Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

Dear authors,

forests-2979970

The article is devoted to the study of Nutrient contribution and carbon sequestration of an agroforestry system of Coffea canephora grown in the Ecuadorian Amazon by Conventional and Organic Management. A number of key nutrients in plant biomass and soil were determined annually over a 5-year period and differences were shown between Conventional and Organic Management and 8 agronomic treatments. The results were analyzed using the SAS 9.4 mixed model procedure and other statistical treatments.

 

The abstract and conclusions need to be completely redone. Write the following:

Agroforestry system of Coffea canephora by Conventional and Organic Management studied in the Ecuadorian Amazon in the country?.

Why is this important???

Agroforestry system – write what it is???

What is your Conventional Management, what does it mean?

Organic Management – what is this????

The study was carried out every year for 5 years with three repetitions,

when were the tests done??

Briefly describe the methods and objects and where the experiment was carried out

For 5 years, the properties were determined annually. With Conventional Management, the following results were obtained ???

Within 5 years of Organic Management the following results have been obtained??

How does the data differ between Conventional and Organic Management and the at 8 agronomic treatments?

Data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 mixed model procedure. PCA, Multivariate Analysis, etc.

Your recommendations

 abstract over five years, 38.12 and 139.8 t/ha need were add: with traditional and organic cultivation, respectively, and Add at what depth.

349 In tables 5, 9, 13. 17 and others, it is necessary to indicate the year in the Year of evaluation once and not 4 times, for example. 2022.

Table 5. and table 9 and table 13 and table 17 need to be combined into one table

 257 Figure 2. All panels - write larger values, for example from 0.11 to 0.34 and so on in other panels. Panel (B) write larger pH, etc. Write all Comp 1-3 up to as many as 53.59, you need 54%, etc. The principal components 1 and 2 – write  what does it mean??? What does each color of the dots in all the panels represent?? Where in the picture is monoculture. where is the organic management??

 Table 2. You need to write Treatments 1 to 8 are E. poeppigiana + Myroxylon balsamum and monoculture with dif-261 ferent agronomic management.

near NS: put one star *??

 459The amount of C in the soil after five years of evaluation increased by 25%. It is necessary to indicate that these are relative % and write in which layer C increased?     

464 study was 40.4, 47.3, and 38.8 t ha1 , respectively, contents that exceed the C stored in 464

Specify 38.8 t ha1 for five years!!

The amount of C in the soil after five years of evaluation increased by 25%. The anal-

Add and Decomposition rates 469

470 In our study, organic matter was 5.33% in the year 2021 and Add in the 0-20 cm soil layer

469 63] and the content and decomposi-469 tion of organic material [64], add and decomposition  RATE

484 Biomass of associated species. need write down what types you used?

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable comments to improve the manuscript. The corrections done in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow.

Comment:  The abstract and conclusions need to be completely redone. Write the following: Agroforestry system of Coffea canephora by Conventional and Organic Management studied in the Ecuadorian Amazon in the country?.  Why is this important??? Agroforestry system – write what it is??? What is your Conventional Management, what does it mean? Organic Management – what is this???? The study was carried out every year for 5 years with three repetitions, when were the tests done?? Briefly describe the methods and objects and where the experiment was carried out. For 5 years, the properties were determined annually. With Conventional Management, the following results were obtained ??? Within 5 years of Organic Management the following results have been obtained?? How does the data differ between Conventional and Organic Management and the at 8 agronomic treatments? Data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 mixed model procedure. PCA, Multivariate Analysis, etc.

Reply: All reviewer´s suggestions has been considered in the abstract and conclusions. These sections have been modified according the reviewer corrections. About details of the description of treatments (SAF, monoculture and managements) is written in the methodology.

Comment: abstract over five years, 38.12 and 139.8 t/ha need were add: with traditional and organic cultivation, respectively, and Add at what depth.

Reply: the corrections have been done.

Comment: 349 In tables 5, 9, 13. 17 and others, it is necessary to indicate the year in the Year of evaluation once and not 4 times, for example. 2022.

Reply: The year was combined to mention it only once.

Comment: Table 5. and table 9 and table 13 and table 17 need to be combined into one table.

Reply: All tables have been combined.

Comment:  257 Figure 2. All panels - write larger values, for example from 0.11 to 0.34 and so on in other panels. Panel (B) write larger pH, etc. Write all Comp 1-3 up to as many as 53.59, you need 54%, etc. The principal components 1 and 2 – write what does it mean??? What does each color of the dots in all the panels represent?? Where in the picture is monoculture where is the organic management??

Reply: The corrections have been done.

Comment: Table 2. You need to write Treatments 1 to 8 are E. poeppigiana + Myroxylon balsamum and monoculture with different agronomic management.

Reply: All treatments are written in the tables and a superscript has been used to indicate the corresponding agronomic management. The description of each agronomic management has been placed as footnote of the table.

Comment: near NS: put one star *??

Reply: The tables with this kind of information has been deleted and the significances are just mentioned in the text.

Comment: The amount of C in the soil after five years of evaluation increased by 25%. It is necessary to indicate that these are relative % and write in which layer C increased?    

Reply: The correction was done. 

Comment: 464 study was 40.4, 47.3, and 38.8 t ha, respectively, contents that exceed the C stored in 464

Reply: The correction was done.

Comment: Specify 38.8 t ha1 for five years!!

Reply: It has been clarified.

Comment: The amount of C in the soil after five years of evaluation increased by 25%. Add and Decomposition rates 469

Reply: The correction was done.

Comment:470 In our study, organic matter was 5.33% in the year 2021 and add in the 0-20 cm soil layer.

Reply: It has been added.

Comment: 469 63 and the content and decomposition of organic material [64], add and decomposition  rate

Reply: The correction was done.

Comment: 484 Biomass of associated species. need write down what types you used?

Reply: The species have been mentioned.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present research evaluates the contribution of different agroforestry systems vs monoculture of coffee on the nutrients contribution.

The introduction is clear with good references and present the research question is clear.

The material and method section is clearly presented and is reproductible.

The results section should be completed and rearranged, the description of the first figure are not enough, then you could combine in diffrent ways the following tables and present more clearly the agronomical practices which are hidden. See attached document to more detailed explanations.

The discussion is quite good, with some references.

May main concern is that in this kind of system we should have evaluate the main crop yield which is coffee, and there is no data on the impact of agroforesty on the yield, quality...

Then we cannot say which impact and the advantages of agroforestry and if AFS is able to supply all the nutrients required by the crop as suggested in the conclusion. So if you do not have the data, then you should increase the discussion to provide more data, not only talking about banana or cocoa.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some expressions which are not completely clear

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable comments to improve the manuscript. The corrections done in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow.

Comment: The present research evaluates the contribution of different agroforestry systems vs monoculture of coffee on the nutrients contribution. The introduction is clear with good references and present the research question is clear. The material and method section is clearly presented and is reproductible.

Reply: Thanks for your comments.

Comment: The results section should be completed and rearranged, the description of the first figure are not enough, then you could combine in diffrent ways the following tables and present more clearly the agronomical practices which are hidden. See attached document to more detailed explanations.

Reply: The title of figure 1 has been modified to explain better the figure. Some tables have been deleted and other combined to express the results in a better way, following the reviewer´s suggestions provided in the attached pfd document.

Comment: The discussion is quite good, with some references.

Reply: Thanks for your comment.

Comment: May main concern is that in this kind of system we should have evaluate the main crop yield which is coffee, and there is no data on the impact of agroforesty on the yield, quality... Then we cannot say which impact and the advantages of agroforestry and if AFS is able to supply all the nutrients required by the crop as suggested in the conclusion. So if you do not have the data, then you should increase the discussion to provide more data, not only talking about banana or cocoa.

Reply: Data about the yield during the years of evaluation has been included and they have been analyzed and discussed.

Comment: please check the sentence, something is wrong

Reply: The repeated sentence was eliminated.

Comment: samples of what?

Reply: it was clarified that they were soil samples.

Comment: you could better explain and add comment to figure 2.

Reply: Explanation of figure 2 has been improved.

Comment: This table is useless, you could have the information condensed in a line, it'll be more interesting to combining table 2&3 &4 together giving more information on data obtained in the different conditions.

Reply: Tables with useless information has been deleted and other tables have been combined.

Comment: please indicate in which material this analysis was made

Reply: It was mentioned that the analysis was carried out in the biomass.

Comment: CA changes by Ca

Reply: The correction was done.

Comment: Same comments, there is another possibility is to combine the different elements analysed by type of table in the same table, meaning combining in the same table 2,6, 10 and 14... in just one. But always putting more clear in evidence the agronomic management rather than superscripts

Reply: The tables were combined and the superscripts were checked. In the text of the results and discussion section the specific agronomic management that is mentioned is full written for a better understanding.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made all the necessary corrections.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The complements of information on coffee yields and the discussion associated have increased considerably the quality of the document.

The results on yield are clear and the discussion provides goods insights about the benefits of agroforestry.

The other minor corrections have been done.