Evaluation of Comprehensive Effect of Different Agroforestry Intercropping Modes on Poplar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is worth seeking initiatives that are aimed at, “ Study on the Comprehensive Effect of Different Agroforestry 2 Intercropping Modes of Poplar”. Study is good, therefore have merits for the publication in the Journal after some moderate revisions.

Title: Authors are advised to revise the title of study.

L22; write full name DBH when using for the first time.

Better to revise the L 32.

Arrange the keywords alphabetically.

There are grammar mistakes in the MS. Professional English Proof reading is mandatory.

L 40. Write some environmental problems.

Kindly check citations. Some citations are not properly inserted

L 56. Use full name of DBH.

L84: How much area in the world is under poplar cultaivation?

Objectives and hypothesis of the study are not interesting. Authors should revise. 

Authors did not mention anything about fertilizer application rates etc.

L 139: Authors are advised to cross check the prices of different vegetables in China.

Table 3: write the units of Tree height and others.  

Better to revise the L. 57, 80, 192, 264, 289, 292, 302, 324,

L 321: Authors are repeating the same thing again and again. Authors should avoid such kind of mistakes.

Conclusion should be improved. What’s is new in your study. How it is beneficial to common farmers.

Captions of the figures should be improved.

Arrange the references according to Journal guidelines.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I read a very interesting research paper. Congratulations for the hard work! Some comments:

-          Page 2, line 56: Please indicate that “DBH” means Diameter at breast height.

-          Page 2, lines 57-58: “Most studies have indicated that agroforestry is beneficial to tree growth”: please quote those studies.

-          Page 2, lines 56-68: You have to better introduce your research topic! Because not everything is beneficial in agroforestry and competitive relationships on light, nutrients and water arise, you have decided to study the most relevant combination of species. Do you target the greatest mutual benefit or the smallest competition on the same resources? Please reformulate this paragraph.

-          Page 2, lines 83-90: Please specify that the “Populus × canadensis” wood is used to make packing boxes, plywood, and as pulp for paper.

-          Page 3, lines 98-102: Please explain the choices of agricultural crops.

-          Page 4, lines 140-141: Please provide further explanation.

-          Page 4, lines 142-144: What is this for?

-          Page 5, lines 192-199: Poorly explained. The reader gets lost. Please reformulate.

-          Pages 6-7, Subsection 3.4.: Please explain the relevance of such analyses. Why are they necessary? What does the reader learn through your results?

-          Page 7, line 237: Please define Qi.

-          After Page 7, we have Page 1, Page 2, etc. How can that be?

-          Page 3 (in reality Page 10): According to which criteria should one decide? Tree growth? Wood properties? Economic benefits? ROI? Please conclude.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The data volume of this study is very limited, and there are a lot of meaningless results, such as table 4. These results are not very relevant to the research content. In addition, the format of the article is very confusing. For example, I did not find table 5, but the results of the study have table 6. Moreover, the pictures and tables in the article lack the necessary indicators. In general, I did not find any valuable results. I strongly recommend rejection. This article may be suitable for publication in the Chinese Journal Anhui agricultural science.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the updates.

Reviewer 3 Report

The format of this article is very bad. For example, 6, 18, 19, 31, 32, 35 and other references cited in the text. In addition, many of the final references are wrong in format. As a scientific researcher, correct format is the least respect for readers. I think Xiyang Zhao lacks the least scientific literacy. In addition, the amount of data in this study is very small, the data analysis is very poor, and the results are questionable. I strongly suggest that forests reject this manuscript, and I refuse to review other manuscripts of these authors. I hope Xiyang Zhao can learn the format of the following two articles.

Zhou, Z., Wang, C. & Luo, Y. Meta-analysis of the impacts of global change factors on soil microbial diversity and functionality. Nat Commun 11, 3072 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16881-7

Wang, Z. , & Wang, C. . (2021). Responses of tree leaf gas exchange to elevated co2 combined with changes in temperature and water availability: a global synthesis. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 30(12), 2500-2512.