Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manual "Carbon stock assessment in silvopastoral systems along an elevational gradient: A study from cattle producers in the Sumaco Biosphere Reserve, Ecuadorian Amazon" by authors Bolier Torres, Carlos Bravo, Alexandra Torres, Cristhian Tipán-Torres, Julio C. Vargas , Robinson J Herrera-Feijoo, Marco Heredia-R, Cecilio Barba, Antón García touches on several important aspects of biodiversity, carbon retention in soils and livestock grazing. The work was done correctly and contains all the elements of the manuscript required by the rules.

However, a number of points require clarification. The manuscript claims to give clear guidelines for free-range technology, but this needs to be clarified. So it is not obvious how many livestock on which area to keep and graze safely for biodiversity, what grazing regime and what load can be calculated in a dry year and in a year with excessive moisture. There are no recommendations for preserving the possibilities of generative development of plants in this area. In addition, one-time accounting is not comparable with long-term observations. It is clear that the commercial benefit can lead to depletion and limit the productivity of pastures, and I have not been able to find information comparing biodiversity and carbon storage in closed areas with temporary limited grazing, which is significant.

Minor remarks, they do not understand the features of long-term grazing in one place,

the number of livestock and its fluctuations, the influence of the preferred consumption of herbs are not indicated.

The conclusion should be specific and avoid references, as this is not a discussion.

It is very important to indicate which trees remain on pastures, whether their number changes over the years, what is being done to renew them, what damage animals cause to trees and their undergrowth. This is important, since, according to the authors, this is precisely what ensures the stability of this system.

The article can be accepted after entering these data and discussing them in the appropriate section.

Author Response

Dear reviewers:

 

On behalf of all the authors of the article entitled: Carbon stock assessment in silvopastoral systems along an elevational gradient: A study from cattle producers in the Sumaco Biosphere Reserve, Ecuadorian Amazon; I appreciate your kind comments and suggestions, as they have allowed us to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. Below we present in detail and by number of lines the changes made to the text:

 

Revisor 1

 

Manual "Carbon stock assessment in silvopastoral systems along an elevational gradient: A study from cattle producers in the Sumaco Biosphere Reserve, Ecuadorian Amazon" by authors Bolier Torres, Carlos Bravo, Alexandra Torres, Cristhian Tipán-Torres, Julio C. Vargas, Robinson J Herrera-Feijoo, Marco Heredia-R, Cecilio Barba, Antón García touches on several important aspects of biodiversity, carbon retention in soils and livestock grazing. The work was done correctly and contains all the elements of the manuscript required by the rules.

 

However, a number of points require clarification. The manuscript claims to give clear guidelines for free-range technology, but this needs to be clarified. So it is not obvious how many livestock on which area to keep and graze safely for biodiversity, what grazing regime and what load can be calculated in a dry year and in a year with excessive moisture. There are no recommendations for preserving the possibilities of generative development of plants in this area. In addition, one-time accounting is not comparable with long-term observations. It is clear that the commercial benefit can lead to depletion and limit the productivity of pastures, and I have not been able to find information comparing biodiversity and carbon storage in closed areas with temporary limited grazing, which is significant.

 

From lines 288 to 291 We would like to clarify that our study has been carried out in a single determined period, and we recommend to carry out this type of study in a longitudinal way in time to determine how much time the tree species need to regenerate in these systems, as well as the carbon accumulation rates. This is also mentioned in the conclussions.

 

From lines 284 to 287 we have incorporated a comparison between the amount of carbon found in silvopastures in relation to the total carbon stored in a primary forest in the same study area.

 

 

Minor remarks, they do not understand the features of long-term grazing in one place.

the number of livestock and its fluctuations, the influence of the preferred consumption of herbs are not indicated.

 

In Table 1. The grazing characteristics and the number of cattle heads are detailed in the three altitudinal gradients.

 

The conclusion should be specific and avoid references, as this is not a discussion.

 

From line 363, the scientific wording was improved and the reference was removed.

 

It is very important to indicate which trees remain on pastures, whether their number changes over the years, what is being done to renew them, what damage animals cause to trees and their undergrowth. This is important, since, according to the authors, this is precisely what ensures the stability of this system.

Thanks to your wise comment, from line 252 we mention the existence and permanence of tree species in the pastures, and Table 4 show the 10 main tree species according to the biomass important value that contain the main tree abundant species.

 

The article can be accepted after entering these data and discussing them in the appropriate section.

 

Thanks, we have amended all your comments

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Some important recent publications on C stock in silvopastoral system should be included;

Language should be improved (please avoid repetition of words/phrases in the sentence);

Methods –

have authors use quadrants within the sample plots? I recommend using usual definition of the quadrat method and do not repeat typos which have occured in some publications (e.g. Saleem et al. 2019, https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.803.197) while „quadrant“ is not the same as „quadrat“

Comments are indicated in the text (see sticky notes)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewers:

 

On behalf of all the authors of the article entitled: Carbon stock assessment in silvopastoral systems along an elevational gradient: A study from cattle producers in the Sumaco Biosphere Reserve, Ecuadorian Amazon; I appreciate your kind comments and suggestions, as they have allowed us to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. Below we present in detail and by number of lines the changes made to the text:

 

Revisor 2

 

Some important recent publications on C stock in silvopastoral system should be included;

 

We have included recent publications about Carbon Stock in SPS in the Discussion sections

 

Language should be improved (please avoid repetition of words/phrases in the sentence)

 

We appreciate your comments, substantially the writing of the text has been improved.

 

Methods –

 

have authors use quadrants within the sample plots? I recommend using usual definition of the quadrat method and do not repeat typos which have occured in some publications (e.g. Saleem et al. 2019, https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.803.197) while „quadrant“ is not the same as „quadrat“

 

Between lines 142 -146. Accepting his kind suggestion, the proper and usual term of the quadrant method was used.

 

Maybe, weather conditions as bioclmatic shows interrelations between climate and activity and distribution of animals (or other living beings). You did not relate them with livestock 

 

 

Dear reviewer, I thank you for your excellent comment, but in the manuscript the interrelations between the climate and the activity and distribution of the animals were not related. For the next investigation we will consider your comment.

 

the more detailed explanation is needed en la línea 171

 

From lines 171 to 175, regarding your kind comment, the variables used for the ANOVA were written in detail

Author Response File: Author Response.docx