A Slash-And-Mulch Improved-Fallow Agroforestry System: Growth and Nutrient Budgets over Two Rotations
, Steel S. Vasconcelos 2, Francisco de Assis Oliviera 3, Osvaldo R. Kato 2, Lawrence Morris 1 and Daniel Markewitz 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have developed a good research and obtaining interesting and useful data. However, the way they showed the results and they discussed them should be done in a more “comprehensive” way. First, some figures or schemes about the experiment could be very useful for the reader, since the Materials and Methods section is very difficult to be understood only with the text. The discussion should be divided into different sub-sections in order to make it clearer and easier to be read. Finally, the conclusions should be rewritten in order to highlight the points that are useful for future researches and also for the stakeholders involved (policymakers, institutions, authorities, farmers, other organizations). In the conclusions the authors should respond to the question “what are the implications of the results”.
Materials and Methods
Please, add some figures or schemes of the rotations. It is very difficult for the reader to understand the rotation system only with the description.
Results
The section is too long. I would suggest merging different parts (e.g. figures 8 and 9 in the same figure) (same for figures 2, 3, 4 and 5). Merging tables would be also useful (e.g. tables 3 and 4). Please, make this section shorter.
Discussion
From my point of view, the discussion is not clear enough to be understandable for the reader. Different results are discussed in the section, so it would be easier for the reader to have the discussion divided into different sub-sections (e.g. influence of fertilization in survival, influence of fertilization in N content, influence of fertilization in C content…).
Conclusions
The conclusions should not be a summary of the results, but an overview of the manuscript and highlighting the most relevant outcomes that are useful for policymakers, farmers and other stakeholders involved. Therefore, this section should be reformulated.
Other minor points
Fig 1.a. Improve the resolution (quality) of the map
Figures 8 and 9. Please, use the same scale in the Y-axes. Same for other graphics.
Author Response
Materials and Methods
Please, add some figures or schemes of the rotations. It is very difficult for the reader to understand the rotation system only with the description.
-Author Response – we have added a pictorial representation of how the tractor was used to prepare the site at Rotation 1 and Rotation 2.
Results
The section is too long. I would suggest merging different parts (e.g. figures 8 and 9 in the same figure) (same for figures 2, 3, 4 and 5). Merging tables would be also useful (e.g. tables 3 and 4). Please, make this section shorter.
-Author Response – Figures 2&3, 4&5, 8&9 have been merged. We felt that Tables 3 & 4 contained sufficiently different information (i.e., P&K had an additional year of measurement, and C&N had an additional depth of measurement), that merging them would not be advantageous. Other edits have been done to shorten this section, including shortening Table and Figure legends.
Discussion
From my point of view, the discussion is not clear enough to be understandable for the reader. Different results are discussed in the section, so it would be easier for the reader to have the discussion divided into different sub-sections (e.g. influence of fertilization in survival, influence of fertilization in N content, influence of fertilization in C content…).
-Author Response – We have included sub-section divisions by theme, i.e., survival, N content, etc.
Conclusions
The conclusions should not be a summary of the results, but an overview of the manuscript and highlighting the most relevant outcomes that are useful for policymakers, farmers and other stakeholders involved. Therefore, this section should be reformulated.
-Author Response – Each of the paragraphs includes specific statements highlighting important outcomes aimed at producers, and the final paragraph also includes specific statements of the authors’ recommendations regarding species use in such an agroforestry system. This paper does not contain information that would be useful for policy makers, but we have specifically addressed outcomes that would be of interest to producers, whether they be farmers or extension agents.
Other minor points
Fig 1.a. Improve the resolution (quality) of the map
-Author Response – we have selected a different map to improve legibility, and inserted a larger text identification of the research site
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I revised the manuscript "A Slash-and-mulch Improved-fallow Agroforestry System: Growth and Nutrient Budgets Over Two Rotations" submitted to the Forests Journal. The paper is very interesting. However, I have some concerns, which need to be addressed before considering for final publication.
Check style and grammar in English.
Line 30-31. Keywords are missing.
Line 160, 175. Use subsection style.
Format equations as required in the file "forests-template.dot" in section 3.3. Formatting of Mathematical Components.
Line 328. Table 1. Why do you sometime use big or small letter i.e. "A a" and "B b"?
Line 371. Table 2 is too small.
Line 641 - 743. Whole section "4. Discussion" is duplicated. Delete this section.
Line 777-790. Check information included in section: Funding, Acknowledgments and Conflicts of Interest.
Line 791-942. References should be formatted as required in the file "forests-template.dot".
Supplementary Files. There is no reference to Tables S6 and S10 in the main text.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
