Ecosystem Services in the Context of Agroforestry—Results of a Survey among Agricultural Land Users in the Czech Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study produced interesting information on the perception of agroforestry by agricultural land users in the Czech Republic that can be useful in expanding agroforestry systems that provide a more adequate ecosystems services portfolio compared to agriculture as usual. However, I suggest that authors adjust the rather narrow scope of their study by mentioning agrosilvopastoral systems that enhance the multipurpose use and benefits of trees. Also, they could point out some conclusions that could be generalized on the (Central)European level.  

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. Why the authors haven’t included agrosilvopastoral systems in their study? Was grazing excluded from the portfolio of activities pursued by the respondents by design? Could the inclusion of grazing modify the resulting perspective on trees?  

2. The manuscript represents a country study. Could some of its results and conclusions be generalized on the (Central)European level?

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

P4, L189: SPSS software should be properly cited, see 

https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/381953

P5, L227: usually, one determines statistical as p < 0.05, not p = 0.05 (or 5 %).

P7, L269 (caption for Table 2): not clear to which contingency table the test refers (one can only make a contextual, qualified guess); also, cont. obviously means contingency, but the abbreviation is not standard, and abbreviations should not be used in captions; moreover, it has not been introduced in the earlier text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
Thank you for your comments, the article has been modified according to your requests. 
New sentences that have been included in the article are shown in italics, including a link to their location in the text.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study produced interesting information on the perception of agroforestry by agricultural land users in the Czech Republic that can be useful in expanding agroforestry systems that provide a more adequate ecosystems services portfolio compared to agriculture as usual. However, I suggest that authors adjust the rather narrow scope of their study by mentioning agrosilvopastoral systems that enhance the multipurpose use and benefits of trees. Also, they could point out some conclusions that could be generalized on the (Central)European level.  

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. Why the authors haven’t included agro-silvopastoral systems in their study? Was grazing excluded from the portfolio of activities pursued by the respondents by design? Could the inclusion of grazing modify the resulting perspective on trees?  

• In their study, the authors looked at farmers' attitudes towards the introduction of AFS in general, based on the presence of the trees on their agricultural land. Preferences specifically for agro-silvopastoral were not surveyed, as it is not the aim. Perceptions of specific systems may be the subject of a follow-up study. As the study itself showed, growing trees on agricultural land is not very common in the Czech Republic. Grazing, crop and trees is already too complex system for most farmers, and the article aimed to check the willingness to adopt at least the basis - trees.

2. The manuscript represents a country study. Could some of its results and conclusions be generalized on the (Central)European level?

• Establishing the objective geographic spread of agroforestry in Europe is essential for the development of supportive policies [78]. The spread of agroforestry practices is mainly known in Southern European countries [89]. These are countries where farmers value the economic benefits (Dehesa in Spain and Montado in Portugal)[35]. Agroforestry is currently not widespread in Central, Northern and Eastern Europe [89]. Its use is limited to areas where the productive form of farming is limited by the nature of the soil, which cannot be cultivated with modern machinery, or where production is severely limited by drought (Mediterranean areas) or low temperatures (boreal and alpine areas). Overall, agroforestry is only practiced where it allows farmers to obtain economic returns from land that would otherwise be unproductive, suitable at most for forestry use [90]. Efforts should be made to introduce AFS in Northern European countries and to maintain existing systems in Southern Europe. L 611 - 622

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

P4, L189: SPSS software should be properly cited, see 

https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/381953

• has been added

P5, L227: usually, one determines statistical as p < 0.05, not p = 0.05 (or 5 %).

• has been modified

P7, L269 (caption for Table 2): not clear to which contingency table the test refers (one can only make a contextual, qualified guess); also, cont. obviously means contingency, but the abbreviation is not standard, and abbreviations should not be used in captions; moreover, it has not been introduced in the earlier text.

• has been modified

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments by line:

General comments: the paper needs a clearer definition of the farming systems and of sustainable systems in order to better embed the survey results and improve the conclusions. Not the trees make a system sustainable, nor do they provide many of the ES listed; it is the kind of soil management which is the key factor - which is in a forest different from arable cropland. And this key factor needs to be better elaborated in the introduction and discussion, which then also facilitates the understanding of some of the answers and leads to better conclusions.

28: better use plural – centuries; conventional farming spread through the world with colonization.

31-33: there is not a single sustainable system in the listed ones; this should be expressed in a way calling those “practices” supposingly sustainable. All of these practices still degrade soils and subsurface biodiversity since they all use soil tillage in one or the other form.

48-50: all these benefits do not depend on the trees in the system, but on the soil management: they can only be obtained without soil tillage in no-till systems, independently of the trees. Tilled soil even with trees erodes, has no biodiversity and does not secuester carbon.

54: silvo-arable systems is not a good term for trees is cropland; arable means land to be ploughed and soil tillage is not really compatible with trees in or next to fields, as already the abstract states. Trees only make sense and work well in no-till systems, preferably in integrated crop-tree-livestock systems. Please reflect on this when describing the different systems.

65: more than legislation is the land tenure a problem: many agricultural areas are not owned anymore by the farmers and planting trees on rented or managed land of other owners is difficult and risky. Pls. reflect this detail or refer to the later findings in 3.2.2.

91: better change “soil” to “field”

117-124: a major shortcoming of the EU-CAP is not fully understanding sustainable land management. This paper has to take the EU policy, as it is, but it could critically reflect on this shortcoming instead of repeating the same mistake by classifying the farming types only into “conventional” and “organic”. Both systems do not have the basis for sustainability, as it is for example expressed in Conservation Agriculture. Without this underpinning, the ecological and technical base for AF systems in modern farming are not given, which can already be read in the abstract. This should be more reflected in the paper. I suggest reading the following papers: Friedrich T. The ongoing search for sustainable agriculture. J Plant Sci Phytopathol. 2022; 6: 133-134. https://doi.org/10.29328/journal.jpsp.1001086 and Kassam, A.; Friedrich, T.; Derpsch, R. Successful Experiences and Lessons from Conservation AgricultureWorldwide. Agronomy 2022, 12, 769. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040769

193-196: hypothesis 1 and 2 are not formulated as hypothesis but as thematic area; pls. change formulation, for example: “the way farmers respond does not depend….”

235-236: since all the mentioned farming systems are not related to sustainable farming systems it would be good to define or describe in some place what is meant with “conventional”, “intensive” or “organic”, i.e., what are the specific practices characterizing those systems.

265: see above comments: since none of the two farming systems can really be called ecological, this conclusion is far fetched and cannot be deducted from the previous findings. Instead of ecological the conclusion could be that agricultural education does not lead to adopting alternative farming methods, which is obvious since they are not part of the curricula.

562: “silvoarable” is not a suitable term (see above)

565: word missing in the sentence: “…planting by more than 40% of the [82].” – area?

616-817: References: for this topic I would have expected to see at least one reference to ICRAF or Garrity with the evergreen agriculture concept considering that the background of this study was the idea of sustainability and ecology.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments, the article has been modified according to your requests.

New sentences that have been included in the article are shown in italics, including a link to their location in the text.

Comments and Suggestions for Author

General comments: the paper needs a clearer definition of the farming systems and of sustainable systems in order to better embed the survey results and improve the conclusions. Not the trees make a system sustainable, nor do they provide many of the ES listed; it is the kind of soil management which is the key factor - which is in a forest different from arable cropland. And this key factor needs to be better elaborated in the introduction and discussion, which then also facilitates the understanding of some of the answers and leads to better conclusions.

• Thank you for the subtopic on agroecosystems. When we talk about trees on agricultural land and the ecosystem services they provide, we always meant the whole system (i.e. ecosystem) that is associated with these tree species.
• Woody plants on agricultural land and the ecosystem they co-createin general are perceived as an important source of ES, providing benefits to society depending on the situation and use. L59

28: better use plural – centuries; conventional farming spread through the world with colonization.

• has been modified

31-33: there is not a single sustainable system in the listed ones; this should be expressed in a way calling those “practices” supposingly sustainable. All of these practices still degrade soils and subsurface biodiversity since they all use soil tillage in one or the other form.

• has been modified
• This agricultural practices ensure a healthier environment for the wider community by reducing the use of fossil fuels, pesticides and other pollutants, maintaining the integrity of the environment and represent an important source of ecosystem services (hereafter ES) for society [13]. L 41

48-50: all these benefits do not depend on the trees in the system, but on the soil management: they can only be obtained without soil tillage in no-till systems, independently of the trees. Tilled soil even with trees erodes, has no biodiversity and does not secuester carbon.

• Woody plants on agricultural land and the ecosystem they co-create are perceived as an important source of ES, providing benefits to society depending on the situation and use. L 59

When we talk about trees on agricultural land and the ecosystem services they provide, we always meant the whole system (i.e. ecosystem) that is associated with these tree species.

Agroforestry is not no-till system, but we still consider it as envirnmentally friendly and able to provide ES, especially in comparison with conventional farming. In developing the theoretical basis, we followed the world literature, which literally states in this concept, e.g:

• agroforestry systems that include timber, fruit, and native forest species also contribute to biodiversity conservation by providing habitat for avian, mammalian, and other species, enhancing landscape connectivity, and reducing edge effects between forest and agricultural land
• agroforestry helps conserve biological diversity by providing other ecosystem services such as erosion control and water recharge, thereby preventing the degradation and loss of surrounding habitat. Designing and managing an agroforestry system with conservation goals would require working within the overall landscape context and adopting less intensive cultural practices to achieve the maximum benefits

(Jose, S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agroforestry Systems 2009, 76, 1–10. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7; Sharrow, S.H.; Ismail, S. Carbon and nitrogen storage in agroforests, tree plantations, and pastures in western Oregon, USA. Agroforestry Systems 2004 60:2 2004, 60, 123–130, doi:10.1023/B:AGFO.0000013267.87896.41. ; Mekonnen Alemu, M. Ecological Benefits of Trees as Windbreaks and Shelterbelts. International Journal of Ecosystem 2016, 6, 10–13, doi:10.5923/j.ije.20160601.02.)

54: silvo-arable systems is not a good term for trees is cropland; arable means land to be ploughed and soil tillage is not really compatible with trees in or next to fields, as already the abstract states. Trees only make sense and work well in no-till systems, preferably in integrated crop-tree-livestock systems. Please reflect on this when describing the different systems.

• In the countries of the European Union, agroforestry systems are practiced on arable land. For example, alley cropping or windbreaks, where tree crops are grown on arable land. This terminology is based on recognised literature: (Mosquera-Losada, R.; Rodríguez-Rigueiro, F.J.; Santiago-Freijanes, J.J.; Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A.; Silva-Losada, P.; Pantera, A.; Fernández-Lorenzo, J.L.; González-Hernández, M.P.; Romero-Franco, R.; Aldrey-Vázquez, J.A.; et al. European agroforestry policy promotion in arable Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 2022, 120, 106274, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2022.106274.; Nair, P.K.R. An introduction to agroforestry; Kluwer Academic Publishers in cooperation with International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, 1993; ISBN 0792321340).
• Farmers also perceive tree planting on farmland as a physical obstacle to cultivation (47.2%). In particular, trees on arable land hinder mechanised cultivation and farmers de-liberately remove or damage them with agricultural machinery [34]. Despite the trees represent a difficulty for the movement of farm machinery, and the size of farm machinery may not be adapted to the width of the intercrops, it is necessary to design such a spatial layout that allows farmers to grow woody plants on arable land without damage . The shape and size of the field block, as well as the use of seeding and agronomic practices, are one of the economic aspects of AFS. L549

65: more than legislation is the land tenure a problem: many agricultural areas are not owned anymore by the farmers and planting trees on rented or managed land of other owners is difficult and risky. Pls. reflect this detail or refer to the later findings in 3.2.2.

• Another limitation, as also revealed by this study, is ownership relationships that complicate planting on leased plots (Chapter 3.2.2). L80

91: better change “soil” to “field”

• has been modified

117-124: a major shortcoming of the EU-CAP is not fully understanding sustainable land management. This paper has to take the EU policy, as it is, but it could critically reflect on this shortcoming instead of repeating the same mistake by classifying the farming types only into “conventional” and “organic”. Both systems do not have the basis for sustainability, as it is for example expressed in Conservation Agriculture. Without this underpinning, the ecological and technical base for AF systems in modern farming are not given, which can already be read in the abstract. This should be more reflected in the paper. I suggest reading the following papers: Friedrich T. The ongoing search for sustainable agriculture. J Plant Sci Phytopathol. 2022; 6: 133-134. https://doi.org/10.29328/journal.jpsp.1001086 and Kassam, A.; Friedrich, T.; Derpsch, R. Successful Experiences and Lessons from Conservation AgricultureWorldwide. Agronomy 2022, 12, 769.

• It is beyond the scope of this article to deal in detail with the real sustainability of individual agricultural systems, but the wording with reference to the author “Friedrich” has been included to show that there is no scientific consensus on this designation.The term “sustainable” has been replaced by the broader term “environmentally friendly”.
• There is no consensus on which agricultural schemes are actually sustainable [73], however CAP SP considers necessary to support the trend towards (not just maintaining the status quo) more environmentally friendly farming systems and to take advantage of the growing interest in alternative farming methods and integrated production [72]. L136

193-196: hypothesis 1 and 2 are not formulated as hypothesis but as thematic area; pls. change formulation, for example: “the way farmers respond does not depend….”

• The formulations were changed for better understanding.
• The respondents’ farming method (conventional versus organic farming) does not depend on the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. L 248
• The respondents’ farming method (conventional versus organic farming) does not depend on the distance of the respondents' residence from the land they farm. L251

235-236: since all the mentioned farming systems are not related to sustainable farming systems it would be good to define or describe in some place what is meant with “conventional”, “intensive” or “organic”, i.e., what are the specific practices characterizing those systems.

• The questionnaire distinguishes between conventional and organic farming. Con-ventional agriculture means direct focus on the economic component of agriculture, i.e., maximum yield. For this purpose, special varieties (often GMO) are grown, maxi-mum fertilizers (especially mineral) are applied and there is a minimal effort to con-serve the environment [77]. For the purposes of the study, organic farming refers to all other types of alternative farming that strive for environmentally friendly practices. It was up to the respondents whether they considered their farming to be conventional or organic, as these two terms are commonly used in the CZ in a broader sense. L 247 – 254.

265: see above comments: since none of the two farming systems can really be called ecological, this conclusion is far fetched and cannot be deducted from the previous findings. Instead of ecological the conclusion could be that agricultural education does not lead to adopting alternative farming methods, which is obvious since they are not part of the curricula.

• Agricultural education does not lead to the adoption of alternative farming methods,as by default, they are not part of the curriculum. L 302-303

562: “silvoarable” is not a suitable term (see above)

• In the countries of the European Union, agroforestry systems are used, which are practiced on arable land. For example, alley cropping or windbreaks. Where tree crops are grown on arable land. This terminology is based on recognised literature : (Mosquera-Losada, M.R.; Rodríguez-Rigueiro, F.J.; Santiago-Freijanes, J.J.; Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A.; Silva-Losada, P.; Pantera, A.; Fernández-Lorenzo, J.L.; González-Hernández, M.P.; Romero-Franco, R.; Aldrey-Vázquez, J.A.; et al. European agroforestry policy promotion in arable Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 2022, 120, 106274, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2022.106274.; Nair, P.K.R. An introduction to agroforestry; Kluwer Academic Publishers in cooperation with International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, 1993; ISBN 0792321340)

565: word missing in the sentence: “…planting by more than 40% of the [82].” – area?

• has been clearified

616-817: References: for this topic I would have expected to see at least one reference to ICRAF or Garrity with the evergreen agriculture concept considering that the background of this study was the idea of sustainability and ecology.

• has been added
• L 31-38

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is valuable since it shows and discusses farmers and landowners perception about agroforestry such as the presence of trees on arable lands, and in particular windbreaks.

General comments:

11. The study aim and approach of the paper (the assessment of farmer perception about agroforestry systems using questionnaire) has been already implemented in various European countries. See for example the following papers:

                         i.      M.P. Eichhorn et al. Agroforestry Systems (2006) 67:29–50, 2006 DOI 10.1007/s10457-005-1111-7;

                       ii.      Camilli et al: et al. How local stakeholders perceive agroforestry systems: an Italian perspective. Agroforest Syst 92, 849–862 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0127-0;

                      iii.      García de Jalón, et al. How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects by 691 stakeholders. Agroforestry Systems 2018, 92, 829–848, doi:10.1007/S10457-017-0116-3).

The paper should analyse and compare the results with the findings obtained in those studies

2. The authors should better define agroforestry according to the commonly recognized definition that includes also animal component (Nair, P.K.R. An introduction to agroforestry; Kluwer Academic Publishers in cooperation with International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, 1993; ISBN 0792321340, briefly describing the various typologies of practices included within the term agroforestry systems.

3.  Since also Czech Republic belongs to European Union, the authors should mention that Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has recognized and supported the establishment of agroforestry systems on farmland both in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programming periods (measure 222 and measure 8.2 of the Rural Development Plan, respectively). Moreover, the positive or negative evaluation of these policies support to agroforestry systems in Europe and in Czech Republic should be referred. See, for example: Agroforestry in the European Union (europa.eu).

44.  It would be also valuable to mention the role of EURAF (European Agroforestry Federation: European Agroforestry Federation | EURAF), and of the national agroforestry association in Czech Republic (Czech Republic – IUAF) in promoting agroforestry in Europe.

55.    The paper often compares windbreak systems with different forms of tree arrangements (line 391 and 524) or with woody plants of various forms (table 6). The authors should describe these different systems involving trees (trees in rows? Isolated or scattered trees on arable land? Hedge?).

Specific comments:

Line 40-42: improve the definition of agroforestry referring to scientific literature.

Line 65-67: several studies carried out in various European countries have highlighted several benefits/constraints linked to agroforestry, according to the perception of different stakeholders. Please, provide a more detailed description of the factors that may encourage/discourage the adoption of agroforestry according to the main findings.

Line 117-124: according to the authors, the paper has 2 main aims: i) to analyse the perception of the offer of ecosystem services provided by woody plants growing on agricultural land by farmers as key land users and, ii) to find out whether and what socio-demographic characteristics or other aspects may shape these subjective evaluations of ecosystem services, and whether the perception of ES differs depending on the farming method (conventional versus organic). It is not clear how these aims may contribute to shaping specific approaches to applying the objectives of the new national agricultural strategy and to effective support of the application of the ES in agroforestry in the Czech Republic.

Please define better the overall objective and specific aims of the paper. In my opinion, the authors collected several additional data and information that can be valorised in a more articulated objectives and aims, including the policy implication.

Furthermore, this section is not placed in the right paragraph. It would be better at the end of the introduction. And move section 1.1 at the beginning of the results chapter before the sociodemographic data of respondents paragraph.

Line 234-237: A short description conventional or intensive farms would be appropriate as the border between intensive and extensive often is not evident.

Table 4: it is not clear how the perceived importance within each Ecosystem Services category were identified. Farmers listed them among possible ecosystem services delivered? Or the items were included in the questionnaire by the authors?

Line 446-448: all the stakeholders (not only farmers, environmental experts and representative of state interests) involved in the agroforestry value chain should be involved in order to promote the adoption of agroforestry practices. For example, technicians and farm advisors often are not aware about agroforestry.

Line 500-501: which communication strategy and tools can be used to improve knowledge among stakeholders about agroforestry?

Line 541-542: a better view of the process that brought European Commission to recognize agroforestry systems in the CAP should be mentioned (see general comments 3).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments, the article has been modified according to your requests.

New sentences that have been included in the article are shown in italics, including a link to their location in the text.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is valuable since it shows and discusses farmers and landowners perception about agroforestry such as the presence of trees on arable lands, and in particular windbreaks.

General comments:

11. The study aim and approach of the paper (the assessment of farmer perception about agroforestry systems using questionnaire) has been already implemented in various European countries. See for example the following papers:

The paper should analyse and compare the results with the findings obtained in those studies.

10. P. Eichhorn et al. Agroforestry Systems (2006) 67:29–50, 2006 DOI 10.1007/s10457-005-1111-7;

• [34] L 63
• L-550;
• L 534.

10. Camilli et al: et al. How local stakeholders perceive agroforestry systems: an Italian perspective. Agroforest Syst 92, 849–862 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0127-0;

• [3] L 565
• L571

                      iii.      García de Jalón, et al. How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects by 691 stakeholders. Agroforestry Systems 2018, 92, 829–848, doi:10.1007/S10457-017-0116-3).

• [43]L 502
• L534
• 642

2. The authors should better define agroforestry according to the commonly recognized definition that includes also animal component (Nair, P.K.R. An introduction to agroforestry; Kluwer Academic Publishers in cooperation with International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, 1993; ISBN 0792321340, briefly describing the various typologies of practices included within the term agroforestry systems.

• has been modified L 50 - 52

3. Since also Czech Republic belongs to European Union, the authors should mention that Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has recognized and supported the establishment of agroforestry systems on farmland both in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programming periods (measure 222 and measure 8.2 of the Rural Development Plan, respectively). Moreover, the positive or negative evaluation of these policies support to agroforestry systems in Europe and in Czech Republic should be referred. See, for example: Agroforestry in the European Union (europa.eu).

• The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has recognized and supported the establish-ment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land in both 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programming periods. In the past, the main support for agroforestry came from SZP measures 2.2.2 and 8.2. Pillar1, which determined that the basic payment for agrofor-estry was subject to the same eligibility conditions as for agricultural land. In the framework of both two pillars of the CAP, it can be said that the CAP supported and restricted the planting of trees on EU agricultural land to a certain extent at the same time. Arable land, and thus agroforestry on it, has been determined to be ineligible for direct payments if it contains more than 100 trees/ha.has been modified L 123 - 131

44. It would be also valuable to mention the role of EURAF (European Agroforestry Federation: European Agroforestry Federation | EURAF), and of the national agroforestry association in Czech Republic (Czech Republic – IUAF) in promoting agroforestry in Europe.

• To promote agroforestry at the international level, the International Union for Agroforestry (IUAF) platform is dedicated to sharing agroforestry practices and research. In addition, the European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) is active in Europe and promotes the use of trees on farms. Currently, agroforestry courses are organised within the Czech Republic to promote agroforestry. In addition, the Czech Republic has an agroforestry association (CSAL) which is a member of the European Forestry Federation (EURAF). L631-637

55. The paper often compares windbreak systems with different forms of tree arrangements (line 391 and 524) or with woody plants of various forms (table 6). The authors should describe these different systems involving trees (trees in rows? Isolated or scattered trees on arable land? Hedge?).

• has been described
• All other spatial forms of trees (solitaires, flat elements, other linear forms) growing in any AFS systems: silvoarable, silvopastoral, agro-silvopastoral systems were evaluated in the opposite group. L 199-201

Specific comments:

Line 40-42: improve the definition of agroforestry referring to scientific literature.

• Agroforestry, creating ecosystems with high functional potential, is defined as a land use practice in which woody perennials (trees or shrubs) are integrated with crops and/or livestock on the same land unit. L 50-52

Line 65-67: several studies carried out in various European countries have highlighted several benefits/constraints linked to agroforestry, according to the perception of different stakeholders. Please, provide a more detailed description of the factors that may encourage/discourage the adoption of agroforestry according to the main findings.

• L 611 - 622
• L 548 - 562

Line 117-124: according to the authors, the paper has 2 main aims: i) to analyse the perception of the offer of ecosystem services provided by woody plants growing on agricultural land by farmers as key land users and, ii) to find out whether and what socio-demographic characteristics or other aspects may shape these subjective evaluations of ecosystem services, and whether the perception of ES differs depending on the farming method (conventional versus organic). It is not clear how these aims may contribute to shaping specific approaches to applying the objectives of the new national agricultural strategy and to effective support of the application of the ES in agroforestry in the Czech Republic.Please define better the overall objective and specific aims of the paper. In my opinion, the authors collected several additional data and information that can be valorised in a more articulated objectives and aims, including the policy implication.

• Has been modified
• The aim of this study is to analyze the perception of the offer of ecosystem services provided by trees growing on agricultural land by farmers as key land users in the Czech Republic. Sociodemographic characteristics of farmers were investigated, as we hypothe-sized, that these may shape the subjective evaluation of ecosystem services of the re-spondents. Specifically, we focused on whether the perception of ES differs depending on the farming method used by farmers (conventional versus organic). Perception of ES pro-vided by windbreaks were assessed separately, as they were identified as most common tree formation on agricultural land in the CZ. Furthermore, the reasons for and against the implementation of trees on agricultural land, the presence of which is considered essential for the adoption of AFS, were collected. The findings identifying and summarizing issues and barriers to the adoption of AFS by local farmers may contribute to shaping specific approaches, which should be incorporated into policy decision-making and the design of legislation, subsidies and information systems, to effective support of ES provision in the Czech Republic. L145

Furthermore, this section is not placed in the right paragraph. It would be better at the end of the introduction. And move section 1.1 at the beginning of the results chapter before the sociodemographic data of respondents paragraph.

• Thanks for the comment, we were trying to move chapters, but we finally agread, if you don‘t mind, that it is not easily possible due to the chronology of the post. Subsection 1.1 contains information that does not contain results, and the methodology chapter draws from them. We've only separated the study objectives paragraph so it's no longer visually part of section 1.1., which it shouldn't be.

Line 234-237: A short description conventional or intensive farms would be appropriate as the border between intensive and extensive often is not evident.

• The questionnaire distinguishes between conventional and organic farming. Con-ventional agriculture means direct focus on the economic component of agriculture, i.e., maximum yield. For this purpose, special varieties (often GMO) are grown, maxi-mum fertilizers (especially mineral) are applied and there is a minimal effort to con-serve the environment [77]. For the purposes of the study, organic farming refers to all other types of alternative farming that strive for environmentally friendly practices. It was up to the respondents whether they considered their farming to be conventional or organic, as these two terms are commonly used in the CZ in a broader sense. L 253 – 260.

Table 4: it is not clear how the perceived importance within each Ecosystem Services category were identified. Farmers listed them among possible ecosystem services delivered? Or the items were included in the questionnaire by the authors?

• These ecosystem services were already divided by the authors during the development of the questionnaire, according to known classification scheme.
• The ecosystem services that have the potential to be provided by agroforestry systems have been categorized by authors according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment classification scheme, which is currently the most widely accepted and cited classification scheme [13]. These are four basic groups: provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultur-al ecosystem services, which contain individual services. L 182

Line 446-448: all the stakeholders (not only farmers, environmental experts and representative of state interests) involved in the agroforestry value chain should be involved in order to promote the adoption of agroforestry practices. For example, technicians and farm advisors often are not aware about agroforestry.

• The actual adoption of AFS requires the identification of problems and a debate between the farmers, landowners, agricultural advisors, landscape engineers, technicians, environmental experts, and representatives of government interests.
• L 508 - 511

Line 500-501: which communication strategy and tools can be used to improve knowledge among stakeholders about agroforestry?

• To promote agroforestry, it is advisable to include communication tools to share knowledge about agroforestry such as seminars, workshops, training programs and edu-cational articles [3], L571

Line 541-542: a better view of the process that brought European Commission to recognize agroforestry systems in the CAP should be mentioned (see general comments 3).

• L 123 – 137
• L 629 - 631

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for considering the review comments. However, from the responses I have the impression that you still do not fully understand the differences between the tree-related ecosystem services and the ones resulting from a tree-soil ecosystem with undisturbed soil in terms of the sustainability of the entire landscape and ecosystem managment.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. We have tried to add your comment to the article on line 66.

Yours sincerely 

Tereza Červená & team  

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors I still have some comments, see below.

L 54-56: change “ Agroforestry, creating ecosystems with high functional potential, is defined as a land use practice in which woody perennials (trees or shrubs) are integrated with crops and/or livestock on the same land unit” with “Agroforestry systems, due to their high functional potential, are defined as a land use practice in which woody perennials (trees or shrubs) are integrated with crops and/or livestock on the same land unit”

L 61: change “co-create” with “deliver”

L 66: change “private” with “economic”

L 82-83: it is not common to mention results of the study in the introduction. Please remove the sentence “Another limitation, as revealed by this study, is ownership relationships that complicate planting on leased plots (Chapter 3.2.2)” and allocate it in the results/discussion.

L 92: change “ecosystems” with “systems”

L 137: explain the meaning of SPZ

L 179: delete “trees in”

L 188: change “provided by” with “delivered in”

L 189: change “authors” with “respondents”

L 276-283: it recognized that organic farms do not use synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. In this study, it seems that conventional farming can be assimilated to intensive farm and organic farming to conventional farm. Please check and change along the text

L 407: change “planted” with “managed”

L 587: this sentence is not clear: “It is difficult for the implementer of the measure to make the economic 587 support measures simple and to consider them as an alternative source of income”. Who are the implementer? Please rephrase the sentence

L 623: change “to farm” with “to manage agricultural land”. It is uncommon to use the verb to farm to indicate agricultural activity; please check along the text and change.

L 653: change “intensive conventional farming” with “farming intensification”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments, the article has been modified according to your requests.

L 54-56: change “ Agroforestry, creating ecosystems with high functional potential, is defined as a land use practice in which woody perennials (trees or shrubs) are integrated with crops and/or livestock on the same land unit” with “Agroforestry systems, due to their high functional potential, are defined as a land use practice in which woody perennials (trees or shrubs) are integrated with crops and/or livestock on the same land unit”

• has been modified 

L 61: change “co-create” with “deliver”

• has been modified 

L 66: change “private” with “economic”

• has been modified 

L 82-83: it is not common to mention results of the study in the introduction. Please remove the sentence “Another limitation, as revealed by this study, is ownership relationships that complicate planting on leased plots (Chapter 3.2.2)” and allocate it in the results/discussion.

• has been modified 

L 92: change “ecosystems” with “systems”

• has been modified 

L 137: explain the meaning of SPZ

• has been modified 

L 179: delete “trees in”

• has been modified 

L 188: change “provided by” with “delivered in”

• has been modified 

L 189: change “authors” with “respondents”

• has been modified 

L 276-283: it recognized that organic farms do not use synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. In this study, it seems that conventional farming can be assimilated to intensive farm and organic farming to conventional farm. Please check and change along the text

• has been modified 

L 407: change “planted” with “managed”

• has been modified 

L 587: this sentence is not clear: “It is difficult for the implementer of the measure to make the economic 587 support measures simple and to consider them as an alternative source of income”. Who are the implementer? Please rephrase the sentence

• has been modified 

L 623: change “to farm” with “to manage agricultural land”. It is uncommon to use the verb to farm to indicate agricultural activity; please check along the text and change.

• has been modified 

L 653: change “intensive conventional farming” with “farming intensification”

• has been modified 
•  

Yours sincerely 

Tereza Červená & team