Agroforestry Contributions to Urban River Rehabilitation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is suggested to change all the figures in a formal style. figure 1-4. It is an academic Journal！
The title is inappropriate and contains a full stop.
It is suggested to add a case study.
Author Response
Please find the response to your comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This work presents a review of Agroforestry practices and environmental contributions to the rehabilitation of urban rivers. The topic of the paper is suitable for the Sustainability journal. However, the article type is not correct (line 1). Therefore, the article should be submitted as a “Review” since it is not an Original research manuscript (defined as an “article” in this journal).
Therefore, the structure of this review should be changed. Since it is a review, it should follow a more easy-to-read structure, not the standard “introduction, methods, results and conclussions” structure. Consequently, the “methods” section should be removed since it has much information that is not needed. Instead, a short paragraph in the introduction is enough. The authors should check other reviews from MDPI as guidance.
Table 1 is too large and hard to read. Instead, it could be split into two tables or transformed into a figure.
Figure 2 is not clear to this reviewer. What means “direct and indirect pollution sources”? And what is the grey line?. It is not explained in the text.
In general, the quality of the figures must be improved. i.e. figure 1 quality should be improved since some words are difficult to read.
“Figure 1” caption is repeated twice.
The article should be written more formally. i.e. expressions like “making their dream a reality.” (line 490) should be changed.
Some references are wrong. i.e. reference [17] does not have the year. Others have different formats. i.e.[57]
Author Response
Please find the responses to your comments in the file attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a comprehensive review on an important topic. The conclusions make sense. I am sure the paper will finds ist readers. The text is well written, supplementary files contain additional information and help to make the main manuscript more readable. The figures definetely need additional work. First of all, these are nicely painted by hand. Nothing wrong with that. But the labelling needs to be by typed font, not hand-written. And the reproduction quality is unfortunately poor. Please pay more attention to these quality issues. I guess these are snapshots by mobile phone. Make sure you install proper light and produce better photographs. It would be even better if you work in a professional graphics software e.g. Corel Draw, or at least in Powerpoint or some other basic software. With a bit of extra work, this manuscript is worth publishing.
Some additional comments, line by line:
Figure 1 (line 95): This is a pretty figure for a poster. But does it also work for a scientific paper? Some of the letters may be too small. Is the wavy ornamentation at top and base really needed?
Line 115: Is the copyright info really nededed here in the text?
Line 128: Mention taht glossary is in the supplemtary files. Same with the other supplement files which need to be properly referred to.
Line 178: bold missing
Lines 194 and 200: why are the numebrs in red?
There are two Figure 1. Please correct the numbering
Lines 259 and 305: Figure 2 and 3 are a nice drawing but they need to be labelled with printed fonts, not hand written. The reproduction quality is poor.
Line 358, Figure 4: same as before. Figure needs proper printed labels. Font of figure caption must not be all bold.
Lines 498-402: information missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No more question.
Reviewer 3 Report
I am happy to see that the authors have implemented all the points that I have raised in my review. I consider the manuscript now ready for publication.
