A Comparison of Mangrove Forest Structure and Ecosystem Services in Maputo Bay (Eastern Africa) and Príncipe Island (Western Africa)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

You can find comments, suggestions, and corrections on the attachment file.

Your work is very good, I am very happy to review this kind of works. Surely, it will be useful for our world of science.

But, you still need to re-check your work e.g., English correction, writing style, or consistency in writing as on an enclosed file.

Kind regard,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 In this manuscript, authors studied structure and ecosystem services of Mangroves in Maputo Bay (Eastern Africa) and Príncipe Island. Since mangrove forests constitute a key biome and render various ecosystem services at both local and regional level, the study seems interesting. However, I have raised a few queries listed below:

Major comments:

Line-19: Which valuation method is used to assess the provisioning ecosystem services. Either monetary or non-monetary, market price, focus group discussion with the help of questionnaires.

Line-185: market price method could be used only for assessment of ecosystem goods, specifically calls provisioning ecosystem services. Kindly mention.

In section 2.2.3, the authors estimated the economic value of ecosystem products that are bought and sold in commercial markets. But in whole manuscript I did not see the value in terms of money. Authors focused more on socio economic demographic characteristics of interviewers. Kindly explain.

In section 3.3.2, where is the income that is generated by different activities? Where is the profit percentage that is obtained in the marketing process? Explain all these things.

In section 4 : Line no. 503 “The result of this study revel” kindly check for spelling mistake

1.      At this stage of submission results lacking statistical analysis

2.      The authors didn’t discuss how different variables like gender, age, and villages correlate with ecosystem services between the two sites.

3.      The authors have estimated structural parameters, i.e. DBH, height, basal area and mangroves' regeneration pattern, but didn’t explain how these structural parameters are associated with ecosystem services. The authors should explain a logic behind inclusion of forest structure with ecosystem services

4.      It would have been interesting if the authors had also included regulating services (carbon sequestration) and correlated them with structural parameters.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 I am satisfied with author's response. The manuscript has been improved