The Embedded Agroecology of Coffee Agroforestry: A Contextualized Review of Smallholder Farmers’ Adoption and Resistance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
As a researcher engaged in basic research on coffee and promoting coffee cultivation technique to farmers, I was delighted to see this review. The author analyzed the significance of agroforestry system for promoting coffee in multiple dimensions based on detailed survey materials. In my country, the income of coffee farmers under monoculture is very low, and their income can be affected by many unpredictable factors, such as fluctuations in coffee prices, threats from pests and diseases, and so on. Governments and researchers committing to promote coffee have been looking for a way to make long-term, stable profits for coffee farmers. I think the strategies presented in this paper will help us formulate policies and better serve coffee farmers. I consider the manuscript as novel and interesting and the the problem analyzed as very important. I am very pleased to review this paper and consider it acceptable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is devoted to the development of agroforestry in the context of coffee production and the study of factors that affect the potential of this development (social, economic, agrarian, climatic, environmental, economic, cultural, historical, and others). The article has a number of questions and suggestions for improvement.
1. The Introduction is written in a general enough way for readers to understand the relevance of the problem of agroforestry development. It is necessary to provide a table in which to show the countries where coffee is grown and the contribution of this type of production to the economies of the countries. References, especially 11-13, are not specific. The authors' statements on the efficiency of coffee production, yields are also better shown quantitatively and for specific countries. In its present form, the introduction does not convince the reader of the importance of studying this problem.
2. Section 2. Materials and methods. The authors build research on sociological surveys of farmers. How representative are the samples of, say, 118 people compared to all farmers involved in coffee production in the region? Why were economic indicators of production, agricultural, statistical data not used for the analysis?
3. The authors cite as arguments the criminal aspect of coffee production in Colombia. How typical and relevant is it for other countries?
4. The authors have considered in sufficient detail all aspects of coffee production. The Materials and Methods section lacks a general conceptual scheme of the review, which includes structured all the aspects considered in the work.
5. The authors cite a number of survey results, but the main conclusion is missing. Against the backdrop of a large text lacks specifics. What factors can be considered as leading in the development of forestry? For which countries and continents will certain factors be more important and why? As a result, need a common table in which the result of this work will be integrated. Now there is a lot of text, but poor concrete result.
6. Additional materials Fig. 1, no designation of axes and lines.
7. Additional table 4. Is this Colombia? No country name.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors study the effect of coffee agroforestry on small famers’ adoption and resistance. The authors presented well their hypothesis. However, the manuscript lacks the graphical representation along with other issues. The manuscript can be accepted should the authors consider the following comments.
Abstract is a bit long. Check the journal requirements
The authors should add some numbers to the abstract and make clear about what they reached in terms of the results.
Graphical summary at the beginning of the manuscript is important. It gives the reader an easy way to for the authors to follow up.
The authors should add a definition for a smallholder farmer, is it an absolute or relative matter based on the country.
Why did the authors include the literature review in the materials and methods?
Why did not the authors focused also on Brazil, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Ethiopia?
Why did the authors choose the countries listed in the study?
Conclusion section is a bit long/ Check the journal requirements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors revised the manuscript and took into account all the comments of the reviewer. The article has become more structured, logical and complex. The authors added a more in-depth analysis of the presented data, and also included a conceptual scheme for the study, tables and figures in the article. In my opinion, the article has become much better and can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed the comments and the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
