Use of GIS in Selecting Suitable Tree Crop Cultivation Sites in Mountainous Less Favoured Areas: An Example from Greece
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Happy to read this article regarding “Use of GIS in selecting suitable tree crop cultivation sites in Mountainous Less Favoured Areas”. In general, this manuscript is well prepared, with decent documentation of methods and results. However, the following issues need to be addressed:
Abstract: Data and methods should be clear and understandable.
Introduction:
The authors should have to include more literature that can support their methodology. I think, your methodology needs supporting literature which can make it more significant.
Material and Methods:
In the first part, you should mention the detail of the data. The detail given from lines 112-127 should be merged with section 2.2. Also, the study area should be moved to the top of this section.
Study area: spatial location is missing (Latitude and longitude). The study area map should be improved with better resolution.
Overall, All maps require improvement in resolutions.
What is the source of Table 2? Synoptic table of the optimal conditions for the cultivation of each crop type
Because the final results are based on this table.
I think the authors should have explained more about the methodology section.
Is there any reference available that can validate the entire study basin on field data?
Result:
There is a need for more detailed explanations of your results.
Discussion:
This section looks fine. However, there is a need for result-supporting literature in this section.
Conclusion:
Scientific innovation should be exhibited in this section.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the fruitful and constructive comments.
Please find attached our reply.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Recommend acceptance with some minor, mostly structural, changes These suggestions below will help make the article more accessible-- to a global audience comparison with similar studies in other countries Title: add --An example from Greece Abstract: include location and country and source of GIS data keywords: add Greece, Katerini Prefecture, cherry, olive, walnut figure 1: add Katerini Prefecture to the caption and provide lat-long for center of study area. Change color scheme so it is easier to view and interpret, more similar to Fig. 3; also provide a more detailed caption, including, county, prefecture, etc. Figure 3 through fig. 9: provide a more detailed caption, including, county, prefecture, etc. for each figure so it stands alone. Line 323-328: include scientific names as well as common names. Add a list of aromatic herbs (perhaps as footnote) Conclusion: add some sentences about the applicability of the methods and findings of this study to other countries and regions.Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the fruitful and constructive comments.
Please find attached our reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of Land suitability is very important especially in LFAs like the ones of the study area but in this article a lot of scientific information have not been shared.
Most of the GIS routines and geoprocessing are just mentioned without providing any additional data about used software and applied algorithms that are extremely important to be able to evaluate the quality of the research.
The adopted process to identify which crop is more suitable is not very clear and has to be better described as well as the results.
Please add technical details about all the GIS routines used in your research as well as how parameters have been defined (and loaded into the adopted formulas) to identify the most suitable crop in the zones of investigated study area.
English quality is generally good except few repetitions that should be avoided by using synonyms of restructuring the sentences. (line 48, preferences; lines 63-65, zoning; lines 116-117, map; lines 190-1991, altitudes; lines 201-202, trees)
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the fruitful and constructive comments.
Please find attached our reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am happy with the current changes.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his fruitful and constructive comments.
We would also like to thank the reviewer for giving us the opportunity to publish our paper in Forests.
Reviewer 3 Report
Suggested corrections have been applied, my main doubts regard the scientific procedure of producing 25-meters data by interpolating data with a really coarser resolution (around 1km) as well as deriving soil map with quite a limited number of field samples without considering additional parameters such as slope, morphology and land cover in the kriging algorythm. Nevertheless the procedure is fully explained in the text as well as in the conclusion it is specified that this methodology could be improved in future studies.
Overall quality has been improved. Please check that decimal digits are separated by point and not by comma (like in line 427), and place the degree symbol before and not after C (14° C and not 14 C°). At line 428 there is a mistyping (toatal instead of total).
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his fruitful and constructive comments.
We would also like to thank the reviewer for giving us the opportunity to publish our paper in Forests.
Please find attached our response.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
