Agroforestry, Livelihood and Biodiversity Nexus: The Case of Madhupur Tract, Bangladesh
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have some comments of form and another of substance:
Include a graph that explains the sampling of the plots (line 150)
All tables regarding costs must be in dollars to facilitate understanding for readers.
Table 1. includes the cost of the land and recheck BCR.
In graphs 4, 5, and 6, replace the common names with scientific names
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First and foremost, we want to express our gratitude for your time and efforts in examining our paper. Your useful suggestions and comments will undoubtedly help us improve the quality of our manuscript. We considerably edited and rewrote the paper in response to reviewer comments, as seen by the changing color text in the revised manuscript's track change option.
Comments:
I have some comments of form and another of substance:
- Include a graph that explains the sampling of the plots (line 150).
- All tables regarding costs must be in dollars to facilitate understanding for readers.
- Table 1. includes the cost of the land and recheck BCR.
- In graphs 4, 5, and 6, replace the common names with scientific names
Reply Responses:
- We agree with the reviewer and have included a figure for the readers' better understanding; please see amended figure 3 and text (Line 288).
- Thank you for your internal comments; we have already converted the costs to USD, and the data can be found in the amended Table 1.
- In our manuscript, we informed the readers that the entire land owned by the Bangladesh govt. therefore, the land price is not included in BCR analysis. However, we included a land value in the revised Table 1, please see the new Table 1.
- We also think so, however, for the better understanding and clarity of the graphs we used English name (Scientific name require big space). In case of scientific name, the graph area would be squeeze and text grabs the major area of the graph.
Thanking you again.
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a description of the livelihoods of agroforestry farmers in Mahdupur, with a description of the biological diversity (plant species richness) in these systems. The paper presents novel data, but is poorly written, the data analysis and discussion are poor and shallow, and the choices of variables and conceptual framework not well justified. This paper needs major, major modifications.
Title: please correct the title
Agroforestry, Livelihood and Biodiversity Nexus: The Case of Madhupur Tract, Bangladesh
Abstract
Fair, could be upgraded a little with statistic results if any, especially on the species diversity.
Language quality: I highly recommend the authors to get their manuscript revised by English native speakers to improve the overall quality of the language.
Introduction
Introduction is fair although short and lacking references.
The information about the context in Madhupur is hard to grasp at the first reading; we understand there was some deforestation and that government promoted settlements and reforestation efforts, but the “story” of this region could be made clearer, using for example a chronologic presentation. By doing so, the issues at stake and the rationale of the study would become clearer. I would recommend to concentrate the contextual background (Madhupur forestland history, implementation of AF practices, current practices, etc.) in one section, instead of sparkling elements throughout the text, and to make the chronology clear.
Specific comments:
- Add references to affirmations appearing on lines 38-45.
- Line 57: “but they also have 57 some downsides that need to be looked into”. Could you name a few? Otherwise I would recommend to cut this part of the sentence as it is not relevant to the paper.
- Lines 59-60: try to avoid extreme vocabulary such as ‘frightening’. Add references to support your affirmations on lines 59-60.
- I would suggest to start another paragraph with the sentence that starts on line 70 (Agroforestry practices…)
- Line 78-80: would be useful to describe what has been found in the studies 13-17, so the reader can easily agree on the gaps the authors claim they are filling.
Conceptual framework
This section is too short and could be improved with more details. I really think authors should think about moving this section to the M&M section, since they present more the tools they used (livelihood framework) than concepts per se, unless they add more in-depth information or background on this framework and discuss it in light of other similar frameworks.
A figure of the conceptual framework, or details on its various capital components, should be added to the manuscript for enhanced clarity.
specific comments:
- 84-109: Replace the term ‘would’ everywhere it appears as the study has already been conducted.
- Line 101: Remove “On the contrary”, as it is irrelevant in the context.
- Figure 1: some graphics (Madhupur tract) are unclear due to poor image resolution; I would recommend the author to hand better quality images.
Data collection
The study has interviewed 100 farmers but collected biodiversity data on 50 farms. How were these farms chosen for biodiversity assessment?
How did the villages were selected for the study?
- “ The study conducted using 135 50 quadrat sampling techniques to collect species richness and diversity data from the 136 respective agroforestry practices of the Madhupur tract.”Please remove this sentence since
- Line 141: socks, replace by shocks
Results
- The result section do not discriminate the results by village; it would be useful to add information to explain why results from the various interviews and focus groups were gathered.
- Profile of respondents would be useful (men/women, mean age, profession, etc.) to better appreciate the results.
- How were the estimations of the value (in Taka) of time spent in AF system was done? This should be added in the data collection and analysis sections.
- Please indicate the scientific names of the species on the first time they are mentioned, and compel with the scientific standards to name them afterwards (ex: using italic, standard form to shorten names, etc.).
- Were the trainings offered by FD and NGOs also related to healthcare? We do not seize exactly the link between agroforestry trainings and lines 261-266.
- How did you choose the items comprised under each capital category (table 2), and how did you determined the trends? Through the semi-structured interviews? Re the trends past trends, or current trends? Some details about this aspect should be added in the methodology section.
- Data on the mean land area possessed or managed by farmers should be included in Table 2; readers could appreciate then the density of trees rather than their abundance only.
I would recommend to remove lines 324-328 because they do not specifically refer to the results and repeat information given previously.
- Table 3 should be presented by families of plants; it would be easier to relate the table to the text. The text should also talk about the various uses of the species, or this column removed from the table.
- Line 344: ‘This refers to the measurement of the dispersion of any species in 344 the community’. I would remove this sentence. If possible, statistical testing of the differences of the indexes should be performed to give a better idea of the differences between the various measures made on biodiversity.
Figures 4-5-6 should comply with publication standards and their aspect uniformized.
Figure 5 should not be presented with a line since variables (species) are categorical.
Line 365: No significant variations were found in the similarity index of all plant species – what test led to this affirmation?
Discussion
The discussion is poor, mainly because it repeats the results without giving keys to understand them. It should be deepened and should avoid repeating the results previously presented. What are the consequences of the results on the farmers and on the biodiversity trends in Madhupur? Can we say that agroforestry is suitable? On which aspects? What about the tensions between farmers and FD? Where does it come from, and how to resolve them?…
Conclusion
It should be improved, see comments on the discussion.
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer
First and foremost, we want to express our gratitude for your time and efforts in examining our paper. Your useful suggestions and comments will undoubtedly help us improve the quality of our manuscript. We considerably edited and rewrote the paper in response to reviewer comments, as seen by the changing color text in the revised manuscript's track change option.
Reviewer #2
Comments
The paper presents a description of the livelihoods of agroforestry farmers in Mahdupur, with a description of the biological diversity (plant species richness) in these systems. The paper presents novel data, but is poorly written, the data analysis and discussion are poor and shallow, and the choices of variables and conceptual framework not well justified. This paper needs major, major modifications.
Title: please correct the title
Reply Responses: Thank you for the excellent suggestion, and we already changed the title as per the suggestion of the reviewer.
Abstract
Fair, could be upgraded a little with statistic results if any, especially on the species diversity.
Language quality: I highly recommend the authors to get their manuscript revised by English native speakers to improve the overall quality of the language.
Reply Responses: We revised/improved the abstract with some statistics on biodiversity. Additionally, one of the English Language Experts improved and fixed grammatical errors in our manuscript. Please see the revised manuscript, and particularly in the track change areas.
Introduction
Introduction is fair although short and lacking references.
The information about the context in Madhupur is hard to grasp at the first reading; we understand there was some deforestation and that government promoted settlements and reforestation efforts, but the “story” of this region could be made clearer, using for example a chronologic presentation. By doing so, the issues at stake and the rationale of the study would become clearer. I would recommend to concentrate the contextual background (Madhupur forestland history, implementation of AF practices, current practices, etc.) in one section, instead of sparkling elements throughout the text, and to make the chronology clear.
Specific comments:
- Add references to affirmations appearing on lines 38-45.
- Line 57: “but they also have 57 some downsides that need to be looked into”. Could you name a few? Otherwise, I would recommend to cut this part of the sentence as it is not relevant to the paper.
- Lines 59-60: try to avoid extreme vocabulary such as ‘frightening’. Add references to support your affirmations on lines 59-60.
- I would suggest to start another paragraph with the sentence that starts on line 70 (Agroforestry practices…)
- Line 78-80: would be useful to describe what has been found in the studies 13-17, so the reader can easily agree on the gaps the authors claim they are filling.
Reply Responses:
Thank you for your good observations and comments. We do agree with you, and insert a separate paragraph on Madhupur Sal forest short history and forest management strategies precisely. Please see the revised manuscript Line no. 65 to 79.
We also revised the manuscript as per the all-specific comments of the reviewer accordingly, please see the revised manuscript for details.
Conceptual framework
This section is too short and could be improved with more details. I really think authors should think about moving this section to the M&M section, since they present more the tools they used (livelihood framework) than concepts per se, unless they add more in-depth information or background on this framework and discuss it in light of other similar frameworks.
A figure of the conceptual framework, or details on its various capital components, should be added to the manuscript for enhanced clarity.
specific comments:
- 84-109: Replace the term ‘would’ everywhere it appears as the study has already been conducted.
- Line 101: Remove “On the contrary”, as it is irrelevant in the context.
- Figure 1: some graphics (Madhupur tract) are unclear due to poor image resolution; I would recommend the author to hand better quality images.
Reply Responses:
Thank you for the excellent comments and suggestions. We have already replaced the conceptual frameworks at the beginning of the Mythology section.
We also include a new figure representing the livelihood capitals in the manuscript, please see new figure 1.
We also addressed all specific comments accordingly and revised the manuscript.
Data collection
The study has interviewed 100 farmers but collected biodiversity data on 50 farms. How were these farms chosen for biodiversity assessment?
How did the villages were selected for the study?
- “The study conducted using 135 50 quadrat sampling techniques to collect species richness and diversity data from the 136 respective agroforestry practices of the Madhupur tract.”Please remove this sentence since
- Line 141: socks, replace by shocks
Reply Responses:
Thank you for your good inside comments and suggestions. We try to explain the reason for choosing the 50 quadrats in the revised manuscript in line no. 209 onwards. Furthermore, the village farmers do not differ significantly because the majority of the farmers have similar socioeconomic circumstances (Islam et al. 2015, 2012, 2013).
We revised Line 141 accordingly.
Results
- The result section do not discriminate the results by village; it would be useful to add information to explain why results from the various interviews and focus groups were gathered.
- Profile of respondents would be useful (men/women, mean age, profession, etc.) to better appreciate the results.
- How were the estimations of the value (in Taka) of time spent in AF system was done? This should be added in the data collection and analysis sections.
- Please indicate the scientific names of the species on the first time they are mentioned, and compel with the scientific standards to name them afterwards (ex: using italic, standard form to shorten names, etc.).
- Were the trainings offered by FD and NGOs also related to healthcare? We do not seize exactly the link between agroforestry trainings and lines 261-266.
- How did you choose the items comprised under each capital category (table 2), and how did you determined the trends? Through the semi-structured interviews? Re the trends past trends, or current trends? Some details about this aspect should be added in the methodology section.
- Data on the mean land area possessed or managed by farmers should be included in Table 2; readers could appreciate then the density of trees rather than their abundance only.
I would recommend to remove lines 324-328 because they do not specifically refer to the results and repeat information given previously.
- Table 3 should be presented by families of plants; it would be easier to relate the table to the text. The text should also talk about the various uses of the species, or this column removed from the table.
- Line 344: ‘This refers to the measurement of the dispersion of any species in 344 the community’. I would remove this sentence. If possible, statistical testing of the differences of the indexes should be performed to give a better idea of the differences between the various measures made on biodiversity.
Figures 4-5-6 should comply with publication standards and their aspect uniformized.
Figure 5 should not be presented with a line since variables (species) are categorical.
Line 365: No significant variations were found in the similarity index of all plant species – what test led to this affirmation?
Reply Responses:
Thank you for your excellent comments and suggestions. At the beginning of the results, we inserted the respondent profile with supporting data from Table 2.
We included the scientific name of each species and then used the common/English name for the next appearance.
We also revised the table and presented the plants with their family chronologies. I think it's better to keep the uses of those plants in the last column, in which the reader can get an idea of the plant species and their main uses in the tropical region.
We also revised and improved the manuscript as per the reviewer's comments. Please see the revised manuscript for details.
Discussion
The discussion is poor, mainly because it repeats the results without giving keys to understand them. It should be deepened and should avoid repeating the results previously presented. What are the consequences of the results on the farmers and on the biodiversity trends in Madhupur? Can we say that agroforestry is suitable? On which aspects? What about the tensions between farmers and FD? Where does it come from, and how to resolve them?
Reply Responses:
Thank you for your good observations and suggestions. We have already deleted the repeated results and are trying to focus mainly on livelihood and biodiversity. Since the independence of Bangladesh, the Madhupur tract has faced a common problem, which is land ownership rights, and this has arisen conflicts between local farmers and FD. The study would not discuss this critical issue as it has already been mentioned by many researchers in their studies on Madhupur Sal forest.
Conclusion: It should be improved, see comments on the discussion.
Reply Responses:
Thank you for your good comments. We subsequently revised and improved the entire conclusion for better understanding and also improved the language of the section.
Thanking you again.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have made good improvements to the first version of their manuscript and have followed most of the comments addressed in the first round of revision, but additional work is required prior to publication. See detailed comments in the attached file (v2 commented).
The aim and objectives of the paper are now clearer, although knowledge gaps could still be made more explicit through a more detailed review of the literature.
The context of Madhupur is now clearer and authors have made great improvements in the presentation of the context. Some sentences still need to be moved from other sections to this presentation part, but for most of it it is clearer. The deforestation process of the Madhupur Gar (drivers, impacts, etc.) should be made more explicit, and this section could be used to do so. Authors should also be careful in citing all the appropriate documentation or literature consulted to write this section.
The conceptual framework section could be improved by moving some of the sentences found in the result section to this section because they refer more explicitly t the description of the framework than to results per se. Also, I would reiterate that it is crucial that authors justify the use of the chosen framework in light of its advantages / disadvantages compared to other frameworks, which is still lacking in the paper. This is a part of the scientific process that can't be neglected.
The paper still lacks numerous references, especially in the methodology section and in the discussion section. The discussion especially needs further improvement, since it still repeats the main results instead of providing explanations or hypotheses to explain the results, and still need to improve the discussion on the implications of the results for farmers and biodiversity conservation. Some guidances to improve the manuscript in that sense are provided in the attached document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your insightful comments and suggestions for further improving the manuscript. I'm blown away by your attention to detail and inside comments, particularly the self-improvements. Actually, instead of suggestions, the reviewer has written or supplied comments.
All of your suggestions and improvements have already been addressed. However, we will not be able to rewrite the discussions and conceptual frameworks in a few of days. Please see my revised manuscript for further improvements.
Sincerely,
First Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
