Agricultural Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of Major Farming Systems: A Case Study in Yayo Coffee Forest Biosphere Reserve, Southwestern Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research methods are impressive. The findings are compelling.

However, the writing is rough. In fact, the paper reads like a good first draft, but it still needs work.

I counted four times where the authors wrote something like "according to [13]" or "Following [14]." This is not acceptable.

The authors need to spell out what is being referenced and why. This is merely a convenient example of the overly truncated writing style.

On nearly every page, I have written in the margins something like "so what?" or "what does this mean?" The authors seem to think that the data speak for themselves. But data do not speak for themselves.

The authors need to give a more complete explanation of what they did, why they did it, and what the results mean. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind and constructive suggestions. For some clarifications, responses were uploaded!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer Comments on article ‘Major Farming Systems, their Related Agrobiodiversity and Perceptions of Farmers on their Trends of Ecosystem Services in Yayo Coffee Forest Biosphere Reserve, Southwestern Ethiopia.

General comments: The article presents some very solid information and data on the study site, presenting an important case of how to address the tensions between development and eco-system services trade-offs. 

Among the paper’s strengths are the detail of the case study site, the depth of the qualitative information and the mix of methods and a very interesting case.

However, at present the paper needs to address several key issues to present a more coherent and convincing arguments related to:  a bit clearer motivation, how it contributes to the literature; why the methods are the most appropriate, how the results link back to past literature and add or confirm findings/results from other studies.

The introduction would benefit from a clear research question the study is answering, followed in the Methods section, by how the selected methods are the best to answer that question. 

The introduction needs a much stronger link to well-developed body of literature addressing growth/production benefits trade-offs with eco-system services. This is not a request for an expanded introduction, a rethink about how to present the key issues in a way that allows a more robust ‘conclusions and discussion’ section.

The paper is highly descriptive, presenting the information gathered from the extensive field work, focus groups and data collection. However, the paper lack analysis about how and why this information matters in context of existing literature and the policy and research initiatives in the region. 

The middle sections present key and interesting data, but what is needed is a better organisation and focus on what this data means, not just a presentation of the data.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind and constructive suggestions. For some clarifications, responses were uploaded!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This research (title: Major Farming Systems, their Related Agrobiodiversity and Perceptions of Farmers on their Trends of Ecosystem Services in Yayo Coffee Forest Biosphere Reserve, Southwestern Ethiopia) fits the journal topics of Agriculture. By using five major method, four major farming systems were identified in the studied areas. Also, the associated socio-ecological impacts of the farming systems were accessed. The current version gave a clear description on methods and results. And the manuscript were well written.

1. Authors used a few abbreviations in the “Abstract” section, but some of full names were not given at the first time, such as BR, FS, FDG. That gives unclear meanings to the readers.

2. In Fig. 1, the studied areas were given. However, there is no geographic information. I suggested to add the latitude and longitude on the graphs. Besides, the elevation, soil type and climate information could be descripted in the manuscript.

3. Please give a detailed description on the two indices, which were used to identify level of species diversity in each farming system. The values may represent what kind of results.

4. P9 L317: delete the “( .”.

Because I am not native English speaker, I did not pay much attention on the English statement.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind and constructive suggestions. For some clarifications, responses were uploaded!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing the comments. I feel it is much improved.