Effects of Traditional Agroforestry Practices on Cocoa Yields in Côte d’Ivoire

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer

Strengths:

1. Relevance of the Topic: The paper addresses a significant issue in Côte d'Ivoire, focusing on the impact of traditional agroforestry practices on cocoa yields. Given that Côte d'Ivoire is a leading producer of cocoa, the study's focus on sustainable practices is highly relevant and timely.
2. Methodological Rigor: The paper utilizes both Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and multiple linear regression analysis, which are robust statistical methods. These methods allow the authors to identify species that positively or negatively influence cocoa yields, offering practical insights for optimizing agroforestry systems.
3. Comprehensive Data Collection: The study includes data from 150 farms across three regions, which adds to the credibility of the findings. The socio-economic and floristic data provide a well-rounded perspective on the factors influencing cocoa yields.
4. Clear Identification of Species: The identification of specific tree species that impact cocoa yields is valuable for both researchers and practitioners. This detailed information could guide future agroforestry practices and policy decisions.

Weaknesses:

1. Limited Scope of Environmental Variables: While the study effectively uses socio-economic data and tree species information, it might benefit from including more environmental variables, such as soil type, rainfall variability, and pest infestation levels. These factors could provide a more comprehensive understanding of yield variability.
2. Inconsistent Data on Species Presence: The study mentions that certain species, like Cordia africana, were found on only one farm, which raises questions about the representativeness of the sample for those species. This variability might affect the generalizability of the results.
3. Lack of Longitudinal Analysis: The study covers five years of data, but the analysis could be strengthened by a more detailed examination of yield trends over time, particularly in response to specific interventions or changes in agroforestry practices.
4. Insufficient Discussion on Practical Implementation: While the paper identifies beneficial species, it lacks a detailed discussion on how farmers can practically implement these findings. For instance, the paper could suggest ways to encourage the adoption of these species in different ecological zones.

Suggestions for Improvement:

Abstract: Indicate that the region is in the west of Africa (Line 16)

Introduction: What mixed effects? (Lines 44,45)

                             Add the hypothesis of the study in the introduction.

Material and Methods: The information in lines 102 and 103 is unnecessary.

If it is possible Expand Environmental Variables: Including additional environmental factors, such as detailed soil analyses and climate data, could enhance the robustness of the findings and provide a more holistic view of the factors affecting cocoa yields.

Lines 120, 121: Add inventory form in supplementary material.

Results

Explore Temporal Dynamics: Conducting a more thorough analysis of the temporal changes in yields, particularly with a focus on how different practices have evolved over the five-year period, could offer deeper insights.

Discussion:

Lines 276, 277, 278 don’t need to repeat objectives and results.

Enhance Practical Recommendations: The paper would benefit from a section dedicated to practical recommendations for farmers and policymakers, including how to integrate the beneficial species identified into existing farming practices.

Consider Broader Ecological Impacts: A discussion on the broader ecological impacts of these agroforestry practices, such as their effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their sustainability.

Conclusion:

Don’t need to repeat objectives in the conclusion, you need answer your goals on this section.

Overall, the paper provides valuable insights into the relationship between agroforestry practices and cocoa yields in Côte d'Ivoire. The study is well-conceived and methodologically sound but could be further strengthened by incorporating additional environmental variables, a more in-depth temporal analysis, and a discussion on practical implementation strategies. These enhancements would increase the paper's impact and usefulness for both academic and practical audiences.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. good introductory section on what agroforestry is and overview of its successes and challenges elsewhere

2. lines 91-92 a bit awkward "it seems necessary..."

3. line 107 footnote should go after the period, not before

4. Figure 1 legend has "Ivory Cost" rather than "Ivory Coast" and "Limit contry" instead of "Limit Country"

5. I have some concerns with your statistical methodology. I am not clear exactly how the BIC is used; I also find it unusual that the BIC is set out in front of the actual empirical work of estimating your model (equation 2). I would say some depth is needed to show exactly what is being done empirically. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in this paper is okay; the writing is a little bit awkward in places, but not to the extent that it distracts significantly from the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article covers an engaging topic; however, it would be strengthened by providing a clearer and more detailed explanation of the data collection process. To improve transparency and allow for replication, it is important to include a step-by-step account of the procedures followed. This would ensure that readers fully understand the methodology and can assess the validity of the findings. By elaborating on these aspects, the article would offer a more comprehensive understanding of the research process and enhance its overall rigor and credibility.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx