Multiscale Effects of Slash-and-Burn Agriculture Across the Tropics: Implications for the Sustainability of an Ancestral Agroecosystem

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article is extremely important and at the same time interesting. The problem studied concerns a large part of the world, especially the poor. Implementing sustainable development is very difficult in poor regions, which is why it is so important to study this topic. Overall, I really like the article. The strength is the broad review of literature, the weakness - limited information on the authors' scientific assumptions (research gap, aims, etc.).

Specific comments:

• Is the review clear, comprehensive and of relevance to the field?

The text is logical. The literature review is broad and definitely refers to the chosen field of science. The hard work that the authors put in is visible.

• Is a gap in knowledge identified?

Based on the article, it is possible to determine the research gap that the authors tried to fill. However, this gap was not specified by the authors themselves. It is worth supplementing this aspect and adding it in the introduction. It is similar with the research aim. In the abstract, there is a sentence: "Here, we draw upon existing SBA and landscape ecology knowledge to assess the multiscale abiotic and biotic effects of SBA". It sounds like an aim, but it is not in the introduction - it is worth adding.

• Was a similar review published recently and, if yes, is this current review still relevant and of interest to the scientific community?

In the recent literature, there are reviews on similar topics, but they are not as comprehensive as the current review. The authors referred to 259 different publications – this is a huge work.

• Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Are any relevant citations omitted? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?

Cited references come from different years – also from the last 5 years. I consider this a strong point. The authors included not only research from the last 5-10 years, but also earlier ones, and readers will receive such a list in one text. In such a broad list, no important citations have been omitted. The text does not contain excessive self-citations – the authors deal with the topic not for the first time and refer to their own research, but sporadically and this is justified.

The method of citation is questionable - it is inconsistent with the journal's guidelines. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3].

• Are the statements and conclusions drawn coherent and supported by the listed citations?

The statements and findings are coherent and supported by the listed citations. Only the conclusions require refinement – ​​in their current version they are too long. It is worth shortening the conclusions and focusing on the authors' conclusions – without referring to the literature, to emphasize the opinion of the authors of the article. The conclusions should also include managerial implications.

• Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

The article contains figures that work well with the text, enriching the content.

In addition, subsection 2. Literature Review contains a description of the research method and should be called as such. The entire article is a literature review.

The article lacks information on the limitations of the research, as well as the directions for future research suggested by the authors.

Good luck!

Author Response

Comments 1: [The topic of the article is extremely important and at the same time interesting. The problem studied concerns a large part of the world, especially the poor. Implementing sustainable development is very difficult in poor regions, which is why it is so important to study this topic. Overall, I really like the article. The strength is the broad review of literature, the weakness - limited information on the authors' scientific assumptions (research gap, aims, etc.). Is the review clear, comprehensive and of relevance to the field? The text is logical. The literature review is broad and definitely refers to the chosen field of science. The hard work that the authors put in is visible.]

Response 1: [Thank you very much for your positive feedback, and for your suggestions, which undoubtedly helped us to significantly improve our manuscript. As you will see below, we added your suggested improvements to the text.]

Comments 2: [Is a gap in knowledge identified? Based on the article, it is possible to determine the research gap that the authors tried to fill. However, this gap was not specified by the authors themselves. It is worth supplementing this aspect and adding it in the introduction. It is similar with the research aim. In the abstract, there is a sentence: "Here, we draw upon existing SBA and landscape ecology knowledge to assess the multiscale abiotic and biotic effects of SBA". It sounds like an aim, but it is not in the introduction - it is worth adding.]

Response 2: [We specified the research gaps in the introduction section. For example, we highlight that (i) our understanding of the environmental impacts of slash-and-burn agriculture (SBA) remains limited (line 50-51), (ii) although SBA involves four major stages (i.e., slashing of vegetation, burning of vegetation, farming, and forest recovery), most studies assess only the effects of a single stage (lines 54-56); and (iii) SBA not only causes environmental changes at the local (stand) scale, as it is usually studied, but its effects can be noticed beyond the limits of the cultivated field, shaping abiotic and biotic factors at the landscape scale (lines 59-61). These three main gaps were filled in this review. The objective was also indicated in lines 55-56.]

Comments 3: [The method of citation is questionable - it is inconsistent with the journal's guidelines. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3].]

Response 3: [We now follow the format of the journal.]

Comments 4: [Are the statements and conclusions drawn coherent and supported by the listed citations? The statements and findings are coherent and supported by the listed citations. Only the conclusions require refinement – in their current version they are too long. It is worth shortening the conclusions and focusing on the authors' conclusions – without referring to the literature, to emphasize the opinion of the authors of the article. The conclusions should also include managerial implications.]

Response 4: [As suggested, we have shortened the conclusion section and added a short paragraph to highlight some important applied implications (lines 494-504).]

Comments 5: [In addition, subsection 2. Literature Review contains a description of the research method and should be called as such. The entire article is a literature review.]

Response 5 [Yes, this is a review paper and Section 2 describes how the reviewed studies were selected. Therefore, we now title Section 2 as “Literature search” rather than “Research method”, as the latter may be confused.]

Comments 6: [The article lacks information on the limitations of the research, as well as the directions for future research suggested by the authors.]

Response 6: [Great point!! We added some limitations and suggestions for future research in different parts of the review. For example, in Section 3, we note that research is biased toward some regions, scales of analysis, and response variables. We propose some important directions for future research in section 4 (local-scale impacts of SBA) and section 5 (landscape impacts of SBA) (see lines 116-470). We also added a new concluding paragraph to highlight gaps and avenues for additional research.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript found a very important subject that certainly deserves discussion from the ecological and sustainability stand points, as Slash-and-Burn Agriculture (SBA) is a wide spread activity in the tropics with ample consequences for ecosystem functioning and services emerging from. This review is organized in four fundamental themes that I believe are central: slashing of vegetation, burning of vegetation, farming and forest recovery and I perceive in depth information on each of these topics.  

I celebrate authors present a methodology for a review paper, in a very systematic and transparent manner, since authors decant basic statistics, strengths and biases while offering graphical materials for clarity.

To my eyes the contribution of this manuscript is how authors display information of the impacts and consequences of SBA at local and landscape scales, since this offers a great framework for further directions on research, although some arguments on how to integrate multiscale may be missing. I understand that this a review paper, and I do not mind authors did not invoke ideas on how push research forward to ingrate scales, where for example, combining plot, tower (flux), drone or satellite (remote sensing) measurements would contribute to the scale integration and overall learning about the consequences of SBA. But if I would recommend any revision I would a reflection from the authors along these lines, perhaps including some argumentation  in section 5. Please see this paper for ideas: https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15934

Otherwise, I believe that this manuscript is very well written and can be a good contribution to Sustainability.

Author Response

Comments1: [This manuscript found a very important subject that certainly deserves discussion from the ecological and sustainability stand points, as SBA is a widespread activity in the tropics with ample consequences for ecosystem functioning and services emerging from. This review is organized in four fundamental themes that I believe are central: slashing of vegetation, burning of vegetation, farming and forest recovery and I perceive in depth information on each of these topics. I celebrate authors present a methodology for a review paper, in a very systematic and transparent manner, since authors decant basic statistics, strengths and biases while offering graphical materials for clarity.]

Response 1: [We appreciate your positive comments. Thank you very much!]

Comments 2: [To my eyes the contribution of this manuscript is how authors display information of the impacts and consequences of SBA at local and landscape scales, since this offers a great framework for further directions on research, although some arguments on how to integrate multiscale may be missing. I understand that this a review paper, and I do not mind authors did not invoke ideas on how push research forward to ingrate scales, where for example, combining plot, tower (flux), drone or satellite (remote sensing) measurements would contribute to the scale integration and overall learning about the consequences of SBA. But if I would recommend any revision I would a reflection from the authors along these lines, perhaps including some argumentation  in section 5. Please see this paper for ideas: https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15934]

Response 2: [We acknowledge this issue in the last concluding paragraph (lines 505 to 510).]

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a current topic and presents an analysis based on 259 papers that have directly or indirectly addressed the issue of assessing the biotic and abiotic impacts of Slash-and-Burn Agriculture across the Tropics. The paper has considered the shortcomings of previous studies and the authors have tried to address the issue at different scales by integrating landscape ecology into the assessment. The manuscript is well structured, the analysis is relevant, and has resulted in answers to the posed problem.

However, there are two remarks to be noted:

1- In the citation of references in the text, it is better to start from the oldest to the most recent) and it is better not to cite older references (1986 ...) which recent studies have already taken up.

2- In the text, it is necessary to choose between the choice of the term "agroecosystem" or "agrosystem" and justify this choice, and not to use both

Author Response

Comments 1: [The paper addresses a current topic and presents an analysis based on 259 papers that have directly or indirectly addressed the issue of assessing the biotic and abiotic impacts of Slash-and-Burn Agriculture across the Tropics. The paper has considered the shortcomings of previous studies and the authors have tried to address the issue at different scales by integrating landscape ecology into the assessment. The manuscript is well structured, the analysis is relevant, and has resulted in answers to the posed problem.]

Response 1: [Thank you very much for your positive feedback.]

Comments 2: [In the citation of references in the text, it is better to start from the oldest to the most recent) and it is better not to cite older references (1986 ...) which recent studies have already taken up.]

Response 2: [Corrected as suggested.]

Comments 3: [In the text, it is necessary to choose between the choice of the term "agroecosystem" or "agrosystem" and justify this choice, and not to use both.]

Response 3: [This is an important point. We chose the term “agroecosystem” because it best fits our focus on abiotic and biotic interactions within the agricultural system, i.e. we assessed both the agricultural and ecological dimensions (agro-eco-system).]