Plant Diversity and Conservation Role of Three Indigenous Agroforestry Systems of Southeastern Rift-Valley Landscapes, Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction:

Please remove unnecessary text from introduction part (line 38-44, Line 63-85

And create a summarized table comprising list of native and non-native flora of the study area (of earlier reports) showing its relation to other regions. 

 

Methodology:

Section 2.1.1 (Short this section and no need to add Fig No 2-4), hence suggested to remove from the manuscript.

section 2.3.1 and section 2.3.2 ( There are some repetition of methods used in data analysis, hence remove all repeated methods used e.g., LSD test).

 

Results and Discussion:

This section also needed to be squeezed and suggested to remove the Figure (No. 8-10) describing Relationship between diameter at breast height (DBH), altitude etc should be merged (to one table describing their values).

Dat of Woody and Non-woody plants for each three sites should be reflected in one graph showing a comparison of AF System of the study area.

The specie name of Endemic plant should be reflected in Abstract.

Thanks

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please avoid unnecessary text from Introduction and the whole manuscript length should be shortened, so that readers could focus on key findings.

Author Response

Our feedback to the given comments and suggestion

First, we would like to thank for the reviewer for his/her constructive comments and suggestions.

Introduction part

• The text in the line 38-44 and line 63-85 is removed as the reviewer suggested
• Summarized table comprising list of native and non-native flora of the study area (of earlier reports) is created as the reviewer suggested

Methodology part:

• Figures 2-4 are removed as the reviewer suggested
• The repetition some sentences were removed as the reviewer suggested

Results and Discussion part

• The suggestion given by the reviewer to remove figures from 8-10 were not accepted by us. Because, the figures are dealing with different components of the agroforestry (Enset, woody species and mixture of Enset and woody). If we merge them to one table the message will not be delivered clearly. So, we decided to keep it as it is.
• Data of Woody and Non-woody plants for each three sites is reflected in one graph as the reviewer suggested (Figure 3 in the revised manuscript)
• The species name of Endemic plant is reflected in Abstract as the reviewer suggested.

In general, we tried to correct the manuscript point by point according to all the comments and suggestions given by the reviewer. The whole text of the manuscript is well edited and shortened. However, due to the addition of another table (suggested by the reviewer, table 1) the number of pages are increased.

Best regards!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents results of the comparative study on plant species diversity, sturcture and composition of three agro-forestry systems in Ethiopia, and their contribution to biodiversity conservation. The extensive field work in data collecting has been done, and an appropriate statistical methofd were used fo data analyses and interpretation. 

The comments and suggestions regarding the content of submitted paper are as it follows:
Row 6: correct Depart to Department
Row 83-85: delete numbering (1) (2) (3) (4)
Row 99: words: subsp., (Thunb.), (Forssk.), Schweinf. - not in italic
Row 136-137 delete: longitude, latitude
Row 140: over a period of nine years - specify the period from year to year
Row 143-147, sentence about climate description; change "which makes up 37% of the total area" to "which is 37% of the total area",  also: "subtropical climate in 62% and 1% of the total area with hot tropical climate"
Row 157-158: Description of Figure 1. delete: "whic liies between... N latitude," because You already provide coordinates in text.
Row 160: Title of subchapter 2.1.1 change to: "Indigenouos agroforestry systems as focus of the study
Row 196-197: after citing reference No. 47, delete full stop and add comma, then delete "The majority of export revenue comes from coffe"
Row 201: after "woody species" add ", such as", and delete sign (
Row 221: Ficus Vasta, change to "Ficus vasta"
Row- 222: Musa spp. - part spp. schould not italicized
Row 381: You stated "the lowest number was recorded in eset based AF system (15 species)", but when checking the tables in Appendix 2, the same number of 15 species were recorded for C-E AF system, and You did not pointed it out in text.
Row 441, 443, 476:  (Hochst,) Baker - not in italic, these are the names of authors
Row 489-490: "var." "(Hochst.) Baill - not in italis; "under the last concern by IUCN Red Lists..." change to "under the leact concern threaten category by IUCN Red Lists..."
Row 504: "sp." "and" - not in italic; delete "Forssk"
Row 508: "Out of 31 plant species the four were the most frequent..." change to: "Out of 31 plant species recorded on sample plots, the four were the most frequent..."
Row 512: "reported that C. arabica, C, africana..." is amboguous and reader can conclude that you mentioned species: Coffea arabica, Coffea africana. But you are referring to Coffea arabica and Cordia africana. In this situation You can't use the identical genus abbreviation.
Row 526: Figure 6, in graph: suggestion is to remove author names, just scientific name with genus and species name
Row 527: Description of Figure 6., delete ", south eastern rift-valley landscapes, Ethiopia"
Row 533-537: the author names NOT IN ITALIC, please correct it here and at other places in text of the manuscript
Row 546: Table 1, all authors name in scientific names of the plant species - NOT IN ITALIC. Provide correct authorship for Ensete ventricosum to "(Welw.) Cheesman; for species: "Croton macrostachyus", and "Musa acuminata" the author is missing. It is not a Reviewer's task to check validity of the scientific names, there are strict rules in the Botanical Code of Nomenclature.
Row 546: Table 1,  row 1: "Enset based AF system" change to "Enset based", than in row 2: "C-E based AF system" change to "Coffee-Enset based", and in row 3, "C-Ft.E based AF system" change to "Coffee-Fruit Trees-Enset based".
The legend and description of abbreviation below the table is not needed.
Row 604-608: You used abbreviated names "C. arabica, C. africana, C. macrostachyus", but reader can not identify which genus are related, maybe all three species belongs to Coffea genus. For this reason you must use full scientific names in order to avoid misinterpretation.
Row 780-781: The results can't be repated in Conclusion.
Appendix 1., 2., 3., 4.: In all tables with list of plant species there are lot of mistakes and missing parts in the sceintific names of the plants. The authors names are written in ITALIC, but only genus and species names must be written in italic. For some species authors are missing, e.g. Carica papaya; Croton macrostachya,... in Appendix 1.  In Appendix 1., out of the total 52 plant taxa at species level, for only 22 species (42%) the author provide correct scientific names with genus, species names and with authorship. In the plant sciences, botany and floristic, the unified and correctly written scientific names should be used always.
Chapter: References, check the use of journal abbreviation according to Journal Instructions for Authors. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is of good quality.

Author Response

Our feedback to the given comments and suggestion

First, we would like to thank for the reviewer for his/her constructive comments and suggestions.

General comments

• The wording, phrasing, italics of words, punctuation and other few mistakes in the introduction, results, discussion and appendices part is corrected carefully as the reviewer suggested
• The scientific names with genus and the authorship of the species, abbreviation of species are corrected as the reviewer suggested
• Some repeated sentences in the conclusion part are corrected and removed.
• The abbreviation of journal names is adapted and corrected as the reviewer suggested

In general, we tried to correct the manuscript point by point according to all the comments and suggestions given by the reviewer. The whole text of the manuscript is well edited and corrected carefully.

Best regards!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Agroforestry (AF) systems are among the important tools to tackle with species and habitat conservation in agricultural landscapes. The focus of the present study is on species diversity, structure, and composition of three AF systems in south eastern Rift–valley in Ethiopia. The study envolves 60 farms (20 farms per each AF system under study). A set of contemporary methods for field research and statistical analyses have been employed. The results are compared with such received in previous studies in other parts of Ethiopia and are discussed as a reliable tool for decision making in favour of biodiversity preservation and sustainable agriculture in Africa – a continent stricken by poverty and severely hit by on-going climate change, deforestation and desertification.

 

General concept comments

The concept of the manuscript is clear and well shaped. The paper is relevant for the scope of the journal and its structure is appropriate. Although the referenced amount to over 90 titles they are slightly outdated, mostly from the previous 2 decades (the newest one from 2019). Bearing in mind the importance of the topic I would doubt that there are no more recent papers relevant to the topic of the manuscript.

The subject of the study are three AF systems indigenous to Ethiopia to which a set of contemporary statistical analyses is applied. The manuscript is scientifically sound and the experimental design is appropriate to test the hypothesis, although the latter is not unique, but rather serves for accumulation of data on a topic that has been tested in other parts of Ethiopia as well. The statystics is propererly performed and the conclusions are reasonable

The Figures and tables are well presented and clear.

The merit of the research is that it enlightens the dynamics of species diversity in three indigenous AF systems in an African country where the problem of overexploitation of land is a serious problem. The knowledge about the role of AF systems to preserve and maintain wild biodiversity is substantial of reconciliation of the needs of agriculture and plant diversity.

The manuscript will benefit for a thorough proof reading by a native speaker.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Revision of the language will improve the quality, although the paper is well understandable in its present state.

Author Response

Our feedback to the given comments and suggestion

First, we would like to thank for the reviewer for his/her constructive comments and suggestions. The comment given by the reviewer regarding the whole content of the manuscript is very positive and encouraging.

General comments

• The references are updated as the reviewer suggested. However, few references are still not changed. Because these old references are for authors who developed equations and sources which do not have updated study but very relevant ones.
• Proper editing and a thorough proof reading was done on the manuscript to improve the language as the reviewer suggested

In general, we tried to correct the manuscript point by point according to all the comments and suggestions given by the reviewer.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors submitted revised manuscript which is significantly improved in the contents and presentation of the results. It is evident that authors considered the reviewer's recommendations and suggestions seriously.
Some minor corrections that are needed:
Row 724: P. Africana correct: P. africana
Row 739, 741: C. Africana correct: C. africana
Fig. 4., Ficus sus Forssk., delete: Forssk.
Table 2: Ensete ventricosum (Welw. Cheesman) correct: Ensete ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is good, but it is recommended to check in the publishing procedure.

Author Response

Our feedback to the given comments and suggestion

Thank you again for constructive and valuable comments.

General comments

• The species scientific name in the row/line 489 is corrected as the reviewer suggested. It is also highlighted in the manuscript.
• The species scientific name in the row/line 497 is corrected as the reviewer suggested. It is also highlighted in the manuscript.
• The author’s name for Ficus Sur under figure 4 is deleted as the reviewer suggested.
• The author’s name for Ensete ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman under table 2 is edited as the reviewer suggested. It is also highlighted in the manuscript.
• The species scientific name in the row/line 590 is corrected as the reviewer suggested. It is also highlighted in the manuscript.
• The species scientific name for Prunus africana under the Appendix 2 and Appendix 4 is corrected as the reviewer suggested. It is also highlighted in the manuscript.
• Our manuscript undergoes English revision and now improved significantly.

In general, we tried to correct the manuscript point by point again according to the comments and suggestions given by the reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think that the manuscript has been significantly improved and it can be suggested for publishing.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text needs revision of the language.

Author Response

Our feedback to the given comments and suggestion

Thank you again for constructive and valuable comments.

General comments

• The language of the whole manuscript is revised and modified as suggested by the reviewer. All the changes (starting from the Abstract till the Appendices) also highlighted in the manuscript.

In general, our manuscript undergoes English revision and now improved significantly.