Expert-Based Assessment of the Potential of Agroforestry Systems in Plain Regions across Bihor County, Western Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have read the manuscript “Expert-Based Assessment of the Potential of Agroforestry Systems in plain regions across Bihor County” several times, and, in my opinion, the paper can be interesting for the scientific community. The results are interesting and deserve to be published. However, I have some recommendations, which in my opinion will help the reader to understand better the new information brought by the paper. I have to recommend a minor revision of the manuscript.

General Comment:

A very interesting work that aimed to establish the most important agroforestry systems that could be implemented in plain regions of Bihor County, representing a replicable model in similar environmental conditions, important in agroforestry management decisions. The weakness of the article is, in my opinion, its practical applicability on a large scale. In the future, we must be very skilled in reconciling people's need for food with the response to global warming. I don't think is indicated the use of some species, such as black locust, which has a huge capacity for reproduction by root-shoots, and which will quickly invade the area reserved for agricultural crops (wheat and maize). But, if we consider the work as a pioneering one in the field, I consider that it has a high scientific soundness.

Specific comments:

Title:

I recommend adding ‘, Romania’, at the end of the title. Also, to capitalize each word (Plain Regions Across).

Keywords:

Here it is not advisable to use abbreviations or to repeat words from the title.

1. Introduction

- Line 117: I recommend you to replace ‘with the lowest share in plain regions, with about 6.5%’ by ‘with the lowest presence in plain regions, of about 6.5%’.

2. Materials and methods

- Line 141: Tur River?

- Lines 166-167: change ‘50m x 200m’ with ’50 x 200 m’.

- Line 188: change ‘m2’ with ’m²’.

- Line 210: only here you used ‘corn’.

3. Results and Discussion

- Line 296: change ‘reclamation’.

References

- You must follow the instructions (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions) accurately, including abbreviated journal names, semicolons between authors, the period between the last author and the title of the article, the Latin name of the species in italic, and others (e.g.: ref. 8, 24, 67, 71, 76, 77, 83, 91, 93, etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

GENERAL COMMENTS

This study addresses the main agroforestry systems that could be introduced in plain regions such as Bihor County (Romania), following the Community Agricultural Policy (CAP) guidelines, a topic that meets the purposes of "Sustainability" Journal.

With this objective, the authors carried out an interesting applied research based on the increasing attention on the benefits that both farmers and the environment can receive from agroforestry systems. The research is based on the main agroforestry systems that can be sustained by these types of regions. After selecting data from the most suitable woody and cereal species, including stakeholder interaction and expert participation, the authors systematically evaluated both qualitative and quantitative criteria and alternatives in a multi-criteria analysis (MCA). The used model was based on the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Thus, they obtained a ranking of the best combinations.

The study itself seems technically correct, with an important associated bibliography, the results have been clearly exposed and the paper is written sufficient rightness. Because the conclusions obtained should be made known to the scientific community, I do recommend the publication of this paper in “Sustainability”.

However, the authors should reconsider several points and must correct several mistakes.

 

MAIN CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS

1-A fundamental component not considered is the climate of the region, and this point would be consistent with the exposed ecological demands for the selected species (Section 3, specially Ls256-350), and threats (specially droughts (Ls235-237, Ls260-263, L277, L282, L330, L341) and erosion (L603, L605, L608)). This perception is really accompanied by a series of references that include these threats in the title of each reference (see this section), although those referred on erosion does not have a specific treatment in the text. Therefore, it would be interesting to give in this section an overview of the weather, defining both the average and extreme values of some weather variables, and fill in the gaps pointed out in the text.

Similarly, I miss a few words about erosivity of rains, depending on the type of relief: this can condition successfully carrying out the results obtained in fact.

2-L238, point 8. This point appears unfinished: perhaps an oversight? Please, specify what the authors understand by this concept, as indicated before.

3-I suggest writing paragraph Ls239-250 as a new subsection (for instance 2.3. Modeled scenarios). Also, you could include some explanatory insights in this new section (for instance, why the authors did not use the Delphi method, because this method it would be useful in the present case), etc. You can also give in this new subsection a vision of the main drawbacks that the application of the proposed method may have.

4-I think there may be a reason for confusion:

The authors have proposed in Ls202-238 eight criteria (1, ... 8) to select the most suitable agroforestry system in this region, and they have assessed each one also with eight digits (1, ... 8). Consequently, in Table 3 appear similar numbers for two different concepts, which is confusing for the reader: is there any solution?

 

5-Ls357-377: In these lines the authors state what were the best choice and the second option in terms of agroforestry systems for each scenario, but the reasons for this assessment remain obscure. Please, explain better: it is very easy to indicate in the caption of both figures the meaning of the right column, which are the key of this figures.

6-In the Introduction (and References) sections, the authors expose some CAP regulations and some of its ups and downs. I suggest briefly clarifying from this point of view whether this regulation is currently unclear, deficient, could be improved ... and your reasons for this assessment.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

I suggest that the expression linked to the “Community Agricultural Policy” should be revised throughout the text.

 

Title

Ok.

 

Abstract

L28. The authors should specify the software package used.

 

1-Introduction

Ls54-63. To get a better understanding of your text by a wide range of readers, I suggest you better explain what "Pillar I, II" means.

Ls63-64. Please, explain a little more this sentence.

 

2-Material and Methods

L152. Please, add some references on the application of this model in similar cases.

L237. The authors could add “frosts” at this enumeration.

L240. I suggest writing “Expert Choice Desktop (v. 11.5.1683) software package was used ...”

 

3. Results and Discussion

Ok.

4. Conclusions

Ok.

References

Ok.

Figures

Figure 1. I think this sketch is very succinct. I suggest its improvement by adding Romania's position in the context of more Central European countries and drawing graphic scales. Please, also check the spelling of the word “Ungarian”, and be consistent in the writing of this word throughout the entire text.

Figure 2. Ok.

Figures 3, 4 and 5. I advise obtaining specific images with the appropriate software, but not using a screenshot, as these three images appear to be. The letters and numbers in these images are difficult to read: I suggest enlarging these labels.

 

Tables

Table 1. Ok.

Table 2. Ok.

Table 3. Please, follow the indications in point 4 above.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing is in general fluid, although it should be improved some points

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read with interest the paper on the Expert-Based Assessment of the Potential of Agroforestry Systems in plain regions across Bihor County. This paper takes a case study from Bihor to analyse the potential of agroforestry systems. This is a well written and well strcutured paper, which would benefit from the following edits:

- the abstract can be.more catchy and punchy, explaining already the guiding question and main finding.

- the case study can be better discussed in its research design and choice: what type of case study it is? Why was it chosen? What can we learn from it for other cases (if anything)? 

- the following paper would be a useful addition to your work: “Operationalizing water-energy-food nexus research for sustainable development in social-ecological systems: An interdisciplinary learning case in Central Asia” from Ahmad Hamidov

- The work of Ariane Goetz just published in international journal of water resources development on Polycentric Governance and Agroecology would also be useful for your work.

 

I think these edits would be helpful as it would contextualise the paper within this growing body of literature on the issue.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Happy with the revised version