Sustaining Forest Plantations for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review article entitled “Sustaining Forest Plantations and Contribute to Ten out of the Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 of the United Nations ” is a good effort by the authors, as they highlighted the importance and role of forest plantations in achieving SDG,s. The purpose of this effort was to identify the critical role of plantations in improving improving germplasms, increased stand wood biomass and healthier soils have the potential to enhance wood and fuel wood energy supply, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, food security, land restoration and ecosystem biodiversity conservation in the Congo basin. 

The topic is interesting and novel however the manuscript contains many grammatical errors and is hard to follow. Authors should also correlate the the discussed SDGs like SDG 15 “Life on Land; they should mention the change after planting trees on the life of the residents of that are and similarly in pother SDGs. The article satisfies the criteria of the Sustainability. Following smaller revisions are suggested to be made to improve the manuscript before publication.

 

-What are the weaknesses or limitations of your study? Please address these in a few sentences or a paragraph in your discussion.

-Quality of English language is not upto the mark. I have not marked all but please read it carefully and change it accordingly. A close proofreading (or use of an editing service) would greatly improve the paper.

-Check that all in text references should be listed in the reference list vice versa.

 -Title is not v clear, you can improve it

-Line 22: World second largest not second world largest 

-Line 44-45: can be further splitted with improved language

-Line; 68-69 to enable

-Line70: problem in citation (similarly in some other cases)

-Line 73-77: plz follow journal format

-Line: had been or was created instead of has

-Line 105: citation problem -Line130-133 long sentences can be splitted 

-Line; 171: wrie as seeds of 62 Eucalyptus species 

-Line 174: Along yeras is not a suitable word

-Line 176: not genetic it should be genetics

There are many mistakes like mentioned above 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

 

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1899402

Type of manuscript: Review

Former Title: Sustaining Forest Plantations and Contribute to Ten out of the Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 of the United Nations

New Title: Sustaining Forest Plantations for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Section: Sustainable Forestry

Special Issue: Reaching critical biomass: Sustainability Potential for Forest Biomass Production & Products

Authors: Koutika et al.

Received: 19 August 2022

E-mails: ls_koutika@yahoo.com

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1

The review article entitled “Sustaining Forest Plantations and Contribute to Ten out of the Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 of the United Nations ” is a good effort by the authors, as they highlighted the importance and role of forest plantations in achieving SDG,s. The purpose of this effort was to identify the critical role of plantations in improving germplasms, increased stand wood biomass and healthier soils have the potential to enhance wood and fuel wood energy supply, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, food security, land restoration and ecosystem biodiversity conservation in the Congo basin. 

Authors’ response 1:

We thank the reviewer for the comment.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 2

The topic is interesting and novel however the manuscript contains many grammatical errors and is hard to follow. Authors should also correlate the discussed SDGs like SDG 15 “Life on Land; they should mention the change after planting trees on the life of the residents of that are and similarly in other SDGs. The article satisfies the criteria of the Sustainability. Following smaller revisions are suggested to be made to improve the manuscript before publication.

Authors’ response 2:

The authors thank the reviewer for the useful comments. Additional information has been provided regarding the SDG 15, especially changes in the live hood of population living close to forest plantations afterward. This has been added in the text.

Establishment of forest ecosystems in the previous savannas does change and positively impact the live hood of locale population. Storage of C (soil and biomass) as one of benefits in forest plantations fulfil needs of population in fuelwood energy, non-timber forest products, food, and other ecosystem services (Shure et al. 2012, Lescuyer et al., 2009, Epron et al. 2013) and meet SDGs 1, 2, 7 and 12. Forest ecosystems through C sequestration in both soil and biomass (Epron et al. 2013, Koutika et al. 2014) have also a great potential to mitigate climate change, increase crop production via improved soil fertility and health, and restore land and ecosystem biodiversity (enhanced soil fauna, animals, insects) (Bisiaux et al. 2009; Nsombo 2016; Koutika et al. 2021), to contribute to SDGs 2 and 13. Overall effects of forest ecosystems enable life on land for local population.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 3

-What are the weaknesses or limitations of your study? Please address these in a few sentences or a paragraph in your discussion.

Authors’ response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. The weakness or limitations of our study have been added within the discussion section.

The paper a large set of findings of research conducted in genetics, plant and environment interactions and socio-environmental management during almost three decades to sustain forest plantations on nutrient-poor soils of the Congolese coastal plains. However, there some limitations, due to the really large set of data, more details on used methods are not provided. This may not allow the reproduction of presented findings. Nevertheless, all cited materials are available for more details. The aim of this review is to link conducted results so far to sustainable development goals (SDGs) of Agenda 2030 of the United Nations and to benefit to target countries i.e., countries of the Congo basin and other with similar conditions for sustainable development.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 4

- Quality of English language is not up to the mark. I have not marked all but please read it carefully and change it accordingly. A close proofreading (or use of an editing service) would greatly improve the paper.

Authors’ response 4:

The authors thank the reviewer for the comment and advice. More attention has been paid to English language of the revised version and additional editing will be requested to MDPI.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 5

- Check that all in text references should be listed in the reference list vice versa.

Authors’ response 5:

The checking in both text and reference list has been made.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 6

-Title is not v clear, you can improve it

Authors’ response 6:

We thank and agree with the reviewer. The title has been changed. Here the new title: ‘Sustaining Forest Plantations for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ of the revised version.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 7

-Line 22: World second largest not second world largest 

Authors’ response 7:

This has been changed and highlighted in yellow.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 8

-Line 44-45: can be further splitted with improved language

Authors’ response 8:

The first long sentence has been modified and split into 2 sentences:

Afforestation and/or reforestation involves carbon (C) sequestration in both above and below ground ([1, 2,], fostering soil health improvement and wood pulp and fuel energy production for industry and population [3, 4]. This also enhances ecosystem biodiversity, furnishes other products (non-timber forest, food (honey, insects, game)) and enables payment of other environmental services [5, 6] provide by forest ecosystems.

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 9

-Line; 68-69 to enable

Authors’ response 9:

It has been correct.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 10

-Line 70: problem in citation (similarly in some other cases)

The former sentence:

C sequestration is therefore crucial to build healthier soils, mitigate climate warming, restore and halt ecosystem degradation, conserve ecosystem biodiversity to enable sustainability of forest ecosystems i.e., soils, biomass and products, and socio-economic benefits [1, 2, Nkoua 2010 cited in [6], 10].

Authors’ response 10:

The sentence has been changed into:

Sustainability of forest ecosystems therefore relies on C sequestration (soil, biomass) which improves soil fertility, mitigates climate change, restores lands and ecosystem biodiversity, and fosters the well-being of surrounding population [1, 2, Nkoua 2010 cited in [6], 10].

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 11

-Line 73-77: plz follow journal format

Former version :

In this purpose, native tropical savannas on sandy soils in the Congolese coastal plains in the Republic of the Congo started to be afforested using fast growing trees such as eucalyptus and tropical pines in the 1950’s [13] Makany 1964. Primary goals of this afforestation were providing wood for the pulp industry and fuel wood energy for the rural population by using soils improper to agriculture and contribute to SDG 7 (Affordable Clean Energy for all) [14, 15].

Authors’ response 11:

This small paragraph has been rephrased as follow:

In this purpose, native tropical savannas on sandy soils improper to agriculture in the Congolese coastal plains started to be afforested using fast growing trees (eucalyptus and tropical pines) in the beginning of the 1950’s [13]. Production of wood pulp and fuel energy for industry and rural population was the primary goal, but nowadays this nature-based solution also contributes amongst other to SDG 7 (Affordable Clean Energy for all) [14, 15].

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 12

-Line 97: had been or was created instead of has

Authors’ response 12:

‘has been creates’ changed by “was created” in the revised version.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 13

-Line 105: citation problem

Authors’ response 13:

The personal communication as ‘a citation’ has been removed.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 14

-Line130-133 long sentences can be splitted 

Authors’ response 14:

It has been changed.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 15

-Line; 171: write as seeds of 62 Eucalyptus species 

Authors’ response 15:

This has been changed.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 16

-Line 174: Along yeras is not a suitable word

Authors’ response 16:

The sentence has been modified and ‘along years’ has been removed.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 17

-Line 176: not genetic it should be genetics

Authors’ response 17:

It has been corrected.

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 18

There are many mistakes like mentioned above 

Authors’ response 18:

We thank the authors for his valuable comments and advices. The revised version has been checked with more attention.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The issue addressed in the paper discusses the sustaining forest plantations as an implementation of selected sustainable development goals set forth in the UN's Agenda 2030 - on the case of previous savannah systems in some Central African countries i.e., Gabon and Democratic Republic of Congo.

First of all, I find that an important topic, compatible with the journal's scope, was considered. 

However, the study title itself should be concise, precise, clear and understandable. Please revise this structure. It does not necessarily have to include a thesis (ten out of seventeen), does it? The authors have formulated three hypotheses - and it is not necessary to "forcefully" seek to confirm these hypotheses.

Secondly: such studies are partially analysed in literature. It would be worth presenting the state of the art in a broader way. I suggest a more dilligent, comparative description of other scientific research from the literature (for example, it is possible to add a short state of the art comparative analysis report / section 1).  Although this is a review article - it should be a starting point.

I also recommend several corrections to improve the quality of this paper:

- to precisely define the research scenario (it is very general); needed to clarify the scope of the study and consequently a clear, step-by-step, simple, synthetic research pattern; I recommend more precision, as the reader should know how to repeat a similar analysis on this basis (please consistently correct section 2);  again, I point out: even though this is a review paper - the analysis should indicate the method, have a scenario, and refer step by step to the hypotheses - not just to the "mythical" sustainable development goals (SDGs) of United Nations;

- to improve the readability and description of tables (since they are the basis for analysis verification), supplement the history of their description, a clear and not laconic reference in the paper;

that is, supplement the discussion and summary descriptive analysis (please do so in a separate section) .

Please remember that the formulated objectives - find a clear answer in the conclusion of the study. Is this really the way it works? Does the conclusion answer all the questions posed at the beginning of the paper (expressed in objectives and hypotheses)? Please complete it and also correct it. 

I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general (and not entirely clear) applications of this research shall be provided (section 3).

The language of this paper is relatively correct, however some descriptions would benefit from being more concise. I recommend that the authors cooperate with a native speaker to improve the text of the paper.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

 

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1899402

Type of manuscript: Review

Former Title: Sustaining Forest Plantations and Contribute to Ten out of the Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 of the United Nations

New Title: Sustaining Forest Plantations for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Section: Sustainable Forestry

Special Issue: Reaching critical biomass: Sustainability Potential for Forest Biomass Production & Products

Authors: Koutika et al.

Received: 19 August 2022

E-mails: ls_koutika@yahoo.com

 

Reviewer 2’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1

The issue addressed in the paper discusses the sustaining forest plantations as an implementation of selected sustainable development goals set forth in the UN's Agenda 2030 - on the case of previous savannah systems in some Central African countries i.e., Gabon and Democratic Republic of Congo. First of all, I find that an important topic, compatible with the journal's scope, was considered. 

Authors’ response 1:

We thank the reviewer for his comment regarding the importance of the topic not only for the Republic of the Congo but for most countries located in the Congo basin.

 

Reviewer 2’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 2

However, the study title itself should be concise, precise, clear and understandable. Please revise this structure. It does not necessarily have to include a thesis (ten out of seventeen), does it? The authors have formulated three hypotheses - and it is not necessary to "forcefully" seek to confirm these hypotheses.

Authors’ response 2:

Thank you for your comment and question about the title and hypotheses. The title has been changed and more concise title is used in the revised version: ‘Sustaining Forest Plantations for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. Changes have been also made regarding the confirmation of three hypotheses in the revised version.

 

 

Reviewer 2’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 3

Secondly: such studies are partially analysed in literature. It would be worth presenting the state of the art in a broader way. I suggest a more dilligent, comparative description of other scientific research from the literature (for example, it is possible to add a short state of the art comparative analysis report/ section 1). Although this is a review article - it should be a starting point.

Authors’ response 3:

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We add a paragraph before the last paragraph of introduction section (see below). Also, the comparison to other forest ecosystems will be made on other part of the manuscript.

A partial comparative analyses report of eucalyptus plantation ecosystems in the Congolese coastal plains to other such Brazil, the world bigger producer of the species may be briefly made (Epron et al. 2013, Bouillet et al. 2013, Pereira et al. 2017). To sustain forest productivity, nitrogen-fixing species such acacias have been introduced in the Eucalyptus urophilla grandis plantations at Tchissoko (Congo), and Eucalyptus grandis in Itatinga (State of Sao Paulo, Brazil) (Epron et al. 2013, Bouillet et al. 2013). Main characteristics of the two experimental sites such as climate and relief, have been given in Epron et al. (2013), revealing a positive effect of growing eucalyptus with acacia on stand wood production in Congo (Tchissoko) but not Brazil (Itatinga). For instance, soil types are Ferralic Arenosols (with a ratio of clay: silk: sand of 3:6:91, Congo) and Ferralsols (with a ratio of clay: silk: sand of 13:3:84, Brazil), with mean temperature of 25.7°C in Congo against 19°C in Brazil. Studies revealed no changes in C and N stocks beneath the pure acacia, eucalyptus and mixed-species stands in the 0–15 cm soil layer after 6 years of plantation in Brazil (Voigtlaender et al. 2012), while an increased C and N stocks were reported in the 0-25 cm beneath mixed-species (50% acacia: 50% eucalyptus) relative to pure eucalyptus after 7 years of plantation in Congo (Koutika et al. 2014). Higher C stocks have been reported in other studies showing higher decomposition rates in mixed eucalyptus-acacia litter in Australia (Forrester et al. 2005, 2013), due to the accelerated decomposition of litter and enhanced soil microbial activities more effective nutrient cycling (Pereira et al. 2018). An increase in microbial activity has been also reported in eucalypt intercropped with acacia stands relative to pure or fertilized stands at 27 months after planting (Bini et al. 2012, 2013, 2018; Pereira et al. 2017, 2018). There is a similarity between the two sites regarding soil phosphorus (P) forms, i.e., 70% of their soil P is in inorganic form (Rocha et al. 2019, Koutika et al., 2020b).

 

Reviewer 2’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 4

I also recommend several corrections to improve the quality of this paper:- to precisely define the research scenario (it is very general); needed to clarify the scope of the study and consequently a clear, step-by-step, simple, synthetic research pattern; I recommend more precision, as the reader should know how to repeat a similar analysis on this basis (please consistently correct section 2);  again, I point out: even though this is a review paper - the analysis should indicate the method, have a scenario, and refer step by step to the hypotheses - not just to the "mythical" sustainable development goals (SDGs) of United Nations;

Authors’ response 4:

We thank the reviewer for the comments. The quality of the paper has been improved with some additional precisions regarding main results. We also try to add as much as possible information on the used method.  However, being a review paper with a really large set of data, it is not possible to detail all reported data. We hope the information provided will help reader to reproduce, especially since all cited materials are available for more details. The aim of this review is to show how conducted results so far meet sustainable development goals (SDGs) of United Nations; i.e., benefit for sustainable development of the target countries i.e., countries of the Congo basin and other with similar conditions;

 

Reviewer 2’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 5

- To improve the readability and description of tables (since they are the basis for analysis verification), supplement the history of their description, a clear and not laconic reference in the paper; that is, supplement the discussion and summary descriptive analysis (please do so in a separate section) .

Authors’ response 5:

Additional information (history of tables description) has been added the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 6

Please remember that the formulated objectives - find a clear answer in the conclusion of the study. Is this really the way it works? Does the conclusion answer all the questions posed at the beginning of the paper (expressed in objectives and hypotheses)? Please complete it and also correct it. 

Authors’ response 6:

We thank the reviewer for the remark. That has been changed.

 

Reviewer 2’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 7

I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general (and not entirely clear) applications of this research shall be provided (section 3).

Authors’ response 7:

The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. Recommendation’s section has been added in the revised version prior the Conclusion’s section.

 

Reviewer 2’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 8

The language of this paper is relatively correct, however some descriptions would benefit from being more concise. I recommend that the authors cooperate with a native speaker to improve the text of the paper.

Authors’ response 8:

We thank the reviewer for the comment and suggestion. We try to pay more attention to language mistakes. In addition, we will arrange the final English editing with MDPI after the final acceptance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is not a review article.

No tables, figures comparing the impact of forest on livelihood of people around the forest plantation.

Suitable for newspaper write up

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

 

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1899402

Type of manuscript: Review

Former Title: Sustaining Forest Plantations and Contribute to Ten out of the Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 of the United Nations

New Title: Sustaining Forest Plantations for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Section: Sustainable Forestry

Special Issue: Reaching critical biomass: Sustainability Potential for Forest Biomass Production & Products

Authors: Koutika et al.

Received: 19 August 2022

E-mails: ls_koutika@yahoo.com

 

Reviewer 3’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1

This is not a review article. No tables, figures comparing the impact of forest on livelihood of people around the forest plantation. Suitable for newspaper write up

Authors’ response 1:

We thank the reviewer for its comments. The impact of forest plantations on livehood around has been mentioned with more details support by papers with research conducted in three countries of the Congo Basin Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo (Bisiaux et al., 2009; Lescuyer et al. 2009; Shure et al. 2012). We now added Asaah et al. 2011. The quality of the paper has substantially improved after the revision.

Used references:

Bisiaux F, Peltier R, Muliele JC (2009) Plantations industrielles et agroforesterie au service des populations des plateaux Batéké, Mampu, en République démocratique du Congo. Bois For Trop 301(3): 21-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19182/bft2009.301.a20404

Lescuyer G, Karsenty A, Eba’a Atyi R (2009) A new tool for sustainable forest management in Central Africa: Payments for environmental services. In: C.de Wasseige, D.Devers, P.de Marcken, R.Eba’a Atyi, R.Nasi, P.Mayaux (eds.). The Forests of the Congo Basin: state of the Forest 2008. 131-143. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN: 978-92-79-132 11-7.

Asaah E.K., Tchoundjeu Z., Leakey R.R.B., Takousting B., Njong J., Edang I. 2011. Trees, agroforestry and multifunctional agriculture in Cameroon, Inter J., Agric. Sustaina. 9(1), 110-119. 10.3763/ijas.2010.0553

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper entitled "Sustaining Forest Plantations and Contribute to Ten out of the Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 of the United Nations" is a need of the hour and one its kind effort to highlight the efforts of the countries to achieve the SDGs. The paper should be improved with following suggestions

1) Authors have enlisted and discussed half of the SDGs goals concerning nature solutions. In sections 2.1 to 2.10, the authors didn't make significant input about how the different enlisted nature solutions are being part of SDG. For example 2.2 Zero hunger, the authors mentioned the improvement of soil through trees, but there are no proper supporting references, tables or figures. The soil improvement to achieve multiple goals mentioned by the authors but requires tables to support the paper. Table should includes Studied tree species, soil improvement over control and references 

2) I feel the paper requires serious attention to the quality inputs to discuss the studied results in form of tables and figures. 

3) Table 1. does not give any meaning. If the authors provide the species with characteristic features and possible yield will be helpful. 

 

Authors should add these suggested corrections for more insightful. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4

 

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1899402

Type of manuscript: Review

Former Title: Sustaining Forest Plantations and Contribute to Ten out of the Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 of the United Nations

New Title: Sustaining Forest Plantations for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Section: Sustainable Forestry

Special Issue: Reaching critical biomass: Sustainability Potential for Forest Biomass Production & Products

Authors: Koutika et al.

Received: 19 August 2022

E-mails: ls_koutika@yahoo.com

 

Reviewer 4’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1

The paper entitled "Sustaining Forest Plantations and Contribute to Ten out of the Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 of the United Nations" is a need of the hour and one its kind effort to highlight the efforts of the countries to achieve the SDGs.

Authors’ response 1:

We thank the reviewer for encouraging comment.

 

Reviewer 4’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 2

The paper should be improved with following suggestions

1) Authors have enlisted and discussed half of the SDGs goals concerning nature solutions. In sections 2.1 to 2.10, the authors didn't make significant input about how the different enlisted nature solutions are being part of SDG. For example 2.2 Zero hunger, the authors mentioned the improvement of soil through trees, but there are no proper supporting references, tables or figures. The soil improvement to achieve multiple goals mentioned by the authors but requires tables to support the paper. Table should includes Studied tree species, soil improvement over control and references.

Authors’ response 2:

We thank the valuables remark and suggestions. Some details have been added. However, as explained in the paragraph added at the end of the last SDG, the weaknesses of this paper have been mentioned, amongst them the impossibility to give more details for all presented data because there are numerous. All cited papers are peer review and may be available for further interest. The aim of the paper is to link the findings to SDGs and to help countries of the target region to be aware and continue to contribute to sustainable development i.e., to Agenda 2030 of United Nations, no regarding limited resources dedicated in research in these countries.

 

Reviewer 4’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 3

2) I feel the paper requires serious attention to the quality inputs to discuss the studied results in form of tables and figures. 

Authors’ response 3:

We thank the reviewer for remark and concern. We invite the reviewer to consider the response given at point 2.

 

Reviewer 4’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 4

3) Table 1. does not give any meaning. If the authors provide the species with characteristic features and possible yield will be helpful. Authors should add these suggested corrections for more insightful. 

Authors’ response 4:

We thank the valuable remark. We added some sentences to highlighted that the productivity of introduced species never exceed 7 tonnes per hectare and they do not exist anymore. Currently, these introduced species from Brazil, South Africa and Australia are not used in the country. Mostly a hybrid Eucalyptus grandis x urophilla is used and the productivity is mentioned. Yet, the list of these 63 species is important because they have never published in a peer review paper to date. It is very important to mention them.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think most of the suggestions have been incorporated by the authors. Now it is acceptable  after some moderate English changes. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 - Revision 2

 

Journal Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID : sustainability-1899402

Type: Review

Title: Sustaining Forest Plantations for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Authors: Lydie-Stella Koutika * , Rosalie Matondo , Mélanie Toto , André Mabiala-Ngoma , Viviane Sogni Tchichelle , Jean-Claude Madzoumbou , Juste Armand Akana , Tiburce Matsoumbou , Alpiche Diamesso , Hugues Y. Gomat , Armel Thongo Mbou , Aubin Rachel Saya , François Mankessi , Jean de Dieu Nzila

Section: Sustainable Forestry

Special Issue: Reaching Critical Biomass: Sustainability Potential for Forest Biomass Production & Products

 

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think most of the suggestions have been incorporated by the authors. Now it is acceptable after some moderate English changes

Authors’ response:

The authors thank the reviewer for the comment and for overall contribution, advices and suggestion to improve this paper. A final language editing will be performed. We will ask MDPI appropriate team for assistance. We want to thank again the reviewer for patience and useful commitment in the process of reviewing this paper

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors!

Thank you for improving the text. Your corrections are acceptable. I believe that you have taken up an important topic, in line with the profile of the journal. Careful editing of your text is also necessary.

After making corrections that have been made appropriately, the work should be accepted.  As a result of the review (after corrections), as of now, I recommend publishing this scientific paper.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 – Revision 2

 

Journal Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID : sustainability-1899402

Type: Review

Title: Sustaining Forest Plantations for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Authors: Lydie-Stella Koutika * , Rosalie Matondo , Mélanie Toto , André Mabiala-Ngoma , Viviane Sogni Tchichelle , Jean-Claude Madzoumbou , Juste Armand Akana , Tiburce Matsoumbou , Alpiche Diamesso , Hugues Y. Gomat , Armel Thongo Mbou , Aubin Rachel Saya , François Mankessi , Jean de Dieu Nzila

Section: Sustainable Forestry

Special Issue: Reaching Critical Biomass: Sustainability Potential for Forest Biomass Production & Products

 

Reviewer 2’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors !

Thank you for improving the text. Your corrections are acceptable. I believe that you have taken up an important topic, in line with the profile of the journal. Careful editing of your text is also necessary

After making corrections that have been made appropriately, the work should be accepted.  As a result of the review (after corrections), as of now, I recommend publishing this scientific paper

I think most of the suggestions have been incorporated by the authors. Now it is acceptable after some moderate English changes

Authors’ response :

We thank the reviewer for its contribution, advices and suggestions which help to improve this paper and make it acceptable for the journal. We ensure the reviewer that careful reading and language editing will be made. Once again, many thank for commitment and valuable contribution in improving the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

The responses provided by the authors are not sufficient to justify the paper.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 – Revision 2

 

Journal Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID : sustainability-1899402

Type: Review

Title: Sustaining Forest Plantations for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Authors: Lydie-Stella Koutika * , Rosalie Matondo , Mélanie Toto , André Mabiala-Ngoma , Viviane Sogni Tchichelle , Jean-Claude Madzoumbou , Juste Armand Akana , Tiburce Matsoumbou , Alpiche Diamesso , Hugues Y. Gomat , Armel Thongo Mbou , Aubin Rachel Saya , François Mankessi , Jean de Dieu Nzila

Section: Sustainable Forestry

Special Issue: Reaching Critical Biomass: Sustainability Potential for Forest Biomass Production & Products

 

Reviewer 4’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The responses provided by the authors are not sufficient to justify the paper.

Authors’ response :

We thank the reviewer for its remark. We are willingly to reply to previous comments (Revised 1 version) below. We hope our attempt to satisfy the reviewer requests will be successful to improve further the paper (Revised 2 version).

 

Responses to previous reviewer 4’s comments (Revised version 2)

Reviewer 4’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1

The paper entitled "Sustaining Forest Plantations and Contribute to Ten out of the Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 of the United Nations" is a need of the hour and one its kind effort to highlight the efforts of the countries to achieve the SDGs.

Authors’ response 1:

We thank the reviewer for encouraging comment.

 

Reviewer 4’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper should be improved with following suggestions

1) Authors have enlisted and discussed half of the SDGs goals concerning nature solutions. In sections 2.1 to 2.10, the authors didn't make significant input about how the different enlisted nature solutions are being part of SDG. For example 2.2 Zero hunger, the authors mentioned the improvement of soil through trees, but there are no proper supporting references, tables or figures. The soil improvement to achieve multiple goals mentioned by the authors but requires tables to support the paper. Table should includes Studied tree species, soil improvement over control and references. I feel the paper requires serious attention to the quality inputs to discuss the studied results in form of tables and figures. 

 

Authors’ response:

Dear reviewer,

We thank you for your valuable contribution in improving this paper. The set of data presented in this revie paper is directly or indirectly linked to ten presented in this paper.  For instance, data presented are indirectly linked to SDG 1 and 3, even though data on produced crop in DR Congo have been added, yet the direct measurement cannot be made. However, when it comes both soil and biomass leading to mitigate climate change. Also fuel wood energy contributing to provide energy to population has been made in the region with more than 90% of population using this kind of energy. Being a review paper, the first objective addressing in this paper it to help researchers with limited resources mainly from developing countries to link their research to Agenda 2030 of United Nations and contribute to sustainable development.

We still could not add more tables or figures, yet we added more information on the table 1 (highlighted in yellow in revised version 2). We thank the reviewer for his suggestion to improve this paper.

We are very grateful the reviewer for its valuable contribution to improve the paper.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf