Agroforestry Systems for Soil Health Improvement and Maintenance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review „Agroforestry Systems for Soil Health Improvement and Maintenance” provides with common descriptions of agroforestry practices and their ecological benefits through examples throughout the world. The novelty lies within the positive implications of agroforestry on soil health and productivity in semiarid and arid areas of the world.

Agroforestry systems can also come with disadvantages, however the current review focused solely on the benefits of such systems and has stated as such. Therefore, it is not necessarily misleading, albeit a brief acknowledgement would suffice. The manuscript could conclude by “Under careful consideration to management practices, agroforestry systems have shown to improve (…)”. 

While the work dedicated here is commendable and has the potential to contribute to the community, it is not well organized, as explained below. Moreover, there is an imperative need for an English editor. Some sentences are hard to read to unintelligible.

Abstract: Examples of grammar issues from the abstract only:

L46: “(…), thus (…)” – comma added

L47: “(…) needs not (…)” – conjugation fixed

L49: “(…) increases (…)” – conjugation fixed

 

L50: A more demanding example, where the message is lost without rectifications: “Agroforestry can be an option as an affordable and climate-smart technologyies.”

General remark: Stay consistent between “%” and “per cent”, “BD” and “B.D.”.

 

Chapter 1. Introduction

Statements, albeit mostly true, are not backed up by research, more specifically:

L60, 63: There is a reference missing.

L87: Please give such examples of conservation techniques with references.

The objective of the review is not clearly defined or compelling. Please elaborate the statement in line 108/109: "Thus, we discuss various aspects of agroforestry helps in maintaining and improving soil health."

Chapter 2. Soil improvements and microclimate amelioration through agroforestry

L121: “Several studies confirmed…” – Please reference such examples.

L139: What is meant by “tighter N cycling results”?

There is a lack of organization of the manuscript. In particular, chapter 2 transitions from soil organic carbon to nutrients back to soil organic carbon to nutrients again, concluding with microclimate. This has to be better represented by paragraphs tackling one thing at a time.

Table 1 describes microclimate issues within the soil improvement section. Atmospheric alterations have to be addressed separately. Moreover, the table does not always represent the changes an agroforestry system added compared to monocultures, just offers values of soil physical properties. “M.C.” is not explained.

Chapter 3. Management of agroforestry for soil improvement

The first paragraph transitions from e.g., choice of cultivar to spacing and back to choice of cultivar. Planting density is mentioned in the first paragraph, as well as in fourth paragraph. This scattered organisation decreases readability - please revise.

L302: Incomplete sentence.

Chapter 4. Impact of agroforestry on soil biota

Organisation of the chapter: maybe clustering the implications of agroforestry on microorganisms in one paragraph, leaf litter in another paragraph and so on would increase readability.

Chapter 5. Agroforestry for enhancing soil productivity

As the focus of the manuscript was set on soil health, the correlation should be explicit in the title, as well as throughout the chapter.

L439: The land equivalent ratio has not been introduced until now, please explain the abbreviation.

L466-493: Adaptation and mitigation to climate change are not directly a part of soil productivity, maybe they would be better fitting in chapter 8? Alternatively, an explanation could be provided. Mining practices and fertilizer use belong to management (chapter 3).

L511-531: Choice of crop, crop competition for resources, pruning, spacing, and choice of fertilizer belong to the management section (chapter 3).

Chapters 6., 7., and 8.

Aside from the perpetual grammar issues, these chapters were well written and follow a logical thread line.

 

Author Response

We are thankful to the editor and reviewers for taking the time to assess our manuscript, for their careful reading and for their suggestions and valuable comments which helped us to substantially improve the quality of our paper. We first revised manuscript to remove similarity and later according to reviewers’ comments in track change mode. Thus, line number changed in most of the revision. In revising the manuscript, we have carefully considered all the raised comments and suggestions. We have attempted to succinctly explain the changes made (red colour) in reaction to all comments. Our reply to each comment in point-by-point fashion is given bellow;

Reviewer 1

Comment: Agroforestry systems can also come with disadvantages; however, the current review focused solely on the benefits of such systems and has stated as such. Therefore, it is not necessarily misleading, albeit a brief acknowledgement would suffice. The manuscript could conclude by “Under careful consideration to management practices, agroforestry systems have shown to improve (…)”. 

Reply: added in abstract (L 57) and conclusion (L 997). L 57: This review highlighted the role of agroforestry in soil improvement, microclimate amelioration, and the improvement in productivity through agroforestry, particularly in semiarid and degraded areas under careful consideration of management practices. L 997:  Integrations trees with agricultural crops with proper management practices helps in improving the soil structure of degraded soil, and soil biological, chemical, and physical, chemical and biological properties of soil by its ability of microclimate modification.

Grammar issues from the abstract:

L46: “(…), thus (…)” – comma added- done

L47: “(…) needs not (…)” – conjugation fixed- done

L49: “(…) increases (…)” – conjugation fixed- done

L50: A more demanding example, where the message is lost without rectifications: “Agroforestry can be an option as an affordable and climate-smart technologyies.”-

Reply: error rectified (L 52): Agroforestry can be an option as cost-effective and climate-smart farming practice

General remark: Stay consistent between “%” and “per cent”, “BD” and “B.D.”.

Reply: all ‘bulk density’ marked as BD (in table 1 also) and all ‘per cent’ replaced with %

Chapter 1. Introduction

Comment: Statements, albeit mostly true, are not backed up by research, more specifically: L60, 63: There is a reference missing.

Reply: Cited (L 64)

Comment: L87: Please give such examples of conservation techniques with references.

Reply: added with citation. “To minimize soil erosion and increase farmland production, conservation farming techniques such as residue return, zero tillage, minimum tillage, cover cropping, and crop rotation etc. [1] have been developed.”

Comment: The objective of the review is not clearly defined or compelling. Please elaborate the statement in line 108/109: "Thus, we discuss various aspects of agroforestry helps in maintaining and improving soil health."

Reply: objective added and modified (L 124-129). “Studies published focused only certain set of soil quality indicators. Thus, in this review we grouped all soil quality indicators in single review paper and presented an over-view of soil health improvement through agroforestry. Although soil health is broad term, improvement in soil quality such as various chemical, biological and physical properties of soil is considered as proxy for soil improvement in this paper.”

Chapter 2. Soil improvements and microclimate amelioration through agroforestry

Comment: L121: “Several studies confirmed…” – Please reference such examples.

Reply: sentence studies removed (L 146) and citation [16], [18], [15] and [17] added (L 146- 154). “Integration of trees on farms enhances field capacity (FC), organic matter (OM) [16], available potassium, available phosphorus, soil carbon stocks [18], available potassium and phosphorus, and lower bulk density (BD) [17], which retain water by increasing water holding capacity (WHC) and releases to plants gradually like a sponge [15]. The addition of OM plays a crucial important role function in soil aggregations formation and reducing soil bulk density (BD). This reduced BD of soil helps air circulation, water distribution of water in the rhizosphere, and better improvement in groundwater recharge and nutrient status quality of the soil in the arid and semiarid areas [18].”

Comment: L139: What is meant by “tighter N cycling results”?

Reply: tighter replaced with closed means no leakages (L 166)

Comment: There is a lack of organization of the manuscript. In particular, chapter 2 transitions from soil organic carbon to nutrients back to soil organic carbon to nutrients again, concluding with microclimate. This has to be better represented by paragraphs tackling one thing at a time.

Reply: paragraph reorganized accordingly. Soil improvement and microclimate is strongly associated with each other. Moisture, bulk density and other physical factors also key indicators in microclimate amelioration. Most of the studies consider nutrient metrics along with some soil physical properties along with some temperature-related metrics hence. Both merged in one section but microclimate amelioration discussed in second paragraphs. But table 1 consist both physical as well as nutrient related metrics hence depicted at last in section.

Comment: Table 1 describes microclimate issues within the soil improvement section. Atmospheric alterations have to be addressed separately. Moreover, the table does not always represent the changes an agroforestry system added compared to monocultures, just offers values of soil physical properties. “M.C.” is not explained.

Reply: In some studies data was insufficient thus data is missing. ‘M.C.’ is moisture concentration replaced with ‘moisture’ term

Chapter 3. Management of agroforestry for soil improvement

Comment: The first paragraph transitions from e.g., choice of cultivar to spacing and back to the choice of cultivar. Planting density is mentioned in the first paragraph, as well as in fourth paragraph. This scattered Organisation decreases readability - please revise.

Reply: Removed as it is about productivity not soil improvement. All density related put in first paragraph.

Comment: L302: Incomplete sentence.

Reply: rearranged sentences: L 281-82. “Trees trap more sand dust than shrubs due to their larger canopy and dense foliage. As a result, the soil beneath trees is likely to be more nutrient-dense than that beneath shrubs”. Section is organized in two subsections: (1) Species selection and density and (2) Fertilizer management and application.  First subsection started with trees selection, species, cultivar and density. See L 280-365.

Chapter 4. Impact of agroforestry on soil biota

Comment: Organisation of the chapter: maybe clustering the implications of agroforestry on microorganisms in one paragraph, leaf litter in another paragraph and so on would increase readability.

Reply: organized accordingly. First para- started with microorganism and their role in soil health (L 441-456). Integration of trees with agricultural………………diverse litter quality. Nematodes, collembola, acari, diplopoda, earthworms, fungi, and various insects influence C-transformation and nutrient cycling. Soil engineers such as ants, termites, and earthworms play important role in aggregates formations and maintaining soil structure. While centipedes ground or rove beetles, predatory mites, collembola, and carnivorous nematodes were important for biological control [62]. Second para- how agroforestry boosts microbial activity (L 458-472) and in last para-examples of agroforestry for enhancing microbial activity and implications (L 473-541).

 

Chapter 5. Agroforestry for enhancing soil productivity

Comment: L439: The land equivalent ratio has not been introduced until now, please explain the abbreviation.

Reply: Explained the abbreviation (L 579)

Comment: L466-493: Adaptation and mitigation to climate change are not directly a part of soil productivity, maybe they would be better fitting in chapter 8? Alternatively, an explanation could be provided.

Reply:

Comment: L511-531: Choice of crop, crop competition for resources, pruning, spacing, and choice of fertilizer belong to the management section (chapter 3).

Reply: last para of this section discus about management for agroforestry for productivity improvement and section 3 is only about soil improvement especially fertility. Organized properly and first para (L 543-551) started with “The fundamental advantage of these tree-based multifunctional land use systems over monoculture agriculture is resource complementarity between trees and crops [22]. Plant diversity increases ecosystem productivity and functioning in natural eco-systems through two mechanisms: (1) the phenomenon of niche complementarity, in which non-overlapping resource requirements and/or positive associations between species lead in "stable multispecies coexistence’ and (2) species selection, wherein, the possibility that a species will be extant and provide useful ecological activities or services rises with diversification [2]. The yield of intercrops may be increased due to modified favorable microclimate, improved soil moisture retention, nutrients deposition through litter, and efficient nutrient cycling [2, 17, 62, 63]. How agroforestry enhanced soil productivity discussed (L552-558) “By combining crops and trees, improved soil health (biological, chemical, and physical qualities) enhances agricultural yields. Gains in SOC were mostly found in top surface soils, indicating that improvements to soil health were focused in the rooting zone, where they might have the biggest positive impact on crop yields. Higher SOC and total N concentrations in agroforestry might boost crop nutrients that are accessible, help to maintain productivity, and minimize the requirement for exogenous fertilizer to keep cost of the cultivation lower [2].”

Chapters 6., 7., and 8.

Aside from the perpetual grammar issues, these chapters were well written and follow a logical thread line.

Reply: Thank you. All the grammatical errors rectified accordingly.

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments: This is a review of the current literature available on soil heath dynamics of agroforestry systems when considered on a global scale. The manuscript is well-written and suitably researched, and it attempts to fill a necessary gap in the literature which focuses on the deep area of research that is soil health dynamics in agroforestry systems. While the paper is solid, there are several points of refinement and organization that should be considered before publication to make the results more useful and easily accessible to readers.

First, although this manuscript is centered around soil health, there few references to soil type or classification when presenting the literature. Organizing the findings around soil characteristics, or even growing conditions/region is critical when interpreting the capacity that agroforestry has to affect soil dynamics. Furthermore, adding more identifying information throughout regarding the type of agroforestry practice and management to differentiate the scale of findings is necessary.  While the headings that the manuscript is currently organized with are helpful, the findings within the categories are not consistently presented with the same level of synthesis or interpretation; each section could benefit with some revision that may include more categorical subheadings to help organize the findings, which would provide more scaffolding for meaningful synthesis of the literature. The scope of readings are good, but seem to be missing literature from some types of agroforestry systems (ie: silvopastoral and grazed agroforestry systems from temperate regions such as those seen in the Mediterranean [dehesa and montado systems], and buffers). Understanding that this is not a systematic review or meta-analysis, there still seems to be a certain level of synthesis missing from this paper that the literature would benefit from. There are several points in the manuscript that, while providing useful interpretation of the potential synergies of AF systems, stray from the primary objective of the review: soil health. Overall, the foundation is there, and with some further organization and synthesis, it would be a wonderful addition to the literature.

Specific comments:

L72-73, 76: Per cent to %? Noted throughout.

L81: It might be worth acknowledging that “soil health” is a nebulous term that varies in scientific definition. Clarify here and provide a definition of how you are choosing to use the term in your review. Specific metrics as proxies of soil health should be included.

L90-95: Also important to include that agroforestry is not one set approach, but rather a set of practices that generate a wide range of multi-functional systems that could fall under your current definition. Here, and throughout the manuscript, it’s important to differentiate the type of agroforestry system reported since each one necessitates different establishment and management. This is likely not new information to you, just important information for readers who might take away that agroforestry means one type of production systems that only varies by species.

L96: “they” in this sentence isn’t clear. Also, “perform worse in terms of soil health”….I feel like this needs a citation to support such a definitive claim, or soften the language.

L108-109: Sentence unclear.

Section 2: These seem like two distinct headings. Microclimate effects in relation to soil moisture could probably be it’s own section. Reading further, L215-228 doesn’t touch on soil moisture, and it’s difficult to see the connection between microclimate effects and soil health without it. Certainly, it’s an important aspect of AF systems, but I would suggest either focusing more specifically on soil moisture in relation to microclimate, or eliminate this part of the section. Furthermore, this section covers changes in soil chemical and physical properties, and would benefit from some organization. Either organizing it by nutrient effect and physical property, or by soil/system type. This will help make the excellent Figure 1 make more sense as a synthesis of the literature.

Table 1. Soil type should be included in here. I also struggle with the “soil improvement” as a column, should be presented more as changes in soil metrics, with increases or decreases reported. All abbreviations should be defined, and check for typos (“coffe”). It may be that the table formatting was altered during submission, but in this version of the document, the current presentation is difficult to read and interpret, so some table formatting is encouraged. Are there studies without any control treatments? Ie: Surki et al., lower BD compared to what?

Section 3: Again, more judicious organization and context/synthesis would be helpful here. L235-239 reports on species selection? Followed by L240-244 which discusses planting design and spacing, then more studies on species selection. Similar to other sections, the studies themselves are well reported (with the exception of missing soil type/characteristics where available), but the core ideas of each section would be better articulated with some additional organization and synthesis that provides context for each point. Perhaps additional subsections?

L296: Grazing disturbance from livestock integration adds more soil impact dynamics beyond fertilizer/manure. Soil effects in silvopasture systems is well-studied and should be considered for additional review in this paper, particularly if the suggestion is provided here. Furthermore, grazing management itself changes the effects on soil characteristics, and should be discussed in a management section.

L302-303: First sentence is unclear, and second sentence should include a citation. Unclear how this relates to system management.

L318-330: This is good, and would be more useful earlier/throughout the section.

Section 4: This section is well done. The initial framing and context, with the synthesis of the studies to develop the review of the literature in the area makes this section easy to follow and understand. Again, I wish there were some indication of soil type in addition to region and AF system. Perhaps some light organization to differentiate between biota and fungi results/effects.

L406: Increase in abundance of species? Or an increase in proportion?

L414-415: These previously cited studies? Or different ones? If the later, please provide citation.

L428-446: The direct causation of “improved soil health” and increased productivity is a delicate line to draw. This section would benefit from also including the changes in soil metrics in addition to the yield changes for all of the reports (similar to the Das et al citation). Even if the studies were previously reported on in this paper, I think it’s important to bring that context forward to pair with yield data to make that connection clearer. Maybe framing it more along the lines of “soil impacts on system productivity”?

L439: If this is the first instance, be sure to define the acronym. Is this an economic term? If so, I don’t think it should be included in the productivity section as product value isn’t really relatable to soil characteristics.

L448-475: This is good discussion, but I question it’s placement in the manuscript and it’s direct relevance to the discussion of soil dynamics.

L480-510: If focusing on N-fixing species, would this not fit better in species selection and/or management and/or soil characteristics?

L511-528: Again, good info, but this seems to cover management and species selection rather than soil productivity?  

Section 6: There is a good portion of literature missing here, namely riparian buffer literature. I would consider some deeper exploration of the type of agroforestry system and the magnitude of remediation, particularly if leaching and water dynamics are being considered here. Urban food forest literature would also provide an interesting addition to the discussion as there is some evidence that woody perennials are better than annual vegetables at remediating soil and not translocating toxic compounds to the edible product.

Section 8: While there is value in differentiating the effect of these systems on degraded landscapes, I feel like all these studies fit well in previous sections. I would consider incorporating these studies with the other papers, and then using them to differentiate the potential magnitude of change on degraded v. non-degraded soils. This also speaks to the need to organize and frame these studies with more information on soil type.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment: General comments: This is a review of the current literature available on soil heath dynamics of agroforestry systems when considered on a global scale. The manuscript is well-written and suitably researched, and it attempts to fill a necessary gap in the literature which focuses on the deep area of research that is soil health dynamics in agroforestry systems. While the paper is solid, there are several points of refinement and organization that should be considered before publication to make the results more useful and easily accessible to readers.

Reply: Thank you.

Comment: First, although this manuscript is centered around soil health, there few references to soil type or classification when presenting the literature. Organizing the findings around soil characteristics, or even growing conditions/region is critical when interpreting the capacity that agroforestry has to affect soil dynamics. Furthermore, adding more identifying information throughout regarding the type of agroforestry practice and management to differentiate the scale of findings is necessary.  While the headings that the manuscript is currently organized with are helpful, the findings within the categories are not consistently presented with the same level of synthesis or interpretation; each section could benefit with some revision that may include more categorical subheadings to help organize the findings, which would provide more scaffolding for meaningful synthesis of the literature. The scope of readings are good, but seem to be missing literature from some types of agroforestry systems (ie: silvopastoral and grazed agroforestry systems from temperate regions such as those seen in the Mediterranean [dehesa and montado systems], and buffers). Understanding that this is not a systematic review or meta-analysis, there still seems to be a certain level of synthesis missing from this paper that the literature would benefit from. There are several points in the manuscript that, while providing useful interpretation of the potential synergies of AF systems, stray from the primary objective of the review: soil health. Overall, the foundation is there, and with some further organization and synthesis, it would be a wonderful addition to the literature.

Reply: As synthesis of NPK improvement, L 253-255 added in text. “Soil N increased by 118.75% [37]-237.5% [39], soil P by 119.75% [37] – 158.12 [33], and soil K by 111.03% [33]- 125.2% [37] in agroforestry as compared to control (monocrop or open cropping areas).” Literature on Mediterranean dehesa system added in text (L 1004-1008) added in text. “It was discovered that the annual growth rate of soil C stock was around 11% in an agrosilvopastoral system, Iberian Dehesa system in Mediterranean climate, far exceeding the proposed '4 /1000 Soils for Food Security and Climate' initiative for enhancing soil carbon, which is critical for maintaining soil fertility and agricultural production [131].” Organized accordingly.

Specific comments:

Comment: L72-73, 76: Per cent to %? Noted throughout

Reply: All ‘per cent’ replaced with ‘%’ in L 76-72 and others too

Comment: L81: It might be worth acknowledging that “soil health” is a nebulous term that varies in scientific definition. Clarify here and provide a definition of how you are choosing to use the term in your review. Specific metrics as proxies of soil health should be included.

Reply: Included in L 121-125. “Studies published focused only certain set of soil quality indicators. Thus, in this review we grouped all soil quality indicators in single review paper and presented over-view of soil health improvement through agroforestry. Although soil health is broad term, improvement in soil quality such as various chemical, biological and physical properties of soil is considered as proxy for soil improvement in this paper”

Comment: L90-95: Also, important to include that agroforestry is not one set approach, but rather a set of practices that generate a wide range of multi-functional systems that could fall under your current definition. Here, and throughout the manuscript, it’s important to differentiate the type of agroforestry system reported since each one necessitates different establishment and management. This is likely not new information to you, just important information for readers who might take away that agroforestry means one type of production systems that only varies by species.

Reply: Included in L 105-108 (following sentence added). Based on combination of various production components, agroforestry systems are grouped into silvopastoral (trees + pasture), silvi-agriculture (trees + agricultural crops e.g., alley cropping, windbreaks, shelterbelts etc.), and agrosilvopastoral systems (trees +crops + livestock) [2, 12].

Comment: L96: “they” in this sentence isn’t clear. Also, “perform worse in terms of soil health” ….I feel like this needs a citation to support such a definitive claim, or soften the language.

Reply: sentence modified in L108-111 by softening language with citation. Perennial systems performs better than annual croplands in terms of soil health due to lower higher belowground carbon C inputs and more lesser soil disturbance in annual croplands, they perform worse than perennial systems in terms of soil health [13].

Comment: L108-109: Sentence unclear.

Reply: Modified and rearranged: L 122-126 as follows. “Studies published focused only certain set of soil quality indicators. Thus, in this review we grouped all soil quality indicators in single review paper and presented overview of soil health improvement through agroforestry. Although soil health is broad term, improvement in soil quality such as various chemical, biological and physical properties of soil is considered as proxy for soil improvement in this paper”

Comment: Section 2: These seem like two distinct headings. Microclimate effects in relation to soil moisture could probably be it’s own section. Reading further, L215-228 doesn’t touch on soil moisture, and it’s difficult to see the connection between microclimate effects and soil health without it. Certainly, it’s an important aspect of AF systems, but I would suggest either focusing more specifically on soil moisture in relation to microclimate, or eliminate this part of the section. Furthermore, this section covers changes in soil chemical and physical properties, and would benefit from some organization. This will help make the excellent Figure 1 make more sense as a synthesis of the literature.

Reply: In first para how agroforestry is better than monocropping discussed. Soil improvement and microclimate is strongly associated with each other. Moisture, bulk density and other physical factors also key indicators in microclimate amelioration. Most of the studies consider nutrient metrics along with some soil physical properties along with some temperature-related metrics hence. Both merged in one section but microclimate amelioration discussed in second paragraphs (254-273). But table 1 consist both physical as well as nutrient related metrics hence depicted at last in section. L 270- mention of moisture enhancement in windbreaks in Canada.

Comment: Table 1. Soil type should be included in here. I also struggle with the “soil improvement” as a column, should be presented more as changes in soil metrics, with increases or decreases reported. All abbreviations should be defined, and check for typos (“coffe”). It may be that the table formatting was altered during submission, but in this version of the document, the current presentation is difficult to read and interpret, so some table formatting is encouraged. Are there studies without any control treatments? Ie: Surki et al., lower BD compared to what?

Reply: Soil types included in all over table. Typos rectified. L 276: soil improvement replaced with ‘Changes in soil metrics’. For some studies data was insufficient (NA mentioned). Table formatted accordingly.

Comment: Section 3: Again, more judicious organization and context/synthesis would be helpful here. L235-239 reports on species selection? Followed by L240-244 which discusses planting design and spacing, then more studies on species selection. Similar to other sections, the studies themselves are well reported (with the exception of missing soil type/characteristics where available), but the core ideas of each section would be better articulated with some additional organization and synthesis that provides context for each point. Perhaps additional subsections?

Reply: Revised accordingly. Section is organized in two subsections: (1) Species selection and density and (2) Nutrient management and fertilizer application. First subsection started with trees selection, species, cultivar and density. See L 280-365. “Trees trap more sand dust than shrubs due to their larger canopy and dense foliage. As a result, the soil beneath trees is likely to be more nutrient-dense than that beneath shrubs……”

Comment: L296: Grazing disturbance from livestock integration adds more soil impact dynamics beyond fertilizer/manure. Soil effects in silvopasture systems is well-studied and should be considered for additional review in this paper, particularly if the suggestion is provided here. Furthermore, grazing management itself changes the effects on soil characteristics, and should be discussed in a management section.

Reply: We feel better to remove this sentence (deleted that sentence completely).

Comment: L302-303: First sentence is unclear, and second sentence should include a citation. Unclear how this relates to system management.

Reply: Revised and shifted in first para (see L 281-314)

Comment: Section 4: This section is well done. The initial framing and context, with the synthesis of the studies to develop the review of the literature in the area makes this section easy to follow and understand. Again, I wish there were some indication of soil type in addition to region and AF system. Perhaps some light organization to differentiate between biota and fungi results/effects.

Reply: soil types added in text.

Comment: L406: Increase in abundance of species? Or an increase in proportion?

Reply: Its proportion (sentence corrected L 530)

Comment: L414-415: These previously cited studies? Or different ones? If the later, please provide citation.

Reply: sentenced reformed L 538-541. “However, trade-off between the enhancement of soil biodiversity and yield can partially offset by alternative revenue from the tree component in the agroforestry system”

Comment: L428-446: The direct causation of “improved soil health” and increased productivity is a delicate line to draw. This section would benefit from also including the changes in soil metrics in addition to the yield changes for all of the reports (similar to the Das et al citation). Even if the studies were previously reported on in this paper, I think it’s important to bring that context forward to pair with yield data to make that connection clearer. Maybe framing it more along the lines of “soil impacts on system productivity”?

Reply: L 543-558 added in starting of chapter discussing how productivity enhanced in agroforestry.  

Comment: L439: If this is the first instance, be sure to define the acronym. Is this an economic term? If so, I don’t think it should be included in the productivity section as product value isn’t really relatable to soil characteristics.

Reply: Acronym defined and LER ration is yield based parameter not income based (L 588).

Comment: L448-475: This is good discussion, but I question it’s placement in the manuscript and it’s direct relevance to the discussion of soil dynamics.

Reply: Removed and shifted in starting of section (see L 543-559)

Comment: L511-528: Again, good info, but this seems to cover management and species selection rather than soil productivity? 

Reply: Yes, it’s about managing agroforestry for higher productivity as without proper management practice productivity cannot be improved. Last paragraph is about management aspect for productivity.

Comment: Section 6: There is a good portion of literature missing here, namely riparian buffer literature. I would consider some deeper exploration of the type of agroforestry system and the magnitude of remediation, particularly if leaching and water dynamics are being considered here.

Reply: text (L740-745) added on riparian buffer.

Comment: Section 8: While there is value in differentiating the effect of these systems on degraded landscapes, I feel like all these studies fit well in previous sections. This also speaks to the need to organize and frame these studies with more information on soil type.

Reply: highlighted the role of agroforestry in soil improvement, microclimate amelioration, and the improvement in productivity through agroforestry particularly in semiarid and degraded areas under careful consideration of management practices. Revised information on soil types added in text: L 892, L 902, L 919, L 954, L 966, L 985, and L 992.

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall the review article is good and quality of paper is fine.
Improve the conclusion section

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment: Overall the review article is good and quality of paper is fine.

Reply: Thank you

Comment: Improve the conclusion section

Reply: Revised accordingly. Revised conclusion as follows (L 1017-1036); “Integration of trees with agricultural crops with proper species selection and management practices helps in improving the soil structure of degraded soil, and soil biological, chemical, and physical, chemical and biological properties of soil by its ability of microclimate modification. Trees on farms improve infiltration and positively impact hydrologic functions through litter fall and its canopy effects. Agroforestry enhances soil-related microbial activity by influence of trees, organic matter deposition, root exudates, quantity, and diverse litter quality that helps in enhancing soil quality. Agroforestry buffer impact of rainfall, reduces erosion of soil and nutrients erosion, and helps in minimizing soil degradation. The addition of this perennial component in agriculture can be a possible pollution abatement strategy against agrochemicals and pollutants. Thus, there is a need for aware society and farmers regarding long-term non-cash environmental values of the agroforestry system to lure small-holders to practice agroforestry approaches. Agroforestry can restore soil-based eco-system services in degraded soil and provide a viable pathway for intensification to make agriculture more sustainable because of its nutrient pumping and cycling, litter fall, changing microclimate, and influence on soil biota. In the current scenario of climate change, climate-related variability negatively affects the livelihood of small-holders and soil conditions, disease risks and higher susceptibility to climate change. There is a global call for the implementation of agroforestry systems as a more sustainable and resilient farming system.”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I commend the authors for working on such a diverse and comprehensive topic. I think the revised version will be a valuable addition to the literature. 

Author Response

Comments	Revision
L. 48. What do you mean by integration of trees in trees? Rephrase for clarity	Rephrased accordingly (see L. 48-49) ‘Integration of trees on farmland’
Fig. 1+3+4. Please confirmed that you designed this figure and not copied them from another source	Yes, all figures were designed by authors and not copied from other sources.
Fig. 2. Remove the upper title of the slide and embedded it in the lower legend. Also, check the subtitles (% increase in…) because they shouldn’t overlap	Upper title of slide was removed and embedded in lower legend. Subtitles formatted accordingly so that they should not overlapped
Table 1. in cases where values were not available for control, how can you say that there is an increase? Either add values for or remove these lines from tables	papers not provide data of control were ( Three rows) removed. For others values in control are provided.
Table 2 explains M455H001	It is 2-methyl-3,5-dinitro-4-(pentan-3ylamino) benzoic acid, which is metabolite of Pendimethalin after degradation in soil. Long form mentioned in bracket in table and also explained in aster marked bellow table (‘*metabolite of herbicide pendimethalin after degradation in soil’s) in L. 733.