Agriculture-Livestock-Forestry Nexus: Pathways to Enhanced Incomes, Soil Health, Food Security and Climate Change Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Assessment

This review article explores the positive impacts of Agriculture-Livestock-Forestry (ALF) systems in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The topic is both timely and relevant. However, the paper lacks a clear methodology for how the literature was selected and analyzed, which limits its transparency and reproducibility. Additionally, the definition of ALF is not provided, and the structure of the findings is somewhat difficult to follow. The English is generally acceptable but would benefit from minor language polishing. The article is recommended for publication only after major revisions.

 

Abstract

The abstract is acceptable.

 

Introduction

• The introduction does not clearly state the objectives of the study, although these are mentioned in the abstract.
• It is unusual that the only figure and table appear in this section; these would be more appropriately placed within the results or findings sections.
• Figure 1 is difficult to read due to unclear SDG labeling.
• A comprehensive definition of ALF is missing. The term "agroforestry" is not mentioned at all in the introduction, raising the question: Is ALF a form of agroforestry? What distinguishes the two? Relevant agroforestry literature should be acknowledged.

 

Methods

• This section is entirely missing.
• The review should include detailed information about search strategies, databases consulted, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and methods for data extraction and synthesis to enhance the study’s credibility and reproducibility.

 

Results (Chapters 2–6)

• Visual aids such as tables or graphs would significantly enhance clarity.
• Sections 2, 3, and 4 omit any mention of agroforestry, which is concerning given the topic.
• Section 5, which discusses climate change mitigation, would benefit from a comprehensive table comparing carbon sequestration and storage capacities of various ALF systems.

 

Discussion

• This critical section is missing and should be added to contextualize the findings, address limitations, and connect the study to broader literature.

 

Conclusions

• The conclusions section is satisfactory

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally acceptable but would benefit from minor language polishing. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Food security is very important for the development of countries and their regions. It is also relevant for sub-Saharan Africa. Food security can be improved by a number of measures in three main fields: ecology, economy, and social sphere. environmental stability can be achieved by the implementation of a balanced approach to the human economic activities to include crop farming, livestock farming, and environment protection. The economic effectiveness can be achieved by a strategy, which can provide the balance between profit and nature conservation considering the peculiarities of the region. It is very important to ensure the social justice and access to food at the implementation of such approaches.

The search for potential pathways Agriculture-live-stock-forestry nexus can enhance incomes, food security and climate change mitigation in sub-Saharan Africa is worth mentioning.

The study is a complete research, theme of the study is relevant to the Journal research line. Tables and figures are consistent and understandable. Literature review complies with the research.

The study could further benefit if the authors had added a map of the territory under examination.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments Manuscript-ID earth-3670564 Title Agriculture-livestock-forestry nexus: pathways to enhanced incomes, soil health, food security and climate change mitigation in sub-Saharan Africa
Dear Reviewer,   Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate the comments you gave. We have carried out a comprehensive revision of the manuscript as suggested and believe the quality has been enhanced. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file.
Comments 1: Food security is very important for the development of countries and their regions. It is also relevant for sub-Saharan Africa. Food security can be improved by a number of measures in three main fields: ecology, economy, and social sphere. environmental stability can be achieved by the implementation of a balanced approach to the human economic activities to include crop farming, livestock farming, and environment protection. The economic effectiveness can be achieved by a strategy, which can provide the balance between profit and nature conservation considering the peculiarities of the region. It is very important to ensure the social justice and access to food at the implementation of such approaches. The search for potential pathways Agriculture-live-stock-forestry nexus can enhance incomes, food security and climate change mitigation in sub-Saharan Africa is worth mentioning. The study is a complete research, theme of the study is relevant to the Journal research line. Tables and figures are consistent and understandable. Literature review complies with the research. Response 1: We have revised the manuscript, taking care of your comments.   Comments 2: The study could further benefit if the authors had added a map of the territory under examination. Response 2: We have revised the manuscript and have added a map of the study territory (Figure 3) as you suggested.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The theme proposed in the manuscript is of interest and possibly more so for the Earth reader. The case of Sub-Saharan Africa reveals the food dynamics within the framework of a potential population increase and how the synergy of different productive sectors (agricultural, livestock, and forestry) can provide a response to this challenge. This perspective, although not novel, is important because it creates the opportunity to design response strategies, and their replication in other regions at a global level could represent a difference for vulnerable populations. However, the manuscript must improve in several aspects; I will provide some recommendations below:

The "Introduction" section is poor and insufficient. I would recommend that the authors begin with the research objective to provide clarity and guidance to readers. Currently, the topic addressed by the authors is recurrent in the scientific literature; however, updated citations are few. I recommend conducting an updated search guided by a connecting thread that highlights the importance and implications of the challenge described above.

The manuscript presents an interesting proposal but suffers from certain deficiencies that must be addressed to strengthen its academic quality. First, it is essential to incorporate a section that clearly and precisely details the design and implementation of the literature review, specifying the categories and criteria employed in the process. This addition would not only provide transparency but would also facilitate understanding of the methodology used. Likewise, given that the manuscript constitutes a serious review, it would be highly recommended to validate the essential elements or variables of the ALF strategy through the use of statistical analyses. This approach would not only reinforce the robustness of the findings but would also facilitate the replication of the strategy in other regions, increasing its relevance and applicability. On the other hand, the inclusion of a "Results Discussion" section is essential. This section would allow direct exploration of the implications and scope of the phenomenon studied in the region of interest, as well as analysis of possible contradictions derived from the findings in relation to the cited references. By addressing these recommendations, the authors could transform the manuscript into a more solid work, with elevated academic rigor and a greater contribution to the field of study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines agriculture-livestock-forestry systems as solutions for sub-Saharan Africa's agricultural challenges. The authors argue that integrating crops, livestock, and trees can simultaneously address food security, income generation, soil health, and climate mitigation. While the topic is relevant and the comprehensive scope is commendable, the paper suffers from insufficient critical analysis and lacks practical implementation guidance.

1. The introduction mentions population projections and dietary shifts but never clearly states what new knowledge this review contributes. Previous reviews have covered integrated farming extensively - what gap is being filled?
2. Table 1 contains vague explanations. The "Removing atmospheric CO2" section is particularly unclear - what does "Enhanced biodiversity prevents the decoupling of carbon cycling" actually mean?
3. Only half a page is dedicated to greenhouse gas emissions despite this being central to climate mitigation claims. Readers need quantitative comparisons between ALF and conventional systems.
4. Section 3's economic analysis relies too heavily on cherry-picked success stories. The brief mention of lower understory crop yields (lines 83-85) hints at trade-offs that deserve thorough examination.
5. Sweeping claims about soil health improvements appear without specifying measurement methods or providing concrete data ranges for key soil parameters.
6. Technical terms like "taungya farming" and "agrosilvopastoral systems" appear without definition. Academic writing should be accessible to broader audiences.
7. The carbon sequestration discussion presents a wide range (0.2-0.8 Mg C ha−1 annually) without explaining this variation. What system factors drive these differences?
8. The literature synthesis lacks critical evaluation. When studies show conflicting results, analysis of underlying reasons is needed rather than simply citing both.
9. Implementation challenges receive minimal attention. Labor requirements, technical knowledge needs, and potential system conflicts are glossed over entirely.
10. The conclusion reads like promotional material rather than scientific assessment. Please revise and improve. Caveats, limitations, and realistic barriers to adoption are notably absent from the final discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the study has been substantially improved, with several entirely new sections added. It is now suitable for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comments.