Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for such an interesting research. However, I have some  reservations, such as:

1. Lines 75-76: ecosystem services include "soil water infiltration [10], erosion control". I think that it isn't right to mention all these things by using "comma".

2. Line 600: what do you mean here by using "non-renewable resources"?

3. The tecnich is interesting and eco friendly. However, can we assume that the 3 years observed positive results will continue? Or maybe we can get the loss of biodiversity in silvopastoral systems because of more sustainable guinea grass, that had been planted, and which will replace more vulnerable types of flora, and also because of mechanical disturbance from cattle hooves...

Best regards,

the reviewer

Author Response

Dear reviewer
We are very grateful for your valuable comment and suggestion, which served to improve the quality of the manuscript. I attach a letter with our answers

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents an important problem of grazing animals in the silvopastoral system. According to the literature data and the results of the presented research, grazing animals in this system brings not only economic but also ecosystem benefits. It allows you to limit deforestation to land for grazing.

Such research is important. At the same time, the presented experiment is not too clearly described in the methodological part and in the description of weather conditions, which should be thoroughly presented for a good interpretation of the results. That is why the manuscript contains comments and inquiries to the Authors.

The content that is to be explained is marked in color and presented what is problematic and requires explanation, clearer description or supplementation.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer
We are very grateful for your valuable comment and suggestion, which served to improve the quality of the manuscript. I attach a letter with our answers

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

To the Authors,

The corrections in the work were accepted. There are light technical comments about the work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf