Assessing Carbon Pools of Three Indigenous Agroforestry Systems in the Southeastern Rift-Valley Landscapes, Ethiopia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I read the paper with very great interest and found it publishable.
Abstract
Lines 33- 34
I would suggest to revise the take home message which seems common concluding remark: "Therefore, it is possible to deduce that AF systems are storing significant amount of C and contributing to climate change mitigation"
2.4. Statistical analysis
Lines 310 - 313:
(i) Why biomass (t ha-1) was estimated for trees and shrubs, coffee and enset in 60 farms (smallholdings) using the allometric equations but (ii) why ecosystem C stocks (in biomass and soil) (t ha-1) was calculated only for the 30 farms (smallholdings)?
4. Conclusion and recommendations
Lines 713 - 714
In the objectives and study methods above, I didn't see C comparisons between the three AF types of this study and tropical forest/other agroforestry systems. If that is so, what do you mean by the following statement : "The C stock of the present study are substantially higher than those of some tropical forests or other agroforestry systems"?
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
We would like to thank for your constructive comments. The comments are well noted and relevant. Accordingly, we have written the feedback to the given comments one by one. Please find the feedback document attached herewith.
Best regards!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors assess the carbon pools of three indigenous agroforestry systems in the Ethiopian southeastern rift landscape, which is of interest. However, there is still some to be improved.
- Overall Comment: The manuscript provides a wealth of experimental data, but unfortunately the scientific question is not well codified in the Abstract. The authors combine the Results and Discussion sections into one unit, which is fine, however, it is better to write the Results and Discussion sections separately. The current writing method is not easy for readers to deeply understand the unique findings of the article, and the sub-headings of each subsection are more like a presentation of the results rather than the meaning of the discussion. In general, the above problems cause the article to be less rigorous and profound, and there is still a lot of room for improvement.
- Conclusions: The authors need to condense the main conclusions of the manuscript, not simply repeat the content of the results.
- The quality of some pictures is relatively poor. For example, is the abscissa format of Figure 4 and Figure 5 wrong?
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
We would like to thank for your constructive comments. The comments are well noted and relevant. Accordingly, we have written the feedback to the given comments one by one. Please find the feedback document attached herewith.
Best regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
For a question, the subtitle of the discussion section should be a condensed and summary of the content of each subsection, rather than a one-to-one correspondence with the results section.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Based on the comment given from your side we tried to condense the discussion part and write the summary of the content of each subsection. For example, The 1st, 2nd and 3rd section of the discussion part are condensed to one section because of their similarity.
Thank you again for your constructive comments and the time you devote to review our manuscript.
Best regards!
