Improved Coffee Management by Farmers in State Forest Plantations in Indonesia: An Experimental Platform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript and it is now a good document and should be accepted after attending to some minor errors which could be attended to in the proof stage.

1. Please check the spelling of scientific names; the following are incorrect L459 Davallia denticulate, Diplazium esculatum
2. Please check the grammar, examples that require correction are: L83: "traditional shade coffee systems there still uncertainty regarding the relationship between"; and L414: "data loggers has already shown a pattern for higher humidity in the"

 

Author Response

We thank reviewer one for their positive comments and last small corrections. As requested: 

The Latin names listed as misspelt have been corrected and other Latin names checked  

The listed grammar mistakes have been corrected and the whole MS checked with additional minor corrections made to the grammar (not listed)

Reviewer 2 Report

Greetings.
Work is very important for Indonesia.
I believe it can make a good contribution to the system.
I suggest reading some articles that may or may not be introduced in the article, as it is an experience that can be adjusted in the current article, but mainly in future research works by the team.

1. https://www.scielo.br/j/pab/a/ndJSC5BGLL9Z5Sk8CL5Nd5k/?lang=en
2. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070889
3. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413823

I suggest standardizing the references.
I suggest making adjustments to the summary. It should count the main results and part of the conclusions in the abstract.
Update the article with some quotes from 2022.

Author Response

We thank reviewer two for the links to the extremely interesting and relevant articles. These papers have now been included as additional references within the MS, and will be used by the team to help inform our future work (Location of the reference and associated additional text is shown below).  We have also added text to the abstract (listed below) detailing the key findings from the conclusion. As  requested the references within the MS have also been checked and the formatting set to journal style. Regarding updating the MS, this version of the MS has already been updated with the latest outputs from the platform, with the inclusion of the outputs from the InVEST modelling activities (figure 8) which was not in the earlier version of this MS. Other data is unfortunately not at a stage where it can be included.

Locations where suggested articles have been referenced and details of additional accompanying text (shown in italics).

Line 63: “However, similar agroforestry techniques (combining cash crops with trees) have been utilized in social forestry programs worldwide as a method to accommodate the needs of multiple actors, improve land use efficiency, reduce deforestation, to provide opportunities for environmentally sensitive management, and to potentially improve coffee plant resilient to climate change” (ref 1-3 added)

Line 269: “Such microclimate loggers have been used successfully in other studies to help understand how shading can influence coffee plant growth structure, yields and abiotic conditions, we expect they will enable similar insights within the platform”  (ref 2 & 3 added)

Line 554: Crucially this will, together with our detailed microclimate measurements, support researchers ability to predict and help mitigate the impact of climate change on smallholder coffee farms, the necessity of which is getting more urgent with concerns over the intensification of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation [16,43] (added suggested ref 1)

Details of the text added to abstract to highlight key finding:

Starting Line 28: “Current trials are focused on improving coffee yields and include pine canopy trimming, and fertilizers and coffee pruning trials, with links to the development of socio-economic and environmental models models. Whilst it is too early to assess the full impacts on yields a survey of farmers demonstrated a positive attitude to canopy pruning, although with some concern over labor cost. The initial ecosystem modeling has highlighted the benefits of coffee agroforestry in balancing environmental and economic benefits.

And last sentence of the abstract adjusted to fit..

Here we provide a detailed description of the site, the current trials, and the modeling work, with the hope of highlighting opportunities for future collaboration and innovation.  

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper reports on a collaborative program addressing agroforestry land-use in Indonesia. The paper articulates a research platform for exploring pine-coffee production options by local communities. A good description of the study site is provided and local background is given for the agronomy trials that have been established. Some data have been published (partly in Indonesian) but other data are being processed for future publication.

Two areas of the paper must be improved to place the study into a more global context, as follows.

1. Provide a broader context for coffee pruning and fertiliser trials. Whilst remedial coffee pruning is well explained, please mention whether coffee canopy management is being undertaken elsewhere and under what conditions. The fertiliser trial aims to optimise fertilisation practices but we are not provided with any background on known or anticipated soil fertility constraints – what have other studies on volcanic soils in the region and elsewhere revealed? For the section containing socio and economic research, it would be informative to be given some of the key drivers that are underpinning the research in these fields.
2. The paper ends abruptly – Section 9 on Socio-economic and environmental context is followed by Section 5 (presumably a numbering error) Conclusions. A new general discussion section should be included between the two which brings the paper together. Revisit the aims and objectives of the paper and explain what further studies might be attracted to the study area. Will the results of this study area have value to other coffee production areas in the world? Add references to show the context for the likely value of the research in other regions.

Minor changes: Provide the stocking and spacing of pines, note the correct spelling of the pine tree is Pinus merkusii, mention that the pine is native to northern Sumatra and has been introduced to Java (the word native can be misconstrued), provide the scientific name for mahogany (Swietenia or Khaya?), the quality of Figure 1 that I have is poor (appears blurred) – please check the resolution in the final document.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The article is well written and fits journal’s aims and scope. My major concern is that it looks more like a project report than a piece of research. Especially,

• The introduction presents the case study rather than providing, e.g., the rationale behind the study, research gaps, and the contribution of the research. I suggest starting the section with a statement of the problem, concentrating on coffee farming (agroforestry), as this is what the reader expects after from article title, and specifying a clear aim of the study. The abstract gives a rough indication of the aims and scope of the study (lines 16-20). The introduction should provide the logic behind the presented study.
• In my opinion, the remainder of the article should be structured towards a lower number of sections, where information is condensed based on a predefined logic. I don’t find that the current section 2 adds much to article. I suggest having a well-conceived research design section, including explanation about how the platform works, type of data inputs, data outputs, and other similar info. Another section should be dedicated to the case study. Then an additional section should present the application of the platform. I suggest having a discussion section where the strengths and limitations of the presented study are discussed critically, with the support of relevant citations from the recent literature.