Conceptualizing Multiple Stressors and Their Consequences in Agroforestry Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: It is adequate for the content, informative, concise, and clear.
Abstract: It is comprehensive by itself. All the important and essential information of the article is included.
Authors need to cite some recent articles about medicinal plants and compare their study with others as well. Some of suggested articles need to cite are 10.3389/fgene.2021.635043; 10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.01.042; 10.3390/ijms22179175 and 10.1016/j.pmpp.2021.101639
Structure and length: The overall structure of the article is well organized and well balanced. The article is written with the minimum length necessary for all relevant information.
Logic: The article is written clearly and correctly. It is logically consistent.
Figures and tables: They are essential and clearly presented.
English: English used in the article should be improved. There are some typographic and grammatical errors.
Scientific quality rating: The article is novel and original. The article contains material that is new or adds significantly to knowledge already published.
Importance and impact: The presented results are of significant importance and impact to advancement in the relevant field of research.
References: Appropriate and adequate references to related works are covered sufficiently in the list. Incorporate some latest references as suggested above. The article should become acceptable after minor revisions of English / grammatical mistakes.
Author Response
First, we would like to thank your work of reading through the manuscript and giving us suggestions to improve the quality of the publication. Our research team has carefully read through your recommendations and upon our best knowledge we have made the corrections. Our answers are listed below.
Reviewer 1
Authors need to cite some recent articles about medicinal plants and compare their study with others as well. Some of suggested articles need to cite are 10.3389/fgene.2021.635043; 10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.01.042; 10.3390/ijms22179175 and 10.1016/j.pmpp.2021.101639
Thank you for your suggestions, we have included a relevant study suggested into the manuscript.
English: English used in the article should be improved. There are some typographic and grammatical errors.
Thank you for the comment, we have carefully checked through the text and corrected the grammatical mistakes.
Reviewer 2 Report
The present manuscript entitled "Conceptualizing Multiple Stress and Their Consequences in 2 Agroforestry Systems" has reviewed the consequences of various stresses on agroforestry systems. The manuscript doesn't critically review the effects but present a very general picture. The author should add more details of relevant stresses their mechanism of influence on agroforestry systems. Tables regarding consequences of different stresses on forest and field crop species should be added. More interesting and mechanistic figures should also be included. The knowledge gap and future research directions should be included
Author Response
First, we would like to thank your work of reading through the manuscript and giving us suggestions to improve the quality of the publication. Our research team has carefully read through your recommendations and upon our best knowledge we have made the corrections. Our answers are listed below.
Reviewer 2
The author should add more details of relevant stresses their mechanism of influence on agroforestry systems.
Thank you for the suggestion, we have included 23 new studies into the manuscript regarding stress responses of crop plants in agroforestry systems. We also added several paragraphs to different subsections of the text.
Tables regarding consequences of different stresses on forest and field crop species should be added.
We created a table (see Table 1) summarizing the outcomes of 27 recent comparative studies dealing with agroforestry vs. conventional agricultural systems, highlighting the crop/tree species involved.
More interesting and mechanistic figures should also be included.
Thank you for the suggestion, we updated Figure 1. according to the suggestions by enriching it with relevant details.
The knowledge gap and future research directions should be included.
We agree with this suggestion as well, for this we added two paragraphs to the manuscript, see line 403-438.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript is much improved and may be accepted for publication
