Spatial Principles of Territories Selection for Priority Development of Agroforestry Complexes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
GENERAL COMMENTS
The work entitled “Spatial principles of territories selection for priority develop-2 ment of agroforestry complexes”
RELEVANCE (considering the contribution to the advancement of knowledge): Weak.
ORIGINALITY (considering the problem to be studied and the existing knowledge gaps that justify the study): Good.
TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC MERIT: Good.
FINAL OPINION: The work has potential and merit to be published. However, it needs improvement in all items (Material and Methods and Conclusions).
What is the soil classification system? WRB or Soil Taxonomy
Localization map.
Improve this conclusion.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
OK
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Ms. Ref. No.: forests-2419261
Title: Spatial principles of territories selection for priority development of agroforestry complexes
I found this research interesting. The aim of the research is to identify the factors that predetermine the high efficiency of agroforestry measures and to select the areas where the creation of protective forest plantations would bring maximum effects. The creation of protective forest plantations on agricultural land is a long-term and capital-intensive investment aimed at creating sustainable agroforest landscapes. The manuscript has merit but it requires modifications and explanations before it is suitable for publication (see specific comments).
Specific comments
Title
I think that is OK.
Abstract
I suggest the authors to rewrite better the abstract (aims, methods, major findings and conclusions).
Keywords
Replace three or more appropriate key words.
1. Introduction
This should point out the significance of the reasons for doing the work. The text is long and difficult understandable from the international scientific community.
2. Materials and Methods
Generally, I think that is OK. Moderate editing of English language required
3. Results
The text is long, difficult understandable from the international scientific community. Also, authors need to modify or to transfer the Tables as supplementary material.
4. Discussion
I am lost! The authors need to discuss more the results with recent references in relation to the reasons for doing the work.
5. Conclusion
Please rewrite clearly only the main conclusions.
Recommendations
Recommendations for the future research are needed?
References
I think that is OK.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
I reviewed the manuscript entitled "Spatial principles of territories selection for priority development of agroforestry complexes" and submitted by Alexey A. Tubalov to Forests.
The authors have identify the factors that predetermine the high efficiency of agroforestry measures and to select the areas where the creation of protective forest plantations would bring maximum effects. I think the paper is clear and well-presented, the argumentation is easy to follow. The results are very detailed and they are also well-presented and fully explained. This paper would fit well into the scope of Forests.
1. Abstracts - the abstract should be rewritten, because it is too long, and lots of information is missing, such as background and conclusion, and the methods is unclear.
2. Discussion - insert a new subsectionto discuss the limitations of your methods and wider landscape scale implications of your findings
L390 The discussion section needs a bit more work. When reading, it sounds like the current study is more confirmatory of processes that have already been shown, but I do not believe this is the case. In general, the structure could be improved by, for each paragraph, first providing the found results in the current study, then connecting to other studies and then ending with a clear conclusion. In that way the current study is more prominently present and each paragraph has a clear message.
L416. Insert a sentence or a few sentences at the end of the article to summarize the content and limitations.
L457. The conclusion is too long.
no
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, the paper now has improved. I think it is suitable for publication with minor language corrections.
Minor editing of English language required.
