Contribution of European Agroforestry Systems to Climate Change Mitigation: Current and Future Land Use Scenarios

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been prepared in a reliable manner, with a clearly presented and well-developed research section. I would only suggest introducing a few improvements:

- Enhancing the graphic quality of some figures (e.g., on pages 4 and 8) to increase their clarity and visual value.

- Slightly expanding the introduction, particularly the literature review, in order to better situate the study within the context of previous research.

I would like to emphasize, however, that even without these revisions, the article is suitable for publication. Implementing the suggested improvements would further enhance its overall quality and scientific value.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief summary

The Authors aim to estimate net emissions and removals from silvopastoral and silvoarable systems (Agroforestry systems) by quantifying their areas across the EU27, the UK, and Switzerland, utilising the Land-Use-based Integrated Sustainability Assessment land cover map and Copernicus high-resolution layers. The study want to quantify the distribution of the two main AF systems across Europe (i.e. Silvopastoral and Silvoarable) and its carbon sequestration contribution by estimating the potential net carbon removals and emissions. Three different estimations of carbon removals and emissions scenarios of AF introduction in target areas are considered. The study shows that trees in silvopastoral systems have significant removal rates across all regions: silvopastoral systems show higher carbon storage potential in the Continental bioregion, while silvoarable systems are more effective in the Atlantic bioregion. The analysis demonstrates that agroforestry’s net climate benefit is influenced not only by the extent of area under these systems but also by tree species, age, density, and management practices. Scenario analyses suggest that expanding agroforestry to 10%, 584 20%, or 30% of suitable areas could dramatically increase carbon removals. Agroforestry can be considered as a valid nature based solution to reach climate targets, potentially sequestering up to 200–400 Mt CO₂eq annually by 2030.

General comments

The manuscript is clear, relevant to the field of agroforestry sudies and presented in a clear and well-structured manner. The manuscript is scientifically sound and the research questions are appropriate. Cited references mostly are recent publications and they do not include to many self-citations. All the sections are well organized and developped Figures/tables/images/schemes are appropriate and easy to interpret, while data are rigorous. Discussion and conclusions are consistent and also show limitations of the study, which is always positive. Indeed, the study clearly demonstrates that agroforestry is a very effective nature based solution to remove carbon emission across EU27, UK and CH bioregion, contibuting to reach climate goals and enhancing EU's land use and land use change, but adequate policies and funds are necessary, as well as improved spatial data model and monitoring. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is essential to emphasize the scientific novelty of the article, since a large part of the data used has already been analyzed in other studies. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly indicate in what ways the proposed research is more precise and superior.

Suggestion: Improve the quality of Figure 2, as the text is difficult to read.

In the Methods section, more detail is needed. At present, the section is very abstract, and it is difficult for the reader to understand what research and analytical methods were actually applied.

The article is extensive, which is related to the particularly broad scope of the study and the large dataset covering many countries. However, I would not consider this entirely positive, as in such cases the research tends to lose detail, while the conditions, even within countries assigned to the same region, may be very different and highly individual.

I would also like to highlight that when discussing Agroforestry Systems in the context of Climate Change Mitigation, there is a very close link to economic aspects, which may lead to both positive and negative final outcomes. This important point is not emphasized in the article, even though it could significantly affect the final conclusions.

Lines 200: no specific literature source is indicated for the data used.

Lines 223–224. A specific literature source (or sources) should be provided here.

Section 3.3.1: Are CO₂ emissions estimated for 2018. I understand that data collection is a difficult task, but over the span of seven years significant changes could have occurred, which might affect the results. Should this not at least be discussed theoretically?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript reports an exercise in measuring carbon sequestration (emissions and removals) from agroforestry (AF) systems across the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK) and Switzerland. It recognises two basic AF systems: silvopastoral and silvoarable, quantifies their area using mapping and remote sensing, and then estimates removals and emissions of CO₂. It then assesses the potential expansion of these AF systems and therefore the potential impacts on emissions and removals.

 

Given the emphasis on emissions reduction targets and tree planting targets across Europe, this is a timely exercise and one well worth reporting in this manuscript

 

I have some specific queries:

 

Keywords        shouldn’t ‘carbon sequestration’ be included here and not just GHG?

 

Line 117          “for other AF systems” – What are they? Are they important?

 

In all the Figures the shading is indistinct. It is extremely hard to differentiate between the shading for the Atlantic, Continental and Mediterranean. Can bolder colours be used?

 

Line 251          “particularly in countries like Spain, Portugal, and Italy” – no need to say ‘like’ – just refer to these specific countries.

 

Line 307          ditto.

 

Line 416          ditto.

 

My more general concerns relate to the need for the authors to emphasise that a large number of assumptions are applied when making their various calculations. I am no expert on these calculations, but it strikes me that in this manuscript, some of the assumptions are heroic, especially when it comes to extending the area under agro-forestry systems. There may be n identified potential but how is this to be realised without substantial diversion of funds to farmers to pay for it? Moreover, given the ever-expanding population numbers, isn’t food production from this land (rather than growing trees) just as important? I appreciate that the authors have introduced caveats into their discussion but these need to be highlighted. For example, is tree cover density as low as 1% really enough to start classifying the landscape as silvo-? Especially when it comes to the silvo-arable it seems to me that the area is likely to be over-estimated, but here I am writing essentially as a lay person.

 

Minor corrections

 

Line 35            even faster than anticipated, [1]

Line 44            what is AFOLU?

Line 70            objectives in the form of strategic plans

Line 110          to distinguish its share

Line 347          silvopastoral areas, where they contribute

Line 360          e.g., Estonia

Line 365          Data are ordered

Line 384          to reducing its total

Line 480          a category comparable with silvoarable

Line 577          the extent of the area under

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx