Farmers’ Preferences for Conservation and Breeding Programs of Forestry Food Resources in Niger

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper " Farmers’ preferences for conservation and breeding programs of forestry food resources in Niger" treaties with an investigation about the preferences of the farmers to stablish trees and breeding programs. In the Sahel, Niger farmers were surveyed.

The article topic is remarkable.

Considerations on the implications of the conservation and breeding programs of the studied farmers should be added in the conclusions.

The introduction should be focused on conservation and breeding programs of forestry food resources and less in agroforestry systems

My major concern is related to the methods for the objectives of this paper. The authors include not useful information and fail in describe clearly the methods to reach each objective.

The authors declare that the aim of the study is to make people to participate in their own development: both to favor the implementation and production of native and naturalized food tree species, and to increase the agricultural production. I did not find clear evidence of these in the discussion and conclusion section. These are an important aspect to be discussed and underlined, but the authors did not grant it the necessary space.

Detailed comments.

Abstract: Must be improved according to the changes suggested.

Materials and Methods: The author could summarize the information in the study area section, include the sample size method, develop a method for each specific objective, and finally, locate in the proper place the discussions.

Discussion: To include more discussion and at the end of this section make and integration of the all results according to the objectives declared.

Conclusions. Should be focused on the objectives. 

Author Response

Please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your excellent manuscript on farmers' preferences on forestry food resources in the Sahel. You've done a great job of introducing the topic, describing the methods, and presenting the results. The flow of the manuscript is logical and interesting to read, with some good visual illustrations. The English grammar is generally fine, and I would recommend a quick review by an English editor (or authors) to double check the grammar and formatting, if possible. 

Overall, the manuscript seems well written and on par with other published manuscripts on agroforestry that I have seen. Thanks again for your research on this important topic.

S.A.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The study is interesting and the findings noteworthy. However, the paper requires copy editing to improve readability, clarify meaning, and reduce wordiness of some sentences. I edited some of the text. Additional review and copy editing are required.
2. Additionally, the Discussion and Conclusion require reorganizing and expansion.
3. Line 14-23. Abstract. Currently, the abstract is not very informative. It should be more specific regarding the key findings of the study/paper. After the paper is rewritten, particularly the Discussion and Conclusion, the abstract should be re-written.
4. Line 29. A comment regarding that NWFPs and NTFPs are the same would be appropriate. Or a little detail on how the two differ. Keep it short.
5. Line 31-33. Agroforestry for food security and climate change resilience is an important point. Suggest providing more than one citation. Relevant citations:
   - Roshetko JM, DJ Slender, RD Lasco, and M van Noordwijk.   Future Challenge: A Paradigm Shift in the Forestry Sector. In: DJ Snelder and R Lasco (eds). Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and Environmental Services.  P 453-485. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226036847_Future_Challenge_A_Paradigm_Shift_in_the_Forestry_Sector
   - Michon G, Mary F. 1994. Conversion of traditional village gardens and new economic strategies of rural households in the area of Bogor, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 25:31–58.
6. Line 68. Citation on FMNR would be good. Suggest the following:
   - Rinaudo, T. 2007. The development of farmer managed natural regeneration. LEISA 23: 32-34.
7. Line 146. At the end of this paragraph add one or a few sentences to explain the respondents’ options. Respondents could select only one level per attribute or they can select more than one level per attribute? Example they can select two species and two tree density actions? Or only one of each?
8. Line 151-154. I suggest listing the levels after each attribute. The attributes and levels proposed are the following: 1) the tree species that provide human food (A digitate, B aegyptiaca, B sengalensis, and Z. mauritiana), 2) …..   This is slightly redundant as the levels are explained in the subsequent paragraphs, but it provides clarity, making it easier for the reader to follow subsequent paragraphs.
9. Line 166-17. Again, citation on FMNR would be appropriate. Same one as above.
10. Line 194-205. The importance of genetic diversity and quality should be supported with citations. Relevant suggestions:
    - Dawson IK, Vinceti B, Weber JC, Neufeldt H, Russell J, Lengkeek AG, Kalinganire A, Kindt R, Lillesø JB, Roshetko JM and Jamnadass R. 2011. Climate change and tree genetic resource management: maintaining and enhancing the productivity and value of smallholder tropical agroforestry landscapes. A review.  Agroforestry Systems 81: 67-78. 
    - Roshetko JM, Dawson IK, Urquiola J, Lasco RD, Leimona B, Weber JC, Bozzano M, Lillesø JPB, Graudal L, Jamnadass R. 2018. To what extent are genetic resources considered in environmental service provision? A case study based on trees and carbon sequestration. Climate and Development DOI: http://0-www-tandfonline-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/17565529.2017.1334620
11. Line 207. As tree domestication is an important issue, the authors could mention an additional example of a local species, for Parkia biglobosa the following citations are appropriate:
    - Ræbild, A., Larsen, A.S., Jensen, J.S. et al.Advances in domestication of indigenous fruit trees in the West African Sahel. New Forests 41, 297–315 (2011). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s11056-010-9237-5
    - Ræbild, A. Improved management of fruit trees in West African parklands. Agroforest Syst 85, 425–430 (2012). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s10457-012-9524-6
12. Line 253-255. These sentences should be rewritten. The gender balance is roughly 2/3^rd men and 1/3^rd women, that is quite good compared to most studies. So rewrite the sentence as a positive factor. The meaning of the second sentence is confusing. Maybe it should be Nearly all the respondents were male (27) or female (15) heads of households.
13. Line 257. 32% of the respondents (15/47) are illiterate. While a significant number, it is not ‘predominately’. Better to say: Approximately, one-third (15 of 47) of the respondents are illiterate, ….
14. Line 263. The meaning of ‘from a loan’ is not clear. Is the land ‘rented’ or ‘borrowed’ for a set number of years? Maybe ‘borrowed from family or neighbors’ Or ‘rented from a landlord’?
15. Line 264. The use of ‘parcel’ indicates more than a one piece (parcel) of land. If there are multiple parcels per respondent, state the average number of parcels. If most respondents have a single parcel of land, change the word ‘parcel’ in this sentence to ‘land’.
16. Line 272-273. What is ‘overuse’? It is not clear. Maybe better to say ‘uses that exceeds sustainability’.
17. Line 287. Don’t start the sentence with a numeral. Suggest Forty-five (45) of 47 respondents always …. Or rewrite the sentence.
18. Line 311. Discussion. The discussion should be expanded and reorganized. This is the place to feature the key results and explain the authors interpretation of the results.  Write the Discussion section as one coherent story.
19. Line 329-330. This first sentence should be followed by a discuss that emphasizes the key findings in Table 2, 3, 4 and 5. Citations should be used to support or contrast the discussion.
20. Line 331-333. This sentence should be moved to the end of the Discussion section. Also, it should be re-written to be more positive. Don’t say you are cautious of the results. If you are cautious of the results – the results should not be published. Say something like the results are based on small sample size. Additional studies can further clarify results and nuances.
21. Line 333-339. These sentences are ok. But they may need to be rewritten or integrated with more detailed discussion of Table 2,3, 4 and 5. See point #17.
22. Line 340-355. These two paragraphs should be reorganized and integrated into the other paragraphs of the Discussion.  Currently these two paragraphs seem to stand alone.  Reorganize the Discussion to be an explanation of the key findings of Table 2, 3, 4 and 5.
23. Line 356-361. Conclusion. The Conclusion should be expanded. The authors must have more than one concluding point! The Discussion should be used to build the justification for the Conclusion. 
24. Line 405. In the citation the ’12’ before ‘Felix’ should be deleted.
25. Line 425. This line is blank. Should be deleted.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper was comprehensively reviewed and improved. It looks good.