Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is a nice documentation of cooperation in multi-party agroforestry in the Midwest USA. The authors did good work in summarize and analyze the interviews. I found the article is worth reading and informative. And with a high-quality presentation, I think it is ready to be published.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. The table formatting has been modified slightly to improve presentation. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a much-needed and very useful contribution to the field of practical agroforestry. It consolidates and analyzes current examples/arrangements that can then be used as detailed models by others and/or further analyzed and modified in the future. The writing is extremely clear and effective. It's quite impressive that the interviews were completed just last month (March) and there's already a finished manuscript!

I have two minor points to consider. First, Table S1 was not provided so there was no way for me to read and evaluate the interview instrument. I don't see how anything in this could render the manuscript un-publishable so I won't request it to review. However, I do look forward to seeing it soon in publication.

Second, tables 3 and 4 are broken across pages making them cumbersome to read. I strongly recommend these be formatted to fit on a single page for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. 

Point 1: Table S1 was not provided so there was no way for me to read and evaluate the interview instrument. I don't see how anything in this could render the manuscript un-publishable so I won't request it to review. However, I do look forward to seeing it soon in publication.

Response 1: Table S1 is to be included with publication. 

Point 2: Second, tables 3 and 4 are broken across pages making them cumbersome to read. I strongly recommend these be formatted to fit on a single page for publication.

Response 2: The formatted has been adjusted slightly to improve the presentation of the tables.