Insights into Beneficial Effects of an Agroforestry System on Soil Properties and Crop Yields: A Case Study from the Experimental Farm at University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study investigates the positive impacts of agroforestry systems on enhancing biodiversity, soil nutrient cycling, soil physical properties, and carbon sequestration, thereby providing valuable scientific support for the sustainable development of agriculture. However, several areas require further improvement:
1. The summary can be optimized and expressed succinctly.
2. In the result section of 3.1, the title is Impact on soil properties. Why does the description include earthworm changes? Think again about the classification of the results.
3. In terms of soil moisture, how can we be sure that it is not affected by other different factors? Such as temperature, microorganisms and so on.
4. The part of the article quoting previous literatures to confirm the research results is too weak and persuasive.
5. The depth of the discussion section should be enhanced.
6. Each part is relatively independent, just a simple list of results, lack of complete scientific research logic, should strengthen the connection between each part.
7. Are the findings generalizable? Is there any possibility of promotion?
8. Can the indicators studied in this paper accurately and comprehensively represent the research results? A multi-index comprehensive evaluation model can be set up.
The overall expression of the article is relatively clear, but it still needs to be further optimized and concise expression without changing the willingness.
Author Response
Sorry for the previous note. Please consider the below authors note.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: The summary can be optimized and expressed succinctly.
Response 1: As per the suggestion, the abstract was revisited and improved to clarify the benefits of agroforestry system compared to monoculture. (line number 10 to 36)
Comments 2: In the result section of 3.1, the title is Impact on soil properties. Why does the description include earthworm changes? Think again about the classification of the results.
Response 2: As per the suggestion, earthworm abundance is included in the title and reformulated the title as 3.1. Beneficial Effects of Agroforestry System on Soil Properties and Earthworm Abundance. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 3: In terms of soil moisture, how can we be sure that it is not affected by other different factors? Such as temperature, microorganisms and so on.
Response 3: We agree with other factors mentioned by you regarding factors affecting soil moisture. Hence, we have improved the discussion part 4.2, about soil moisture by stating that “ This can be attributed to microclimate environment due to several factors like reduced evaporation, increased soil organic matter, higher microbial diversity in the agroforestry system compared to conventional crop production system ”. (line number: to ). Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 4: The part of the article quoting previous literatures to confirm the research results is too weak and persuasive.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have incorporated literatures as below: Earthworm abundance study: reference number 47 and 49 and for various soil parameter study: reference number 35, 39 and 43. These references are recent studies to support our results.
Comment 5: The depth of the discussion section should be enhanced.
Response 5: Based on your suggestion, we have strengthened the discussionon on earthworm count, effect of agroforestry on alley crop yield, distance effect. We have inserted Table 4 with 6 more studies to support our findings. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comment 6: Each part is relatively independent, just a simple list of results, lack of complete scientific research logic, should strengthen the connection between each part.
Response 6: We have added text to strengthen the link between the different sections in the discussion part of the scientific paper, as per your suggestion.
Comment 7: Are the findings generalizable? Is there any possibility of promotion?
Response 7: As per the comment, we have added few lines in conclusion on multiple benefits of agroforestry as per the findings of our study. The added text reads “Hence the agroforestry system contributed to multiple benefits of higher soil fertility and nutrients, soil moisture and SOM, leading to higher crop yield as well as provision of suite of ecosystem services like enhanced carbon sequestration and soil moisture, contributing to develop climate-resilient production system”. (line number 535 to 539).
Comment 8: Can the indicators studied in this paper accurately and comprehensively represent the research results? A multi-index comprehensive evaluation model can be set up.
Response 8: In this study, we sampled the key indicators of soil fertility, crop yields and climate data. we have put together a coherent paper on the benefits of agroforestry based on our field data and this findings were confirmed with other similar field studies to provide relevance of the study to our context. We do not aim to use the data for a model in the current paper and the data can be useful for a modelling purpose.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is a complete scientific work. The problem statement is clear. The objects and methods are justified. The results are well presented and discussed. There are minor corrections in the text of the article, which I made in the form of comments.
Agroforestry systems are a relevant area in agriculture that provides many positive effects for the environment. The study discussed in this article is very relevant for regions with a high population density, such as Europe, where it is necessary to save land resources for agriculture. But despite the high relevance, the novelty of the study is average, since it does not have fundamentally new data. The data obtained in this study are of a clarifying nature for already known relationships. At the same time, the study makes a good impression, since the methodology is well thought out, the results are clearly described and the main aspects of the data obtained are discussed. The results obtained have practical application and can be used not only in Denmark, but also in other regions of the world. As a supplement to the text of the article, I would like to advise using either an abbreviation of the names of the objects of study, or their full version. Because frequent repetition in the text of both spelling options greatly complicates understanding. In the results of the study, tables 3 and 4 can be presented in the form of figures, which will facilitate the perception of the material.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: “The silvoarable agroforestry system is one of the agroforestry system found in temperate regions”. The sentence consists of repeated words. It needs to be rephrase.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have rewritten as “One of the practice that improve soil health is silvoarable agroforestry system” and change can be found – page number 2 and line number 54 to 55.
Comments 2: Would be correct to use the preposition "of".
Response 2: Agree. We have, changed and rewritten as “At the experimental farm under of University of Copenhagen in Denmark”. The change can be found on page number 3 and line number 102.
Comments 3: Please clarify the reason why samples were taken at this particular depth
Response 3: We agree with this comment. Soil samples were taken at this depth because: “The depth of 30 cm was chosen because it represents the plough depth, and estimation of soil property at this depth is of interest in farm management practices.”. The change is found on page 4 and line number 132 - 134 in the manuscript.
Comments 4: In the results of the study, tables 3 and 4 can be presented in the form of figures, which will facilitate the perception of the material.
Response 4: We agree partly with the comment. The Table 3 is now presented as Figure 5. The numerical data in Table 4 contains information about the mean values, ± standard error values and the comparison study for agronomic yields at six different distances. It is difficult to represent graphically with clear visibility. As a result, we've opted to present this information in one tabular format, which is now labeled as Table 3. Thank you for pointing this out for easy perception of the result information. The Figure 5 is presented in between line number 373 – 377 on page number 10. Thank you for bringing this point for easy understanding.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease refer to the attached document
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: Authors have provided a good background information in the abstract. However, they should reduce some of the findings and only leave the most significant ones but add a sentence or two on the methods used in the study
Response 1: As per the suggestion, we have added the following sentence in the abstract on methods: “The field methods consisted of soil and crop cut sampling, soil moisture measurement, earthworm abundance count in CFE compared to the CWW fields and climate data for 2023” on page number 1, line number 18 to 21.
Comments 2: In introduction: Reference 21, line 62 can be augmented by Kalovoto et al 2020; a more recent reference to the cited 2008 one. “Kalovoto Damariis, M., Kimiti Jacinta, M., & Manono Bonface, O. (2020). Influence of women empowerment on adoption of agroforestry technologies to counter climate change and variability in semi-arid Makueni County, Kenya. International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, 24(2), 47-55.”
Response 2: We have found more recent reference with following citation “Rolo, V., Rivest, D., Maillard, E., & Moreno, G. (2023). Agroforestry potential for adaptation to climate change: A soil-based perspective. Soil Use and Management, 39, 1006–1032. doi.org/10.1111/sum.12932” which reported beneficial effects of agroforestry systems on soil health parameters. This reference number is 19 included in manuscript. Thank you for bringing this point forward.
Comments 3: Authors should provide information of how the exact eathrworm sampling sites were determined. Were there any restrictions, for example near the edges etc?
Response 3: Yes, we agree. Earthworm counts were taken from a soil volume of 25 cm3 in three replications per pro-duction system. Counting of the earthworms were carried out in five different production system. Each sampling site was selected in the middle of the production system avoiding the border effect, with three replications per system. Each sampling point was 30 meters away from each other and 10 meters away from border. This is now included in the manuscript on page number 4 and line number 155 to 159.
Comments 4: How were moisture sampling locations determined?
Response 4: Sampling points for soil moisture determination was located in four production systems viz. CFE WW, BB, NF and CWW with four replications each. The soil moisture probes were inserted in each of the system and the measurements were done on same spot during the experimental period to avoid differences due to different sampling points. These points were located in the middle of all production systems, taking care of avoiding the border effect on point. These points provided an average soil moisture available in each production system. This is now included in manuscript on page number 5, line number 186 to 193. Thank you for bringing this point.
Comment 5: The discussion is well written. However, authors should discuss the implication of their studies, not just indicating that it is similar with other studies. For example, what does the reduced soil bulk density mean in their observation in relation to the statement in line 52-53? This is also an observation found by Manono et al., 2019; where the authors suggested the reduced soil bulk density to a lighter more structured soil. Further, the same authors indicated that compared to addition of organic matter nitrogen fertilization may increase soil bulk density by reducing soil aggregation while binding soil organic microaggregates theirby increasing soil bulk density. The same authors indicate that a reduced bulk density can have important implications for soil health, thus, an important effect in water inflitration and retention, aeration and root growth. This are the same effects the authors have indicated in reference 12 and 13 in line 53. Thus, authors can add this reference to augment the two references. The said reference can also apply to the statement line 356-358 which is not referenced. Manono, B. O. (2016). New Zealand dairy farm effluent, irrigation and soil biota management for sustainability: Farmer priorities and monitoring. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 2(1), 1221636.
Response 5: Yes, we agree and we have included the reference. Thank you for sharing the reference. The reference number is 49 and included on page number 11 and line number 430 in the manuscript.
Comment 6: The authors should also discuss the implications of earthworm numbers, and how they relate to other measured parameters.
Response 6: Based on the comment, we have updated the discussion and added new sentence that reads “Earthworm creates channels in the soil facilitating water infiltration, aeration and moving the organic matter into the soil profile leading to more porosity and hence lower bulk density in CFEmean compared to CWW” which can be found on page number 11, line number 417 to 419.
Comment 7: Earthworms create channels, which may increase water inflitration and retention. How is this observation and bulk density relate with your observation on soil moisture in the two different seasons? Can be related to low bulk density and higher earthworm numbers?
Response 7: Based on the comments, we have updated the discussion and added new sentence that reads “ Earthworm creates channels in the soil facilitating water infiltration, aeration and moving the organic matter into the soil profile leading to more porosity and hence lower bulk density in CFEmean compared to CWW ” included on page number 11, line number 417 to 419. Thank you for bringing this point.
Comment 8: Permanent soil cover, litter, undisturbed land, and permanent roots can promote earthworm numbers since it provides food to the earthworms. Also disturbing the land exposes them to dessication, predators and breaks their channels thereby leading to their dead.
Response 8: We agree. As per the suggestion, a new sentence is added in the discussion that reads “The lower earthworm abundance in CWW is also attributed to regular ploughing activity for crop production, removing the earthworm channels and destroying the habitat for earthworm” included on page number 11, line number 419 to 421. Thank you for bringing this point.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study demonstrated that agroforestry system viz CFEmean and natural forest had lower bulk density compared to conventional winter wheat with intensive use of fertilizers and chemicals. The results may provided a robust field evidence on beneficial effects of agroforestry on soil properties and crop and biomass yields compared to the conventional practice for informed decision-making by the land managers. However, I think the quality of the manuscript needs to be further improved, although the issues that are being addressed may be of interest to the readers.
Detailed comments:
1. Normally, there are no more than 6 keywords. In particular, some keywords do not appear in the abstract, such as soil moisture, crop yield.
2. Table 1, Superscript symbols #, *, ** and *** indicates significance levels at P ≤ 0.1, P ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.01 and P ≤ 0.001 respectively. But there is no #, * in the table, why no just give the p-value straight forward?
3. Figures and tables are all in the Materials and Methods and Results sections, but there are no Figures or tables in the Discussion section, which makes it feel like the discussion is not in-depth enough.
4. The conclusion should not be repeated with the abstract, and some suggestions about environmental impacts should be added, etc.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: Normally, there are no more than 6 keywords. In particular, some keywords do not appear in the abstract, such as soil moisture, crop yield.
Response 1: We agree to have six keywords as per your suggestion. We omitted crop yield. Thank you for your suggestion and keywords are on page number 1, line number 37 to 38 in the manuscript.
Comments 2: Table 1, Superscript symbols #, *, ** and *** indicates significance levels at P ≤ 0.1, P ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.01 and P ≤ 0.001 respectively. But there is no #, * in the table, why no just give the p-value straight forward?
Response 2: Agree that the symbol “# and *” does not appear in Table 1. We have deleted the related information about symbol “# and *” from the footnote of the Table 1. With regards to the P value, the symbols like ***, ** helps to understand visually more easily about the significance level while understanding about comparison study, hence P values are represented in form of asterisk symbols in the table on page number 8 and 9. Thank you for bringing this point.
Comments 3: Figures and tables are all in the Materials and Methods and Results sections, but there are no Figures or tables in the Discussion section, which makes it feel like the discussion is not in-depth enough.
Response 3: Yes we agree. In the discussion part Table 4 is presented with six different studies explaining on the shade effect of trees on the agroforestry alley crops for grain yield, on page number 12 and 13, line number 465 to 4468, 478 to 482 and 4491 to 501. Also the part in soil properties, earthworm count and soil moisture parameters are discussed in details in line number 391 to 392, 404 to 407, 415 to 425, 445 to 447 and 455 to 460 on page number 11 and 12. Thank you for bringing this point.
Comments 4: The conclusion should not be repeated with the abstract, and some suggestions about environmental impacts should be added, etc.
Response 4: Thank you for bringing this point and we agree on this. Hence the environmental impact is included in the conclusion section. This addition is included in line number 515 to 517, 520 to 522, 530 to 539 on page number 14 of the manuscript.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe proposed title, "Insights into the Beneficial Effects of an Agroforestry System on Soil Properties and Crop Yields Compared to Conventional Wheat Production System in Denmark," is clear but could be more precise about the scope of the study. Since the research is conducted at the University of Copenhagen's experimental farm, it would be better to reflect this in the title. A refined version such as "Insights into the Beneficial Effects of an Agroforestry System on Soil Properties and Crop Yields: A Case Study at the University of Copenhagen Experimental Farm, Denmark" highlights the localized nature of the study while maintaining clarity and relevance. This adjustment ensures the title aligns with the research's actual scope and location, providing readers with accurate context.
In the introduction section, the authors should expand on the significant benefits and advantages of determining soil physical-chemical properties using Near-Infrared (NIR) spectroscopy. While the methods section briefly references NIR spectroscopy, this technique warrants a more prominent discussion due to its relevance and transformative impact on soil analysis. NIR spectroscopy enables rapid, cost-effective, and non-destructive assessment of soil properties, offering a practical alternative to traditional, time-consuming, and resource-intensive chemical and physical laboratory analyses.
By leveraging NIR spectroscopy, researchers can predict key soil parameters such as organic matter content, cation exchange capacity, nitrogen levels, and moisture content with high accuracy. These predictions are underpinned by representative statistical models, such as partial least squares regression (PLSR) and principal component analysis (PCA), which extract meaningful correlations between soil spectra and their physical-chemical properties. Including such details would emphasize how this innovative approach reduces analytical costs and expedites data collection, making it a powerful tool for large-scale soil monitoring and management.
Furthermore, discussing the broader implications of NIR spectroscopy in soil science, such as its potential to facilitate precision agriculture and inform sustainable land-use practices, would enhance the introduction. This expanded discussion would set the stage for the study’s methodology and findings, underscoring the critical role of NIR spectroscopy in advancing soil health assessments and decision-making processes.
Page 2 – Lines 54 and 55. Mistakes with units (g m-3).
Page 3 – Line 58. The previous sentence already addresses how agroforestry practices enhance water retention in soils. Therefore, we kindly request the authors to avoid the excessive use of self-citations in this context.
Page 3 – Lines 92 and 93. We kindly request the authors to avoid the excessive use of self-citations, reference [31] and reference [28]. The authors mention the same experimental station established in 1995 and indicate georeferencing. There is no reason for these citations.
Page 2 – Line 79. It would be very important to identify the order and soil series with which they are working at the experimental station.
Page 3 – Line 111. Near-Infrared (NIR) spectroscopy is not the most reliable method for evaluating the physicochemical properties of soils, as the accuracy of its results heavily depends on the calibration and validation techniques employed. The most appropriate approach to accurately characterize the physicochemical properties of soils is through standardized and validated chemical analysis methods. This issue significantly undermines the quality of the study, which, despite being well-developed in its field experiments, falls short of demonstrating the rigor required in analytical chemistry. To address this limitation, the authors should provide a detailed explanation of the calibration and validation process for their NIR spectroscopy determinations. Specifically, they should clarify whether they used a known standard soil sample and conducted replicate analyses or relied on the standard reference disks typically supplied with the device. This information is crucial to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of their results. Additionally, the authors could justify using NIR spectroscopy by emphasizing its ease of use, rapid analysis capabilities, and cost-effectiveness.
Page 3, line 112: Please remove the website link within the parentheses (https://agrocares.com/). Instead, provide the name of the manufacturer along with the city and country where the equipment was sourced.
Page 4 – Line 138. Please remove the website link within the parentheses (Frequency Domain Reflectometry, https://delta-t.co.uk/) at six different). Instead, provide the name of the manufacturer along with the city and country where the equipment was sourced.
Page 7 – Table 1. How was the bulk density reported in this table determined? The authors should clearly define the method used to measure bulk density in the methodology section to ensure transparency and reproducibility.
Page 9 – Table 4. The correct place is in the experimental site at Taastrup, 311 Denmark.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: The proposed title, "Insights into the Beneficial Effects of an Agroforestry System on Soil Properties and Crop Yields Compared to Conventional Wheat Production System in Denmark," is clear but could be more precise about the scope of the study. Since the research is conducted at the University of Copenhagen's experimental farm, it would be better to reflect this in the title. A refined version such as "Insights into the Beneficial Effects of an Agroforestry System on Soil Properties and Crop Yields: A Case Study at the University of Copenhagen Experimental Farm, Denmark" highlights the localized nature of the study while maintaining clarity and relevance. This adjustment ensures the title aligns with the research's actual scope and location, providing readers with accurate context.
Response 1: As per the suggestion, the title is refromualted as “Insights into beneficial effects of agroforestry system on soil properties and crop yields: A Case Study from the Experimental Farm in University of Copenhagen, Denmark” on page number 1, line number 2 to 5 of the manuscript.
Comments 2: In the introduction section, the authors should expand on the significant benefits and advantages of determining soil physical-chemical properties using Near-Infrared (NIR) spectroscopy. While the methods section briefly references the use of NIR spectroscopy, this technique warrants a more prominent discussion due to its relevance and transformative impact on soil analysis. NIR spectroscopy enables rapid, cost-effective, and non-destructive assessment of soil properties, offering a practical alternative to traditional, time-consuming, and resource-intensive chemical and physical laboratory analyses.
By leveraging NIR spectroscopy, researchers can predict key soil parameters such as organic matter content, cation exchange capacity, nitrogen levels, and moisture content with high accuracy. These predictions are underpinned by representative statistical models, such as partial least squares regression (PLSR) and principal component analysis (PCA), which extract meaningful correlations between soil spectra and their physical-chemical properties. The inclusion of such details would emphasize how this innovative approach reduces analytical costs and expedites data collection, making it a powerful tool for large-scale soil monitoring and management.
Furthermore, discussing the broader implications of NIR spectroscopy in soil science, such as its potential to facilitate precision agriculture and inform sustainable land-use practices, would enhance the introduction. This expanded discussion would set the stage for the study’s methodology and findings, underscoring the critical role of NIR spectroscopy in advancing soil health assessments and decision-making processes.
Response 2: As per the suggestion, the introduction is updated with the following text “In our study, we have used NIR spectroscopy to analyze the soil samples. The Soil analysis with NIR spectroscopy enables rapid, cost-effective, and non-destructive assessment of soil properties, offering a practical alternative to traditional, time-consuming, and resource-intensive chemical and physical laboratory analyses. . NIR spectroscopy provides an alternative to wet laboratory protocol procedures with its robust, user-friendly operation and no soil is consumed during the analysis process. By leveraging NIR spectroscopy, researchers can predict key soil parameters such as organic matter content, cation exchange capacity, nitrogen levels, and moisture content with high accuracy. These predictions are underpinned by representative statistical models, such as partial least squares regression (PLSR) and principal component analysis (PCA), which extract meaningful correlations between soil spectra and their physical-chemical properties. This innovative approach reduces analytical costs and expedites data collection, making it a powerful tool for large-scale soil monitoring and management” on page 2, line number 69 to 81.
Comments 3: Page 2 – Lines 54 and 55. Mistakes with units (g m-3).
Response 3: Thank you for providing with the comment. We have corrected it with g cm-3 unit which was mentioned in the referred scientific article. Now the manuscript contains the corrected units. Page 2 and line number 60 in the manuscript.
Comments 4: Page 3 – Line 58. The previous sentence already addresses how agroforestry practices enhance water retention in soils. Therefore, we kindly request the authors to avoid the excessive use of self-citations in this context.
Response 4: As per the suggestion two references were removed from the introduction chapter, which were previously numbered as 16 and 18 and moved to discussion chapter. Thank you for bringing this point.
Comment 5: Page 3 – Lines 92 and 93. We kindly request the authors to avoid the excessive use of self-citations, reference [31] and reference [28]. The authors mention the same experimental station established in 1995 and indicate georeferencing. There is no reason for these citations.
Response 5: Both these references are as per suggestions mentioned in the entire manuscript only once as references number 32 and 29. We have avoided the repetition of self-citation in excess. Thank you for bringing this point.
Comment 6: Page 3 – Line 111. Near-Infrared (NIR) spectroscopy is not the most reliable method for evaluating the physicochemical properties of soils, as the accuracy of its results heavily depends on the calibration and validation techniques employed. The most appropriate approach to accurately characterize the physicochemical properties of soils is through standardized and validated chemical analysis methods. This issue significantly undermines the quality of the study, which, despite being well-developed in its field experiments, falls short of demonstrating the rigor required in analytical chemistry. To address this limitation, the authors should provide a detailed explanation of the calibration and validation process for their NIR spectroscopy determinations. Specifically, they should clarify whether they used a known standard soil sample and conducted replicate analyses or relied on the standard reference disks typically supplied with the device. This information is crucial to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of their results. Additionally, the authors could justify using NIR spectroscopy by emphasizing its ease of use, rapid analysis capabilities, and cost-effectiveness.
Response 6: We agree. We have now included the following description in the manuscript: “Agrocare is a portable handheld tool with near infrared (NIR) sensor, used to measure soil properties. portable handheld tool with near-infrared (NIR) sensor, used to measure soil properties. Agrocares was calibrated as per the guidelines from the selling company. This includes scanning the white side (background) and yellow side (standard sample) of the calibration cap provided by the company at the time of purchase. The equipment is connected to an app through bluetooth connect and the complete calibration and soil scanning steps can be seen in the app and confirmed in the equipment when analyzing. Each soil samples were scanned 3 times. Each sample scan took 30 seconds and the scan was carried out on fresh soil samples from the field.” This information is included in manuscript on Page 4, line number 142 to 151. Thank you for bringing this point.
Comment 7: Page 3, line 112: Please remove the website link within the parentheses (https://agrocares.com/). Instead, provide the name of the manufacturer along with the city and country where the equipment was sourced.
Response 7: We agree with your suggestion. We have made the following changes “(AgroCares is a trademark of Care4Agro B.V., 6709 PA Wageningen, The Netherlands)” and included them in the manuscript on page number 4, line number 141 to 142.
Comment 8: Page 4 – Line 138. Please remove the website link within the parentheses (Frequency Domain Reflectometry, https://delta-t.co.uk/) at six different). Instead, provide the name of the manufacturer along with the city and country where the equipment was sourced.
Response 8: Thank you for bringing this out. We agree with the comment and we made the following changes and included in the manuscript as follows: “(Delta-T Devices Ltd, Cambridge CB25 0EJ, United Kingdom)” on page number 5, line number 184 to 185.
Comment 9: Page 7 – Table 1. How was the bulk density reported in this table determined? The authors should clearly define the method used to measure bulk density in the methodology section to ensure transparency and reproducibility.
Response 9: “Bulk density was determined with a core sampler of 7.5 cm in height and 7.5 cm diameter (soil core of 331.339 cm3) in 3 replications per treatment. Fresh weight of the soil core was taken followed by oven drying at 80° degree temperature for 72 h and reweighed to deter-mine the moisture content.” is now included on page number 4, line number 151 to 154 in the manuscript. Thank you for bringing this point.
Comment 10: Page 9 – Table 4. The correct place is in the experimental site at Taastrup, 311 Denmark.
Response 10: Yes, we agree and modified it to “at Taastrup 2630, Denmark” for Table 3. This change is seen on page number 10, line number 380.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsaccept
Author Response
The reviewer agreed to the revisions and no comments to address. Thank you for accepting.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript ID: sustainability-3445092-peer-review-v2
Title: Insights into beneficial effects of agroforestry system on soil properties and crop yields compared to conventional wheat production system in Denmark
I have reviewed the revised manuscript titled “Insights into beneficial effects of agroforestry system on soil properties and crop yields compared to conventional wheat production system in Denmark”. The authors have carried out a comprehensive review and I am satisfied with their response to my comments. Worth noting is that:
1. Authors have enhanced background information in the abstract
2. Authors have added more current references to the original manuscript
3. Earthworm sampling criteria elaborated
4. Moisture sampling and analysis criteria well described
5. Authors have discussed the implication of their results in relation to other studies
6. Conclusions are supported by data.
Author Response
The reviewer agreed to the revisions and no comments to address. Thank you for accepting.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors must avoid the self-citations, in the V1 of the manuscript there were six self-citations, and the V2 of the manuscript still had the same six self-citations but now in a different order.
References 29 and 32 don't need to be kept in the V2 of the manuscript because the authors only mentioned the experimental site and conditions established in 1995, but these references don't support new findings of your study with early results. Please avoid the self-citations.
Author Response
Round 2 response to the comment
Thank you for the comment.
Comment: The authors must avoid the self-citations, in the V1 of the manuscript there were six self-citations, and the V2 of the manuscript still had the same six self-citations but now in a different order.
References 29 and 32 don't need to be kept in the V2 of the manuscript because the authors only mentioned the experimental site and conditions established in 1995, but these references don't support new findings of your study with early results. Please avoid the self-citations.
Response: As per the comment we have deleted the reference number 29 and 32 from the manuscript (line number 116 and 117 on page number 3)
