Biomass Partitioning, Carbon Storage, and Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Crop Production under a Grewia optiva-Based Agroforestry System in the Mid-Hills of the Northwestern Himalayas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The study evaluated the influence of G. optiva tree spacing on the biomass productivity (component wise), carbon storage potential, and productivity of a pea crop, which is beneficial for mitigating climate change and restoring soil health in the current scenario of environmental crisis. 

 

There are some issues that need further modification.

1. In lines 73 to 75, “The key to successful crop production is to minimize the adverse impact of trees, particularly shading influence and nutrient requirements, while maximizing niche separations.” So, does the effect of tree shade on peas exist in this paper? If so, how can it be eliminated?

2. In lines 110 to 122, the subplots included six fertilizer treatments, does the use of different fertilizers have a different effect on pea yield? This needs further discussion. 

3. In lines 248 to 250, “Furthermore, the rate of C sequestration in plant and soil components also varied appreciably and followed the order S1 (6.64 Mg ha-1 yr-1 )>S2 (3.88 Mg ha-1 yr-1 )>S3 (3.32 Mg ha-1 yr-1 ).” Statistical tests are recommended to account for differences between groups (e.g. ANOVA).

Sincerely

Author Response

Reviewer Comment: In lines 73 to 75, “The key to successful crop production is to minimize the adverse impact of trees, particularly shading influence and nutrient requirements, while maximizing niche separations.” So, does the effect of tree shade on peas exist in this paper? If so, how can it be eliminated?

Authors Reply: In this study, we addressed the effect of three different tree spacing and a sole cropping condition where there is no shade had been employed to assess the relative influence of agroforestry systems in terms of shade on the pea productivity. Yes, surely there was influence of the shade, since different tree density have different shade condition.

Reviewer Comment:. In lines 110 to 122, the subplots included six fertilizer treatments, does the use of different fertilizers have a different effect on pea yield? This needs further discussion. 

Authors Reply: Yes, the discussion has been updated to address the differential effects of the various fertilizer treatments on pea yield. The most effective treatments, specifically the application of farmyard manure (FYM) and the combination of FYM with vermicompost (FYM+VC), have been thoroughly discussed.

 

Reviewer Comment:.  In lines 248 to 250, “Furthermore, the rate of C sequestration in plant and soil components also varied appreciably and followed the order S1 (6.64 Mg ha-1 yr-1 )>S2 (3.88 Mg ha-1 yr-1 )>S3 (3.32 Mg ha-1 yr-1 ).” Statistical tests are recommended to account for differences between groups (e.g. ANOVA).

Authors Reply: The carbon sequestration data presented in lines 248 to 250 for crop, soil, and tree components have already been subjected to statistical analysis. We conducted statistical tests on the individual components before summing them up to determine the overall system carbon sequestration. These tests ensure that the differences between the groups (S1, S2, S3) are statistically validated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

comments to the author

 

L12 What is meant by multiple benefits?

 

L15-16 What were the main plot and split plots?

 

L24 Yield of ........with a total value of?

 

L45 Please explain pollarding.

 

L47 Is "The" included in its name?

 

L52 Which nation? India? Please specify the country for which you used the data.

 

L55 What is the current state of affairs?

 

L57 What tradition?

 

L61 “…. myriad of environmentally destructive practices” such as?

 

L67 Originated from?

 

L75-78 It was difficult to comprehend what this sentence is trying to convey. Please rewrite it.

 

L88 What is biomass allocation?

 

L95 Please spell out the abbreviation the first time it is used.

 

L99-109 Did you measure yourself or use secondary sources?

 

L117 Did the control not receive any fertilizer? Is that common practice in the region?

 

L117-118 What is the source of farmyard manure and vermicompost?

 

L127-128 Please cite the document that includes the practice set by the university in the region or explain it in the text.

 

L131 What type of irrigation system was used?

 

L132-133 What was the timing of the application and frequency?

 

L136 Pea?

 

L149-150 TSS of the pea fruits? How do you measure with a refractometer? You first grind them and use juice from them to measure TSS in the refractometer. Please explain the process you used.

 

L153-154 Of all pea pods you harvested from each treatment or how many pods per harvest from each treatment were used for this measurement?

 

L156 Did you also measure the culled (unremarkable) pea yield?

 

L197 This cited article also did not explain the method used for available N, P, and K analysis, where they cited/mentioned another article. So please avoid such practice and try to cite articles that explain the detailed process or protocol of the analysis.

 

L209 How did you calculate the establishment cost at first? What is the basis for choosing 8%?

 

L210 How does G. Optiva plantation determine the annual cost of peas?

 

L211-212 What was the market price you used and the source of the price?

 

L214 What were those costs and how did you calculate those costs? Please explain them in a table or text.

 

L216 You have the main plots and split plots, so the right way of analysis is to first check the interaction effect. If there was no interaction effect, then only explain the main effect of the main factor and split factors. But throughout the manuscript, you did not mention the interaction effect on the parameters measured. So please mention whether you checked the interaction effect or not. If you did not, then I suggest redoing a statistical analysis and modifying the table and graphs accordingly.

 

L237 Mean biomass?

 

L241 Please adjust its placing right below the table.

 

L242 Was there no interaction of the main factor and split factors on any of the parameters measured? If not, then please mention it in the text.

 

L264-265 I think the results section should focus just on interpreting the result of the statistical analysis while you can focus more on the trends and explain the results more in the discussion section.

 

L268-273 Be consistent and include this information in every table where you mention treatment abbreviation/symbol.

 

L282 Why did you make separate tables (3 and 4) for growth parameters of the peas? I suggest combining them.

 

In most of the tables, some of the means which are significant are missing letters while NS means have letters in some of the means. Please recheck all tables.

 

L292 You mentioned in the methods that you measured 10 data points of PAR in each subplot but presented graphs of only main plots. But I understand that fertilizer treatment does not influence PAR.

 

L293 Did you check statistically? Please put an error bar in the graph.

 

Figure 3 Here you are showing the interaction graphs but you did not mention whether the interaction effect of main and sub-plots was significant or not. I suggest using the "letters" to indicate the significant difference among means.

 

Bioeconomic analysis: Please include in detail how you calculated cost; one by one with unit price and items, and also the revenue generated along with the market price.

 

Figure 4: Did you compare statistically?

 

L108 of discussion PAR: In the results section, you mention that PAR increased with the spacing but you did not discuss that here. So please avoid including information that is not relevant to your main finding. For example, here focus on speculating the potential reason behind the result you saw and mention what previous studies reported.

 

L121 What did they find?

 

L123 Could be due to? Please do not include confirmatory sentences in the scientific paper.

 

L133-136 Is it relevant to your study? Did the soil in your study have a high level of dolomite limestone? And I think the soil you have in all treatments is the same, then how could it influence the result you reported? Please, while discussing, try to make it relevant to your study and use information to justify the result you found and avoid just putting information.

 

L137 Workers?

 

L142 How do you quantify woody components (monetary value)? I also mentioned it earlier, please present how you calculate the cost and revenue in detail in tables.

 

L143-147 What I notice is that you use most of the discussion to mention what other studies have found, such as noting that their results are similar to yours. While it's good to reference other research, dedicating most of the discussion section to this is not the best approach. Instead, focus on your own results and justify them with your supporting data. If you don't have supporting data, try to provide some speculation. This suggestion is for the whole discussion section. So I suggest you rewrite the entire discussion section.

 

 

Author Response

 

·      Reviewer Comment:. What is meant by multiple benefits?

Authors Reply:. The "multiple benefits" of a well-designed tree-based culture include economic gains through diverse income sources, enhanced food security, carbon sequestration for climate action, biodiversity conservation, and supporting community well-being. Simultaneously, it is well established fact that the agroforestry provide the diversified products including, food, fiber, fruit, fertilizer etc. 

·      Reviewer Comment:. What were the main plot and split plots?

Authors Reply:. The relevant information already provided in then text:

The main plot treatments consisted of G. optiva trees planted at three distinct spacings, viz., S₁: 10 m × 1 m; S₂: 10 m × 2 m; and S₃: 10 × 3 m, along with sole cropping of pea without trees (S₀) (Figure 1). The subplots included six fertilizer treatments, namely, T₀: Control; T₁: Farmyard Manure (FYM) equivalent (equiv.) (@ 20.00 t ha^-1); T₂: Vermicompost (VC) equivalent (@ 1.67 t ha^-1); T₃: Jeevamrut; T₄: 50% FYM (@ 10.00 t ha^-1) + 50% VC equivalent (@ 0.84 t ha^-1); and T₅: Recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF).

·      Reviewer Comment:. Yield of ........with a total value of?

Authors Reply:. The text has been revised to reflect this change. To reduce complexity, only the economic gains, which are of primary importance, have been considered.

Reviewer Comment:. L45 Please explain pollarding.

Authors Reply:. Pollarding is a well-established term which is a pruning technique in which the upper branches of a tree are cut back to promote a dense head of foliage and branches. This method is used to maintain trees at a desired height, encourage new growth, and often to produce a sustainable supply of wood or fodder.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L47 Is "The" included in its name?

Authors Reply:. Thank you for pointing that out. I have corrected the text to include the full scientific name and taxonomic classification: Grewia optiva J. R. Drumm. Ex Burret.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L52 Which nation? India? Please specify the country for which you used the data.

Authors Reply:. The data on the nutritional and palatability aspects of the tree was indeed in India. The revision has been made in the original manuscript. revised text: The tree provides highly nutritious and palatable fodder (2.77 kg dry leaf matter tree^-1 yr^-1) in India, especially during the lean period, i.e., the winter season, when green fodder is deficient

·      Reviewer Comment:. L55 What is the current state of affairs?

Authors Reply:. The phrase "given the current state of affairs" refers to the contemporary challenges faced by agriculture, such as environmental degradation, resource depletion, economic losses etc. These issues highlight the need for more sustainable and integrated approaches to food production.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L57 What tradition?

Authors Reply:. The term "traditions" in the context of agroecology refers to established agricultural practices and knowledge that have been used historically, such as crop rotation, organic fertilization, and traditional pest management.

·      Reviewer Comment:.? L61 “…. myriad of environmentally destructive practices” such as?

Authors Reply:. The term "myriad of environmentally destructive practices" refers to harmful practices such as excessive use of synthetic pesticides, monoculture, and soil degradation. These practices are detrimental to environmental health, and organic agriculture offers a sustainable alternative by avoiding these issues.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L67 Originated from?

Authors Reply:. The exact origin of the pea is not definitively known. To avoid introducing uncertainty into the research paper, this detail has been intentionally omitted.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L75-78 It was difficult to comprehend what this sentence is trying to convey. Please rewrite it.

Authors Reply:. To clarify, the key to successful crop production involves managing the impact of trees (negative interactions) by minimizing issues such as shading and competition for nutrients. In agroforestry both crops and trees share the same space and it is important to minimize any negative interactions present. Whenever we compare the yield with monoculture we have to make sure these negative interactions remains controlled and do not affect the yield. In agroforestry, "maximizing niche separation" means arranging crops and trees to minimize competition for light, water, and nutrients, ensuring both can thrive without negatively affecting each other.

I have made it simpler and more understanding.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L88 What is biomass allocation?

Authors Reply: Biomass allocation in agroforestry refers to the distribution of biological material (such as leaves, stems, and roots) between different components of the system, like trees and crops. It involves how much biomass is allocated to each part of the system and how this affects overall productivity and resource use.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L95 Please spell out the abbreviation the first time it is used.

Authors Reply: Thank for your kind suggestion. The abbreviation has been spelled out in its first occurrence in the text.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L99-109 Did you measure yourself or use secondary sources?

Authors Reply: Yes, the altitude of the site has been measured and confirmed.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L117 Did the control not receive any fertilizer? Is that common practice in the region?

Authors Reply: The control in this experiment is the absolute control means did not receive any fertilizer, which is a common practice in agricultural research to establish a baseline for comparison. In this region, control plots without fertilizer are often used to evaluate the effectiveness of different fertilization treatments.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L117-118 What is the source of farmyard manure and vermicompost?

Authors Reply: Both the farmyard manure and vermicompost used in the experiment were procured  from the university's livestock facilities, and the vermicompost was created using FYM and organic material processed through earthworms in a controlled environment.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L127-128 Please cite the document that includes the practice set by the university in the region or explain it in the text.

Authors Reply: The practices outlined in the manuscript follow the standard package of practices (POP) established by the university for the region. While this information is not formally cited, we have adhered to these established guidelines for determining the timing of cultivation, seed rate, and spacing as described in the text.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L131 What type of irrigation system was used?

Authors Reply: The irrigation system used was manual, involving hand-watering to ensure precise and controlled application of water to the crops.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L132-133 What was the timing of the application and frequency?

Authors Reply: Manual irrigation was carried out during the critical growth stages of the crops to maintain the soil moisture content close to the field capacity.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L136 Pea?

Authors Reply:Yes, the pea crop was harvested. the change has been duly incorporated.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L149-150 TSS of the pea fruits? How do you measure with a refractometer? You first grind them and use juice from them to measure TSS in the refractometer. Please explain the process you used.

Authors Reply: Yes, the total soluble solids (TSS) of the pea fruits were measured using a refractometer. The process involved grinding the peas to extract the juice, which was then placed on the refractometer to measure the TSS (°Brix) by determining the index of refraction. It is the standard protocol followed for the estimation of the TSS content in different crops.

 

·      Reviewer Comment:. L153-154 Of all pea pods you harvested from each treatment or how many pods per harvest from each treatment were used for this measurement?

Authors Reply: In each plot, five plants were randomly selected, and all the pods from these plants were counted individually to determine the number of pods per plant. Additionally, 20 pods were randomly selected from each treatment to measure pod length, diameter, and width. This approach ensured that the measurements represented the variability within each treatment.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L156 Did you also measure the culled (unremarkable) pea yield?

Authors Reply: We did not measure the yield of culled (unremarkable) peas, as they were not included in the data collection.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L197 This cited article also did not explain the method used for available N, P, and K analysis, where they cited/mentioned another article. So please avoid such practice and try to cite articles that explain the detailed process or protocol of the analysis.

Authors Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The proper citations with the methods have been added in the material and method section.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L209 How did you calculate the establishment cost at first? What is the basis for choosing 8%?

Authors Reply: The 8% rate was chosen based on previous studies done in same agroforestry system and in region  as it reflects a commonly accepted rate of return for similar agroforestry projects.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L210 How does G. Optiva plantation determine the annual cost of peas?

Authors Reply: The total establishment cost was reduced by 8% to reflect the cost allocation over the long-term productivity of the plantation. This annualized cost was then used to assess the impact of different Grewia optiva densities on the cost of pea cultivation. By spreading the plantation cost over its productive lifespan, we estimate the annual cost associated with growing peas in these different conditions. For better clarity, the data provided in the supplementary file.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L211-212 What was the market price you used and the source of the price?

Authors Reply: The market price used for computing returns on pea harvests was based on local market prices. The peas were sold in local markets, and the returns were calculated by deducting the real expenditures incurred at these market prices. For better clarity, the data provided in the supplementary file.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L214 What were those costs and how did you calculate those costs? Please explain them in a table or text.

Authors Reply: The costs for the agroforestry system were calculated using real-time market prices for various inputs. Labor wages were determined based on the hourly or daily rates and the total labor hours required for planting, weeding, and other activities. The cost of ploughing was computed by multiplying the area to be ploughed by the rate for ploughing services or machinery. Seed costs were calculated by multiplying the quantity needed per hectare by the market price per unit. Fertilizer costs were derived from the amount required per hectare and its market price. Weed control expenses, whether manual or chemical, were based on the method and frequency of application. This thorough cost analysis ensures a precise financial assessment, reflecting the actual expenditures and market conditions relevant to the land-use system. The whole table provided in in the supplementary file.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L216 You have the main plots and split plots, so the right way of analysis is to first check the interaction effect. If there was no interaction effect, then only explain the main effect of the main factor and split factors. But throughout the manuscript, you did not mention the interaction effect on the parameters measured. So please mention whether you checked the interaction effect or not. If you did not, then I suggest redoing a statistical analysis and modifying the table and graphs accordingly.

Authors Reply: We conducted a proper statistical analysis, including an examination of the interaction effect between the main plots and split plots. After analysis, we found that there was no significant interaction effect on the parameters measured. Since the interaction effect was not present, we focused on discussing the main effects of the factors in the manuscript and did not mention the interaction effect.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L237 Mean biomass?

Authors Reply: The term "mean biomass" refers to the average biomass of the trees within each treatment group. This average was calculated for the stem, branch, and other components to provide a representative value for each spacing treatment.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L241 Please adjust its placing right below the table.

Authors Reply: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The alignment has been adjusted, and the placement is now correct.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L242 Was there no interaction of the main factor and split factors on any of the parameters measured? If not, then please mention it in the text.

Authors Reply: We analyzed the interaction between the main factor and split factors on the measured parameters. There was no significant interaction effect observed. We will mention this in the text to clarify that the interaction effect was not present.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L264-265 I think the results section should focus just on interpreting the result of the statistical analysis while you can focus more on the trends and explain the results more in the discussion section.

Authors Reply: I apologize for the oversight. The suggested changes have been duly incorporated into the revised manuscript

·      Reviewer Comment:. L268-273 Be consistent and include this information in every table where you mention treatment abbreviation/symbol.

Authors Reply: The changes have been made as requested.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L282 Why did you make separate tables (3 and 4) for growth parameters of the peas? I suggest combining them. In most of the tables, some of the means which are significant are missing letters while NS means have letters in some of the means. Please recheck all tables.

Authors Reply: We did consider combining Tables 3 and 4; however, doing so significantly impacted readability. To maintain clarity and ease of interpretation, we decided to present the growth parameters in separate tables. Regarding the letter notations, they are only included where treatments are statistically at par with one another. I have rechecked all the tables as per your request to ensure accuracy.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L292 You mentioned in the methods that you measured 10 data points of PAR in each subplot but presented graphs of only main plots. But I understand that fertilizer treatment does not influence PAR.

Authors Reply: The main plot data accurately reflect the light conditions across the treatments, ensuring the focus remains on factors that genuinely affect the study outcomes.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L293 Did you check statistically? Please put an error bar in the graph.

Authors Reply: No, it is not statistically analysed. The error bar has been put in the graph.

·      Reviewer Comment:. Figure 3 Here you are showing the interaction graphs but you did not mention whether the interaction effect of main and sub-plots was significant or not. I suggest using the "letters" to indicate the significant difference among means.

Authors Reply: Apologies for the oversight. Yes, the included graphs were created to illustrate the significant interaction effect between the treatments and spacing. We have updated the manuscript to clarify this point and also indicated the letters to indicate the differences.

·      Reviewer Comment:. Bioeconomic analysis: Please include in detail how you calculated cost; one by one with unit price and items, and also the revenue generated along with the market price.

Authors Reply: The tables have been given in supplementary manuscript. Also, the methodology about the bio economics have been updated in original manuscript.

·      Reviewer Comment:. Figure 4: Did you compare statistically?

Authors Reply: Yes, the data used for the graphs in Figure 4 has been statistically analyzed and detailed information provided in the supplementary table S1.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L108 of discussion PAR: In the results section, you mention that PAR increased with the spacing but you did not discuss that here. So please avoid including information that is not relevant to your main finding. For example, here focus on speculating the potential reason behind the result you saw and mention what previous studies reported.

Authors Reply: The change has been duly incorporated

·      Reviewer Comment:. L121 What did they find?

Authors Reply: They reported that the addition of nutrients, including available nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), is generally higher in agroforestry systems compared to sole cropping. This suggests that agroforestry practices enhance nutrient availability in the soil more effectively than traditional single-crop systems, likely due to the synergistic interactions between trees and crops that improve nutrient cycling and retention.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L123 Could be due to? Please do not include confirmatory sentences in the scientific paper.

Authors Reply: Thank you for the suggestion. I have made the correction and replaced "due to" with "could be due to" as recommended.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L133-136 Is it relevant to your study? Did the soil in your study have a high level of dolomite limestone? And I think the soil you have in all treatments is the same, then how could it influence the result you reported? Please, while discussing, try to make it relevant to your study and use information to justify the result you found and avoid just putting information.

Authors Reply: Yes, the presence of dolomite as the parent material of the soil is indeed associated with increased phosphorus levels in the region. However, it is speculated in the discussion that the enhanced presence of phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) due to agroforestry interventions could further increase phosphorus availability.

In soils where dolomite is the parent rock, the weathering of dolomite might slowly release trace amounts of phosphorus. This phosphorus could then be solubilized by the increased PSB populations, which are fostered by the diverse and organic-rich environment of agroforestry systems. The interaction between the PSB and the parent rock in these soils likely enhances the overall availability of phosphorus for plant uptake, particularly in nutrient-depleted soils.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L137 Workers?

Authors Reply: The word has been replaced with researchers

·      Reviewer Comment:. L142 How do you quantify woody components (monetary value)? I also mentioned it earlier, please present how you calculate the cost and revenue in detail in tables.

Authors Reply: To quantify woody component, the produce i.e fodder and torchwood were sold. The revenue generated from these sales was recorded. By using actual sales rates, we can accurately reflect the economic value of woody component in the cost analysis for the agroforestry system.

·      Reviewer Comment:. L143-147 What I notice is that you use most of the discussion to mention what other studies have found, such as noting that their results are similar to yours. While it's good to reference other research, dedicating most of the discussion section to this is not the best approach. Instead, focus on your own results and justify them with your supporting data. If you don't have supporting data, try to provide some speculation. This suggestion is for the whole discussion section. So I suggest you rewrite the entire discussion section.

Authors Reply: I have made the required changes in the manuscript and thoroughly revised the discussion section as per your kind suggestion.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review comment on "Biomass partitioning, carbon storage, and pea (Pisum sativum L.) crop production under a Grewia optiva-based agroforestry system in the mid-hills of the northwestern Himalayas"

General Comment:

This study provides valuable insights into the effects of tree spacing and organic fertilizer treatments on biomass production, carbon sequestration, and pea crop yields in a Grewia optiva-based agroforestry system. The research demonstrates significant impacts of tree density and organic inputs on system productivity and sustainability. The findings have important implications for optimizing agroforestry practices in the northwestern Himalayas. However, there are some areas where the manuscript could be improved in terms of methodology details, data presentation, and discussion of broader implications.

Specific Comments:

1.     The experimental design employs a split-plot approach with tree spacing as main plots and fertilizer treatments as subplots, which is appropriate for this study. However, the manuscript would benefit from more detailed information on plot sizes, layout, and the number of replications to fully convey the robustness of the experimental setup.

2.     While the study includes measurements of tree growth parameters and biomass, the methodology section lacks sufficient detail on how these measurements were conducted. A more thorough explanation of the techniques used for measuring tree height, diameter, and biomass components would enhance the reproducibility of the study.

3.     The paper presents interesting data on carbon sequestration, but the methods used to calculate sequestration rates are not fully explained. It would be helpful to clearly state the assumptions and equations used in estimating carbon storage and sequestration potential of the agroforestry system.

4.     Soil analysis plays a crucial role in this study, yet the soil sampling procedures are not adequately described. Additional information on sampling depths, number of samples per plot, and specific laboratory analysis methods for soil properties would strengthen the credibility of the soil data presented.

5.     The statistical analysis section of the paper could be expanded. It would be beneficial to include more details on the specific statistical tests used, any data transformations performed, and how the assumptions of these tests were verified.

6.        Given that this study covers only a single growing season, it would be valuable to include a discussion on the potential long-term effects of the different tree spacing and fertilizer treatments on soil fertility, tree growth, and overall system productivity.

7.     The results of this study would be more impactful if compared more extensively with similar agroforestry studies from other regions. A broader comparative analysis could help contextualize the findings and highlight the unique aspects of this Grewia optiva-based system.

8.     While the paper touches on sustainability, there is an opportunity to delve deeper into the implications of these findings for sustainable agriculture practices and climate change mitigation in the northwestern Himalayas. A more thorough discussion of these aspects would enhance the paper's relevance to current global challenges.

 

9.  Some of the figures and tables in the manuscript are quite data-dense and could be challenging for readers to interpret. In particular, Figure 3 contains a lot of information and might be more effective if split into separate figures. Improving the visual presentation of data would enhance the overall clarity of the paper.

Author Response

·      Reviewer Comment:. The experimental design employs a split-plot approach with tree spacing as main plots and fertilizer treatments as subplots, which is appropriate for this study. However, the manuscript would benefit from more detailed information on plot sizes, layout, and the number of replications to fully convey the robustness of the experimental setup.

Authors Reply: Thank you for your feedback. I have included detailed information on plot sizes (4×2), layout (Figure), and the number of replications in the manuscript (three).

·      Reviewer Comment:.  While the study includes measurements of tree growth parameters and biomass, the methodology section lacks sufficient detail on how these measurements were conducted. A more thorough explanation of the techniques used for measuring tree height, diameter, and biomass components would enhance the reproducibility of the study.

Authors Reply: The necessary corrections have been made in the manuscript.

Tree height was measured with a calibrated Ravi Multimeter, recording the vertical distance from the base to the canopy apex. The diameter was measured at collar height using a Vernier caliper, with two perpendicular measurements taken to ensure accuracy.

·      Reviewer Comment:. The paper presents interesting data on carbon sequestration, but the methods used to calculate sequestration rates are not fully explained. It would be helpful to clearly state the assumptions and equations used in estimating carbon storage and sequestration potential of the agroforestry system.

Authors Reply: The methodology for estimating biomass for carbon stock has been thoroughly updated and expanded for greater clarity. Specifically, the process involves calculating the total biomass, which is then converted into carbon stock by applying a conversion factor of 0.5. This factor represents the widely accepted assumption that approximately 50% of the biomass is carbon. This detailed explanation ensures a clearer understanding of the steps taken to accurately quantify carbon stock within the study.

·      Reviewer Comment:.  Soil analysis plays a crucial role in this study, yet the soil sampling procedures are not adequately described. Additional information on sampling depths, number of samples per plot, and specific laboratory analysis methods for soil properties would strengthen the credibility of the soil data presented.

Authors Reply: The discussion section has been updated to include specific laboratory analysis methods for soil properties, along with relevant citations. This enhancement aims to strengthen the credibility of the soil data presented.

·      Reviewer Comment:. The statistical analysis section of the paper could be expanded. It would be beneficial to include more details on the specific statistical tests used, any data transformations performed, and how the assumptions of these tests were verified.

Authors Reply: Thank you for your feedback. The statistical analysis was conducted using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for a split-plot experimental design, as outlined by Gomez and Gomez [42]. We used SPSS software (version 29.2.0) to analyze the treatment means at the 5% significance level, and Microsoft Excel 2021 for graphic preparation. No additional data transformations or tests were performed beyond this methodology.

·      Reviewer Comment:. Given that this study covers only a single growing season, it would be valuable to include a discussion on the potential long-term effects of the different tree spacing and fertilizer treatments on soil fertility, tree growth, and overall system productivity.

Authors Reply: Thank you for your kind suggestion. Although, the current investigation covers only single growing season, although the tree component is established long back in 2004 and the perennial component is the major contributor for the biomass accumulation in the agroforestry system. The major takeaways are that the suitability of the tree spacing in the agroforestry systems that will lead to enhanced or at least sustained yield while maintain soil health.

·      Reviewer Comment:. The results of this study would be more impactful if compared more extensively with similar agroforestry studies from other regions. A broader comparative analysis could help contextualize the findings and highlight the unique aspects of this Grewia optiva-based system.

Authors Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. While we agree that a broader comparative analysis would be beneficial, there are currently limited studies available on Grewia optiva-based agroforestry systems in other regions. However, we have made efforts to compare our findings with the most relevant studies available to provide context and highlight the unique aspects of this system. In our future endeavors we will surely consider this comparative assessment.

·      Reviewer Comment:.  While the paper touches on sustainability, there is an opportunity to delve deeper into the implications of these findings for sustainable agriculture practices and climate change mitigation in the northwestern Himalayas. A more thorough discussion of these aspects would enhance the paper's relevance to current global challenges.

Authors Reply: The change has been duly incorporated. the discussion for the sustainability has been made under the carbon sequestration section.

·      Reviewer Comment:. Some of the figures and tables in the manuscript are quite data-dense and could be challenging for readers to interpret. In particular, Figure 3 contains a lot of information and might be more effective if split into separate figures. Improving the visual presentation of data would enhance the overall clarity of the paper.

Authors Reply: Thank you for your feedback. After careful consideration, we have decided to retain the current format of the figures and tables, including Figure 3. We believe that the present layout provides a comprehensive view of the data.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is better after the revision. I think it can be accepted now.