on his/her hunger
14. about line 128: what are relevant metrics? we miss a clear hypothesis here
15. Line 206 what do you mean by 'islands'?
16. about line 238: clarify: 'internal' and 'external' land parcels
17. 2.5.1 it is not fully clear what the relevance is of measuring the region wide variation (gradients) in degree of parcellisation, without discussing it in terms of factors such as soil, topography, urbanisation, road density, ..... see also about 282
18. about line 377. The observation of higher fragmentation in dairy farms is interesting. it seems to be the impact of the abandonment of milk quota, and the consecutive reaction of farms. In normal situations in some equilibrium, one expects dairy farms to have the least fragmentation degree, compared to other livestock farm types.

As I understand, this paper wants to be a 'hinge', inviting epemiological and agricultural experts to explore fragmentation as a hitherto underestimated, if not ignored, factor. If this paper aspires to be a key reference for future studies, I would suggest the authors to enrich the paper, for which the remarks made here might provide some inspiration.

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers,

We thank you for taking the time to go review our manuscript and offer comments for improvement.  Please see below how each item has been dealt with,

On behalf of all the authors,

Dr Georgina Milne

REVIEWER 2

We wish to thank R2 for their helpful and constructive comments.  We hope that the following addresses the points raised:

Reviewer 2

1. Boiled down to the essentials, this paper results in a purely spatial analysis and description. There is no quantitative link to the epidemiological problems, we do not get any specific information about the nature and severity of livestock epidemiology in NI. Maybe this was not the direct objective of the paper, but at least the authors should give more background on the epidemiology, and from here, define some working hypothesis. I am not an expert in epidemiology, but I imagine that a spatial behaviour might differ from one livestock disease to other diseases.

Response: We agree with Reviewer 2 that this is a descriptive paper.  Reviewer two raises some excellent points from #1 through to #8 which we have prompted much thought.  We used these points to refocus the study and findings.  The introduction and discussion have been substantially amended in light of R#2’s comments.  Specifically, we have reduced discussions on the epidemiology of the system (as this was not the goal of this piece of work).  Our overall aim was to describe the phenomena of farmland fragmentation in NI cattle businesses, and how it varies with production type.  We hope that this is now clearer.  There are more epidemiological studies to follow in forthcoming publications, where the points raised by #R2 can be more fully addressed.

We hope that by removing the epidemiology aspect, the revised manuscript is more focused, and ultimately helps address #R2’s concerns about the aims of the work (points #1-#8). 

2. The description of an overarching programmatic goal seems to be missing, including proposing the headlines of research ahead. This paper appears to be quite 'naked' (sorry for this expression).

Response: Lines 108-129 in the introduction re-frame the study and include the aims, and relevance to policymakers.

3. The first aim of the paper is to define 'epidemiological relevant metrics of farmland fragmentation'. The relevance of the metrics chosen is however not sufficiently described and argumented

Response: The aims of the paper have been redrafted in light of our comment to point #1.  We have moved the focus away from epidemiology.

4. The 'state of the art' is largely missing. The paper shows an impressive list of interesting and relevant papers, but this literature does not seem to be sufficiently exploited. Just one example: reference 42, which is about intraherd cattle movement metrics. I come back on the state of the art in 7. and 8

Response: The manuscript has been reworked in light of #R2’s comments, and the epidemiological aspects reduced (see response to point 1).  By refocusing the work on farmland fragmentation and away from epidemiology, we hope to have clearer aims and goals.   

5. This being said, one could doubt about the relevance of putting 'fragmentation' first, as key factor. Rather, I would think 'connectivity' as being the first factor of consideration. Isn't the key problem the risk of interconnection of animals, farms? Fragmentation certainly can provide a set of indicators, but probably there are other sets of factors/indicators of connectivity: transport (livestock, people, vehicles), natural factors (windborne disease causing particles, contact with wildlife,...). It is only in the very last sentence (line 537) that the term connectivity appears.

Response: We have removed the epidemiological considerations.   

6. Fragmentation may either enhance or limit the risk of contamination, depending on among other the scale of approach. Avoid an a priori negative bias.

Response: We have removed the epidemiological considerations.   

7. What about the many studies about agricultural fragmentation ouside ROI and GB? Fragmentation is a centuries old issue, and in the core of land consolidation. I wonder why not more reference is made to the many studies about land consolidation (there are however some references in the literature list).

Response: We have chosen to focus on our study area of NI, and for comparisons sake, the surrounding regions of the republic of Ireland and Great Britain are the most relevant to our results.  However, we have updated the introduction to increase the geographical scope of references (references 1-4).  We are not exploring land consolidation in this paper, however in the discussion we have added lines about how these results can be used by policy makers (lines 532-536)     

8. Fragmentation (including connectivity etc.) has been in the core of research in landscape ecology. Also here, I miss some digging of expertise, methods, etc from this broad field of research.

Response: We agree that these are interesting aspects of fragmentation, however we are not conducting an exhaustive review of all areas of fragmentation.  We have set out the aims to specifically quantify land fragmentation in cattle farms.    

9. The title shows a redundancy: use either 'quantification' or 'metrics'

Response: Complete

10. The title shows a redundancy: use either 'quantification' or 'metrics'

Response: Complete

11. About line 68: cf. remark 6: one extreme is the condition of no fragmentation, as in the case of 'closed' systems (livestock remaining in one, eventually covered, unit). In such case outbreak of disease can be dramatic. Maybe there is a downward curve of costs related to fragmentation, with a minimum at a limited degree of fragmentation. The text lines 71 to 76 might eventually be expanded

Response: An outbreak in a closed system could indeed be dramatic.  In NI, here are almost no “zero grazing” type systems so we cannot explore this further.  Line 89 and line 131

12. About line 103. Can generational succession not be a factor of stability rather than a factor of farmland fragmentation?

Response: At line 98, we have included the line “This occurs when the number of children (as potential successors) within the farming household increases, and the family farm is to be shared between them.”

13. Expand, here the remain on his/her hunger

Response: We are unsure what this refers to

14. About line 128: what are relevant metrics? we miss a clear hypothesis here

Response: We have amended this sentence and clarified the aims of the paper. As stated previously, this is descriptive/exploratory research, not hypothesis driven.

15. what do you mean by 'islands'?

Response: We were referring to “these islands” i.e. the UK and ROI together (line 206)

16. about line 238: clarify: 'internal' and 'external' land parcels

Response: This has been clarified at line 244-246

17. it is not fully clear what the relevance is of measuring the region wide variation (gradients) in degree of parcellisation, without discussing it in terms of factors such as soil, topography, urbanisation, road density, ..... see also about 282

Response: Whilst it is not possible to discuss this in depth, the discussion has been updated to address this (lines 4107-427)

17. about line 377. The observation of higher fragmentation in dairy farms is interesting. it seems to be the impact of the abandonment of milk quota, and the consecutive reaction of farms. In normal situations in some equilibrium, one expects dairy farms to have the least fragmentation degree, compared to other livestock farm types.

Response: The finding that dairy farms were the most fragmented was indeed the most surprising as we also expected dairy farms to be less fragmented.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the authors have made major  revisions to their manuscript, some comments  remain unrevised, but their reply is done. 

1. You did not change change “Figure 2A-B” to “Figure 2a-b”.  
2. Subtitle 1.1 is a bit obtrusive and can be deleted.
3. Line 485: Change "efficency" to "efficiency".
4. Line 275-276: there is a mistake.
5. Double check the full manuscript, to avoid the spelling and syntax errors.

Author Response

1. You did not change “Figure 2A-B” to “Figure 2a-b”.  

Response: Apologies – this is complete

2. Subtitle 1.1 is a bit obtrusive and can be deleted.

Response: Complete

3. Line 485: Change "efficency" to "efficiency".

Response: Complete

4. Line 275-276: there is a mistake.

Response: Complete

5. Double check the full manuscript, to avoid the spelling and syntax errors.

Response: Complete

Reviewer 2 Report

No further comments 

Author Response

Complete