Heritage Evaluation of the Carob Tree MTAS in the Territory of Valencia: Analysis and Social Perception of the Ecosystem Services and Values from Cultivating It

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Heritage evaluation of the carob tree MTAS in the territory of Valencia. Analysis and social perception of the ecosystem services and values from cultivating it

 

The article is very extensive (32 pages), and well-written, containing a detailed description of object of the study, which is Ceratonia siliqua – its origin, role in agriculture of the Mediterranean area and presenting the research model and survey results. However, there is no typical discussion of the authors' own results with those of other authors in this type of articles. Too many key words, may be a bit confusing, so please select the most important, which describe the whole study.

 

                                               

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores the ecosystem services provided by the carob tree within the context of the Multifunctional Territorialized Agrifood System in the Valencia region of Spain, the study aims to identify and quantify the ecosystem services and societal values associated with this agricultural practice. It fits in the main theme of the journal, but still requires revisions. Some suggestions and comments are as follows.

 

1.     The abstract is clear, but I think specific quantitative results should be added to give readers a clearer picture of the findings.

2.     The introduction to the background overview and carob tree introduction is too lengthy, can be shortened a bit to improve readability. The research focus can be increased so that the transition from historical context to carob research can be smoother.

3.     As for part 2.4, I think it needs to be modified. The completed research does not need to include a work plan, and the flow diagram can be added to reflect the whole research process instead of the plan and arrangement.

4.     For Section 4.2, the terms "Part I" and "Part II" refer to the content of the survey, but may be ambiguous and should be replaced with a more specific title.

5.     The paper introduced the area difference of carob planting area and the regional difference of the questionnaire, but there was no further in-depth analysis, reflecting the regional heterogeneity from the results.

6.     This paper establishes a multi-criteria quantitative evaluation system according to MTAS, but it lacks the corresponding connection with ecosystem value and service. Please fill in the details, in particular how the contribution of these services is specifically measured and evaluated.

7.     Discussion of research limitations can be added and directions for future research can be suggested to make up for the shortcomings of current research.

8.     In the conclusion part of the article, the main research results of the article should be properly summarized and refined, and the practical significance of each high score should be specified.

9.     Proofread carefully for language and grammar to make sure there are no spelling, grammar or typographical errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores a very meaningful ecological question, namely the impact of tree diversity on ecosystem services in agroforestry systems. This is important for understanding and optimizing the design and management of agroforestry systems. The research question proposed by the authors has a certain degree of innovation and expands the perspective of previous studies. However, the depth and breadth of the current research need to be strengthened, the reliability and persuasiveness of some results are insufficient, and the depth of discussion also needs to be improved. It is recommended that the authors refer to the review comments to make careful revisions to further improve the quality of the paper. My review recommendation is: major revision. Specific comments are as follows:

1. The introduction does not provide an in-depth description of the research background and questions, making it difficult to fully reflect the theoretical and practical significance of this study.

2. The criteria and basis for selecting sample plots in the research methods are not clearly described. It is necessary to supplement and explain how sample plots with different tree species compositions were selected to ensure comparability.

3. The basis for selecting ecosystem service evaluation indicators is insufficient. It is recommended to further demonstrate the rationality and comprehensiveness of the selected indicators in combination with existing literature.

4. The statistical analysis methods are relatively simple. It is recommended to use more complex models, such as structural equation models, to reveal the intrinsic relationships between variables.

5. In the research results, there is a lack of quantitative analysis and mechanism discussion on the trade-offs and synergies between different ecosystem services, which is an important entry point for this study.

6. Although the role of tree species diversity is discussed, the analysis of functional traits and ecological niches of different tree species is insufficient, making it difficult to answer the intrinsic mechanism of tree species diversity.

7. The explanation of the results in the discussion section is not in-depth enough, and the comparative analysis with previous research results is also insufficient, and the theoretical significance is not highlighted enough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded fully to each comment. I have no other questions.