Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

What other plant species were considered for agroforestry? Why did you choose this type?

There is no data on the root system, which is an important organ for ensuring the vital activity of trees.

To increase the accuracy of the assessment in allometric studies, it is necessary to add the length of the crown, the density and age of trees, since the volume of the trunk and the total phytomass are the most inert indicators and according to them, tree species differ the least among themselves in terms of parameter values in the equations.

With the existing differences in the nature of the growth of trees, it is advisable to assess the effectiveness of their use of environmental resources by the annual growth of stem wood.

In the future, I would like to see the effect of the level of the growth site of Theobroma cacao and Ricinodendron heudelotii on energy storage in the biomass of woody plants.

It is necessary to simplify the numbering in the Materials and Methods section.

The list of references should be brought in line with the requirements of the journal.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I find that the study presents a thorough analysis of an important but till now weekly documented aspect of agroforestry. The manuscript is carefully edited, the methods are appropriate and well described.

Please find some minor suggestions below.

 

Line 18: please specify carbon stock: biomass or soil... Eg biomass and its carbon stock?

Line 31: Maybe could be also specified. I think cash crop is not an anthropogenic pressure but the plantation of them in forests is.

Line 75: please define SAF abbreviation at the first mention

Line 79: the study can not improve productivity. It can provide information to improving productivity

Line 89: was this identification of importance and usage based on own existing data or own survey? Later I found the information, but I would suggest to mention it here, because the method of the survey is not detailed (not necessary to detail, just remove it to the description of the study site)

Line 93-94: for international readers a climate chart would help to imagine the weather conditions (eg https://climatecharts.net/). The data of the last few years are available and and enough for visualization.

A simple map of the localities would be also helpful.

Line 137: the carbon stock of a plant in an ecsystem, or the biomass of the ecosystem (not including soil). Please check and specify the term carbon stock at all mentions.

Line 254: please use the same form of abbreviations (lowercase letters) as they appear on the figures

Fig 2: please use a command for avoiding overlaps of the text. Maybe the number of appearing text on the fig should be decreased (by importance eg)

Fig 3: please make the text readable on the vertical axis and add a title to the axis

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This review concerns the article entitled "Analysis of the Ricinodendron heudelotii x Theobroma cacao L. interaction in traditional agroforestry systems in Côte d’Ivoire" in Horticulturae (ISSN 2311-7524). 

The article deals with an interesting topic. According to the information at his disposal, the issue is also very relevant to the global demand for cocoa and the need for the survival of the species. 

If I were the authors of the paper, I would start the abstract with the aim of the paper and then briefly present the research that was carried out and the relevant results. The literature review, in my opinion, lacks literature information on how forest and cacao cultivation areas have changed over the last 20 years, for example. Applying the cacao crop changes proposed by the authors with similar crops in other areas of the world. And the impact this has had on the environment. The standard deviation of the measurements is missing from the tables. I would suggest that the conclusions presented by the authors should be more generalised (bulleted). It is not necessary to include comments in the conclusions, whose place is in the discussion of the results.  

Figures 2 and 3 are illegible and I would suggest improving them to make them easier to read. Table 6 is not discussed in the text of the paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx