Functionality of Zonal Agroforestry Systems on Agricultural Land of Dry Territories

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

The abstract is too long, summarise it and let it be 1 paragraph. From the instructions to authors page, it should be maximum 200 words

Referencing

Use numbers as for the format of the journal

Figure 2: what is the source of the map, indicate

Some references missing at the end

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

For research article

Response 1 to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Can be improved	[Introduction improved]
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Can be improved	Changes have been made
Is the research design appropriate?	Can be improved	The design has been improved
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes
Are the results clearly presented?	Can be improved	changed
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Must be improved	changed
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: Abstract The abstract is too long, summarise it and let it be 1 paragraph. From the instructions to authors page, it should be maximum 200 words
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. The abstract has been reduced to 196 words. Published in the attached manuscript on the first page
Comments 2: Referencing Use numbers as for the format of the journal
Response 2: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, done/revised/changed/modified…..to emphasize this point. Edits have been made to the links in the text of the article and in References   Comments 3: Referencing Figure 2: what is the source of the map, indicate Response 3: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, done/revised/changed/modified…..to emphasize this point. At the end of the article, A.A. Vasilchenko's gratitude is indicated for the maps prepared for the article page 18   Comments 4: Referencing Some references missing at the end Response 4: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, done/revised/changed/modified…..to emphasize this point. Changes have been added to the links section
4. Moderate editing of English language required
Response 1:    (The English language has been edited into the manuscript)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of temperate agroforestry is of growing interest and relevance, particularly in dry environments. Use of remote sensing to determine landscape cover, arable land and other aspects is an appropriate technique. The results provide an important guide for land managers and an appropriate tool to use for end users, such as policy makers. Use of AFS in steppe regions can be an important tool to control desertification and other types of land degradation in regions with fragile soils, and this manuscript could provide excellent value towards that end in Russia in general, and Volgograd region specifically.

The writing is far too verbose, and the manuscript could easily be cut in half and still be too long. The author is encouraged to use the edits I applied. The writing style is far too conversational and the author needs to use only the most direct and necessary descriptions of their work. For example, the Abstract needs to be deeply edited, and a reduction by half would be appropriate. 

Certain paragraphs are misplaced, such as a Results paragraph in which the title of the sub-section contains the word "methods", which of course belongs in the Methods section, not Results. There are other instances, indicated in the attached document, in which Discussion elements are in the Results and vice-versa, material relevant to the Introduction is found elsewhere. 

Finally, your Results present mean values (averages) but you do not present any numbers indicating variance, like a SE, SD or simple +/- alongside values presented as means. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author will find English language edits in the attached, reviewed manuscript. There are a few instances of the use of incorrect words, and difficult to understand phrases. The main issue this reviewer had with the language was that it is simply far too verbose. It is written in a conversational style and would benefit immensely from trimming 50% or more of the text. 

The author absolutely must revise all of the presentations of numerical values in the text, tables and figures. It is absolutely inappropriate to present, for example, 10,000 as 10 thousand. The author would be well-served by using scientific notation in a science manuscript, ie, instead of 15 million use 1.5 x10⁶. Additionally, all uses of, for example, tons/ha need to be replaced by Mg ha^-1

Author Response

Response 1 to Reviewer 2 Comments

Please see the attached file. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:      

The abstract section needs to be shortened.

The introduction of the manuscript needs to include some new references and the hypothesis and objective of the study. Please rewrite materials and methods to simply explain them to readers.

The results of the manuscript are well-written by the author.

The discussion of the manuscript is well-written by the authors.

The conclusion of the manuscript needs to be shortened.

I hope my submitted comments help improve the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Response 1 to Reviewer 3 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The abstract section needs to be shortened.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. The abstract has been reduced to 196 words. Published in the attached manuscript on the first page
Comments 2: The introduction of the manuscript needs to include some new references and the hypothesis and objective of the study. Please rewrite materials and methods to simply explain them to readers.
Response 2: I have revised and rewritten the research objective and objectives, pages 2-4. Made changes to materials and methods on pages 5-9. Published in the attached manuscript.

Comments 3: The results of the manuscript are well-written by the author.

Comments 4: The discussion of the manuscript is well-written by the authors.

Comments 5: The conclusion of the manuscript needs to be shortened

I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author made significant improvements in most areas of concern. This reviewer feels like the language is still far too verbose and needs to be condensed. However, the author needs to go through the entire paper and convert all numerical presentations to scientific notation. This is a science paper after all. Also, this reviewer is disturbed by the lack of variance or error estimates when data is presented. The author will find commentary, and editorial suggestions and changes to the text in the attached doument.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are very few overtly wrong uses of English. However, the author consistently uses too many words and is not concise enough. 

Author Response

For research article

 

 

Response 2 to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes
Are the results clearly presented?	Must be improved	changed
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The author made significant improvements in most areas of concern. This reviewer feels like the language is still far too verbose and needs to be condensed. However, the author needs to go through the entire paper and convert all numerical presentations to scientific notation. This is a science paper after all. Also, this reviewer is disturbed by the lack of variance or error estimates when data is presented. The author will find commentary, and editorial suggestions and changes to the text in the attached document.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Changes have been made to the wording. All numeric representations are converted to scientific notation. Error estimates are given. Edits have been made to the article.

 

Comments 4: The discussion of the manuscript is well-written by the authors.

Point 1: There are very few overtly wrong uses of English. However, the author consistently uses too many words and is not concise enough.

Response 1: Changed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf