Monetary Valuation of Ecosystem Services Provided by Protective Forest Plantations in the Agroforestry System in the South of the Volga Upland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear Editor
The author has done excellent work in the manuscript entitled "Assessment of ecosystem services of protective forest stands in the South of the Volga Upland". It was my pleasure to review this manuscript. The ecosystem services are provided by the afforestation program and they're valuable for any area of the world. The study is scientifically sound and after these minor suggestions, the manuscript can be suitable for publication in the journal Forests.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express your gratitude to you for your attention to our manuscript.
Thank you for your valuable comments on improving the article.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript titled "Assessment of ecosystem services of protective forest stands in the south of the Volga Upland" intends to study the effectiveness of agroforestry based on determining the value of ecosystem services of a forest-covered model land object and extrapolating the data obtained to the territory of the south of the Volga upland with identical natural and economic conditions with the model and finally makes an economic assessment of agroforestry.
The research is original; it could be characterized as novel and in my opinion important to the field, it also has an almost appropriate structure and the language has been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has an almost good extent (about 6,850 words) and it is quite comprehensive. The tables (3), equations (10) and figures (3) make the paper to reflect well to the reader. For this reason, paper has a "diversity look", not only tables, not only numbers, not only words.
The title, I think, is all right. The abstract has a very long length (about 287 words). Please, revise the abstract, it must be up to 200 words long, [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forests/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/forests-template.dot)]. Do not forget abstract need to encourage readers to download the paper. The Abstract needs further work.
The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized but it wasn’t introduced and put into perspective what research is negotiating. Moreover, it does not contain a clear formulation and description of the research problem. Please insert a clear description and justification of the problem the article deals with. Your literature research must be critical and more informed.
For the Methodology chapter, the research conduct has been tested in several areas of the world, with similar results and will probably be tested in others. Appropriate references to the methodology included in the already published bibliography.
The results section is good. The argument flows and is reinforced through the justification of the way elements are interpreted. The same applies to the Conclusion. I believe that the conclusions section or discussion should also include the main limitations of this study and incorporate possible policy implications. I think, something more should be said about practical implications.
Please revise line 40, you are trying to say something, or delete the words “К тому же”, write in English.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to express our gratitude to you for your attention to our manuscript.
Thank you for your valuable comments on improving the article.
We fully agree with your comments.
We have tried to revise the manuscript with your valuable comments. We have made changes to our manuscript.
Thank you again, dear reviewer, for giving us the opportunity to improve the article.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The topic is interesting and important from the soil protection point of view. It addresses all main groups of ecosystem services and present a relatively simple but easy to apply approach how to evaluate ecosystem services of protective forest stands in agricultural landscape. However, I suggest to be more specific in the Title. “Assessment” is too vague…I would suggest something like “Monetary valuation of ecosystem services provided by protective forest stands in the system of agroforestry in the south of the Volga Upland”.
Introduction
There are still few typos or Russian alphabet letters/words left. Some sentences need English editing – lines 36, 38, 60, 77, 85 etc.
Methods
Part 2.1.2 is too descriptive and long. I suggest to move it into Appendix/Supplement
Part 2.2 – data sources are quite vague, only references to publications are provided, I suggest to describe the underpinning data in more detail – statistical, vector, raster GIS data, spatial and temporal resolution etc?
2.3.2 – soil erosion is addressed via soil nutrients in a ton of soil preserved from erosion. How was calculated the mass/volume of the preserved soil? Was it measured or modelled (which model? RUSLE or?)
Results/Discussion
I suggest to provide cost/benefit analysis of business-as-usual agricultural use versus agroforesty especially in perspective of possible impacts of Climate change.
Especially regulatory ecosystem services (a need for them) are quite place specific – are there places in the Volga Upland where are they more needed than in other places? I suggest to address it in this part.
There are still few typos or Russian alphabet letters/words left. Some sentences need English editing – lines 36, 38, 60, 77, 85 etc.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our gratitude to you for your attention to our manuscript.
Thank you for your valuable comments on improving the article.
We fully agree with your comments.
We have tried to revise the manuscript taking into account your valuable comments.
We have changed the title of the manuscript to a more specific one. We also changed the methodology, part of which was moved to the application, and also tried to describe the data that was used in the manuscript.
We have conducted a cost-benefit analysis.
Thank you again, dear reviewer, for giving us the opportunity to improve the article.
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Presented topic is current and can be interested for readers of Forests. The manuscript is well written with a standard structure and appropriate references. Some minor comments to the manuscript:
- there are still words written in Cyrillic
- it would be nice to see in fig. 1 also map of Russia with location of area of interest
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my gratitude to you for reviewing the manuscript. Unfortunately, I could not provide a map of Russia due to technical problems. I'm sorry.
Thank you again
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The following comments and suggestions, arranged according to the sections of the manuscript, should be addressed to improve the quality of the paper.
- Introduction
- The introduction should have a clear logical framework that guides readers to understand the research background, problem statement, objectives, and significance. The description of the research problem and objectives in the introduction is relatively vague, making it difficult for readers to accurately understand your research focus and goals. Additionally, the transitions between different paragraphs are not sufficiently smooth, lacking overall coherence and cohesion.
- Line 65，the emphasis should be on presenting literature directly relevant to your research, rather than simply piling up numerous citations.
- Line 114-118，provide a concise overview of the content that will be covered in the upcoming chapters or paragraphs to help readers understand the overall structure and organization of the paper.
- Materials and Methods
- Lines 145-166，the content of this section is a bit repetitive, it is recommended to merge it together.
- Line 179，the key points in Figure 2 are not prominent, and there is also repetition with the content of Figure 1. I suggest expressing them in a single graph and highlighting the key points.
- Results
- Lines 351-386，suggest several key subheadings for the research results section.
- Conclusions
- Lines 494-497，Please use specific data to support the main research findings.
Reviewer 2 Report
“Assessment of ecosystem services of protective forest stands in the south of the Volga Upland”
The study seems interesting at first glance, with an engaging topic and ambitious intentions. However, the current outcome appears to be of low quality. Particularly, it is very difficult to understand the purpose of the work and the applied methodology.
The introduction begins and focuses on a local Russian theme. This theme should appear in the later part of the introduction, and perhaps even dominate it, but at the beginning of the manuscript, there is a lack of a general introduction to the topic based on international research. The concentration on Russian research is also evident in the cited publications, where publications about Russia are prioritized. The rest of the article is much better in this regard.
The introduction does not clearly state the scope of the research.
The authors incorrectly refer to the results of other studies in the introduction, seemingly aiming to quickly increase the number of cited studies rather than genuinely referring to their content. Here are a few examples:
„It is well known [5-13]”
Agroforestry systems provide a wide range of ecosystem services [16-21].
based on the economic assessment of various forest-agrarian natural ecosystems and the services they provide [28, 29, 30, 31, 32].
and other natural objects [34, 35, 36, 37, 38]
(Although the latter case has at least some substantive justification)
What are the research hypotheses? Has anything been proven in the study at all? What is the credibility of the obtained calculations - there is no information provided on that.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 - unacceptable low quality. The content of both figures can be easily combined into one. Even if they need to be separate (which is unnecessary), the order should be reversed.
The methodology is poorly explained. Any attempt to replicate the study under different conditions is bound to fail. The authors base their calculations on a large number of other studies, but the way they utilize this information is completely unclear. The methodology should be the first element to undergo a complete reorganization.
Figure 3: Does its content really represent "Bioengineering model of agroforestry landscape of the dry steppe zone in the south of the Volga upland"? Why is there no legend or explanations within the figure? The information provided in the manuscript text is insufficient; the content of the figure should also be understandable as a separate entity. Once again, the quality of the figure is very low.
Discussion: The first part of the discussion looks like additional introductions. It is only in the later part that there is any reference to the results. There is a lack of discussion with other scientific research results from Russia and the world.
The conclusions have no connection to the obtained results and the content of the discussion.
