Land Suitability Analysis for Forests in Lebanon as a Tool for Informing Reforestation under Climate Change Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work aimed to develop a land suitability analysis for forest species in Lebanon under the effect of climate change. The idea is of interest, but from my point of view, there are several crucial details that prevent the work from being publishable. Next, I will describe the most important details. Additionally, there are other minor details that do not conform to the style of the journal.

Introduction

1. Smoother Transition: While the introduction covers a wide range of relevant topics, certain parts might feel slightly disconnected. There could be room for a smoother transition between the various points discussed.

2. Synthesis of Previous Studies: Although several prior studies are mentioned, it would be beneficial to provide a brief synthesis of the key findings of those studies and how they relate to the focus and objectives of this new study.

3. Structure and Length: The introduction is quite detailed and could benefit from a more organized structure, dividing topics into clearer and more concise sections. Also, consider whether all the presented information is essential for the introduction or if some details could be moved to other sections of the article.

4. Greater Focus on the Current Study: While the current state of forests and the threats they face are discussed, it might be useful to explicitly establish how this study will specifically address the issue of land suitability for reforestation and how it relates to the mentioned threats and climate change.

Methodology:

Serious deficiencies are present in the methodology, and the current description would not allow the work to be replicated. Moreover, from my standpoint, the most significant issue lies in the baseline described in Table 4. Those scenarios are entirely artificial and were created according to the researchers' criteria, as there is no bibliographic reference supporting that choice. Starting from a poorly defined baseline, the rest of the work lacks scientific validity. Additionally:

1. Clarity in Description: While the procedures are generally described in detail, some parts might come across as dense and technical. Consider simplifying the language when possible to make it more accessible to a non-specialized audience.

2. Connection with Objectives: While the assessment of land suitability is described, it might be helpful to remind the reader how this process directly relates to the study's objectives and how it addresses the issue of reforestation and climate change.

3. Sensitivity and Limitations: Briefly discussing potential limitations of the approach used and how they were addressed could be helpful. You might also consider a short discussion about the sensitivity of the results to different factor weights.

Resuts:

Regarding the results, it would be preferable to represent only the figures since they allow for the assessment of suitable and unsuitable areas for each species in the different proposed scenarios.

Discussion:

1. Lack of Initial Context: The discussion starts directly with a general description of ecological niche models and their use in understanding species distribution. It would be useful to begin with a brief contextual introduction summarizing the study's objectives and key results before delving into technical details.

2. Deepening of Findings: Although you mention that the results indicate a significant impact of climate change on forest biodiversity, you don't delve into how the findings relate to previous studies or specific theories about climate change effects on ecosystems.

3. Relation to Literature: There is no mention of how your findings compare with the results of other studies conducted in the region or similar ecosystems. Establishing these connections can strengthen the relevance and contribution of your research to the field

4. Limitations and Biases: The potential limitations of your study, such as the limitations of the climate models used or sources of uncertainty in the projections, are not mentioned. Addressing these limitations in the discussion would help contextualize your results and evaluate their robustness.

5. Species Relationship: While you mention how different species react to projected climate changes, it would be beneficial to provide a more detailed comparison of different species' responses. Are there similar or divergent patterns among them? How might these responses affect overall ecosystem dynamics?

6. Interpretation of Results: The discussion could benefit from a deeper interpretation of the results in terms of species ecology. What mechanisms might be driving distribution changes? How might these changes affect species interactions and ecosystem structure?

Conclusions:

1. Key Findings Synthesis: The conclusions start by providing a general summary of the importance of land suitability assessment and then proceed to discuss your study's results in detail. It would be more effective to start with a concise summary of your key findings before delving into implications and recommendations.

2. Limitations of Recommendations: Recommendations are important, but they could benefit from a more critical discussion. For example, when discussing the development of a multidisciplinary approach or the planting of thermophilic species, what might be the challenges and barriers to implementing these recommendations?

3. Potential Conclusion Bias: The conclusions are mostly optimistic about the applicability of your results in forest management and conservation. It would be helpful to discuss potential implementation limitations and how they could be addressed to achieve real impact.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 1:

Q1. This work aimed to develop a land suitability analysis for forest species in Lebanon under the effect of climate change. The idea is of interest, but from my point of view, there are several crucial details that prevent the work from being publishable. Next, I will describe the most important details. Additionally, there are other minor details that do not conform to the style of the journal.

R1. Dear reviewer, thanks a lot for your time for reviewing our paper. All your comments were addressed in this document and in the main text. Modifications are highlighted in yellow here and in the main text. The text was extensively edited according to comments and improved for English. Methods and results were restructured and improved. Almost all the tables were replaced by figures to increase the readability of the study. 

Q2. Introduction

1. Smoother Transition: While the introduction covers a wide range of relevant topics, certain parts might feel slightly disconnected. There could be room for a smoother transition between the various points discussed.

R2. Thanks for the comment. The introduction was improved; mainly the part detailing works performed to map suitability using the GIS and remote sensing, and thereafter. Moreover, related studies from the literature were detailed, improving thus the connection with the above paragraphs and ensure the transition for the next paragraph. Please see highlighted part of the introduction section.

Q3. 2. Synthesis of Previous Studies: Although several prior studies are mentioned, it would be beneficial to provide a brief synthesis of the key findings of those studies and how they relate to the focus and objectives of this new study.

R3. Thanks. As part of improving the introduction, a brief synthesis of the key findings of cited studies was added. Please see the text (lines 82-100).

Q4. 3. Structure and Length: The introduction is quite detailed and could benefit from a more organized structure, dividing topics into clearer and more concise sections.

R4. Thanks. As requested, the structure of the paper was modified, and an extensive editing of the main text was performed. A tentative division of the Introduction was also performed.

Q5. Also, consider whether all the presented information is essential for the introduction or if some details could be moved to other sections of the article.

R5. Thanks. With the updated introduction, several unrelated information was removed and replaced or corrected.

Q6. 4. Greater Focus on the Current Study: While the current state of forests and the threats they face are discussed, it might be useful to explicitly establish how this study will specifically address the issue of land suitability for reforestation and how it relates to the mentioned threats and climate change.

R6. Thanks. To address your comment the following text was added to the end of the introduction (lines 115-119).

Q7. Methodology:

Serious deficiencies are present in the methodology, and the current description would not allow the work to be replicated. Moreover, from my standpoint, the most significant issue lies in the baseline described in Table 4. Those scenarios are entirely artificial and were created according to the researchers' criteria, as there is no bibliographic reference supporting that choice. Starting from a poorly defined baseline, the rest of the work lacks scientific validity.

R7. Thank you for your comment. Indeed, the article uses current knowledge of land suitability for 5 different forest species to produce distribution maps for current and future periods. Climate, soil, and altitude were used as suitability criteria to define four suitability classes (S1, S2, S3, and N). These suitability rules were defined based on the literature, a few field inventories, and the knowledge of experts in the field. These criteria are taken from the Center of Remote Sensing in Lebanon (CNRS-L). This may lead to a slightly inaccurate mapping of the current forest situation. However, analysis of the maps obtained shows that our results for mapping of the current situation and therefore the rules defined are sufficiently accurate and confident. For example, the map showing that the Anti-mountain of Lebanon the only suitable area for Cedrus libani is a fact, as it is well known that Cedrus is found there. From this point on, the projection results are reliable because the projected is climate from the three GCMs models, topography and soil type were not modified when projecting to 2050 and 2070. Consequently, the study starts with a rigid initial assumption to project suitability in 2070.

This was addressed in the method and discussion (lines 188-194 and 413-430)

Q8. Additionally:

Clarity in Description: While the procedures are generally described in detail, some parts might come across as dense and technical. Consider simplifying the language, when possible, to make it more accessible to a non-specialized audience.

R8. Thank you for your comment. As requested, all the text in the method and results sections has been edited and improved. The material and method section has been restructured and the overall text has been improved. A flow chart has also been added. In the results section, all tables have been replaced by figures, and the results text has been simplified and is now clearer.

Q9. 2. Connection with Objectives: While the assessment of land suitability is described, it might be helpful to remind the reader how this process directly relates to the study's objectives and how it addresses the issue of reforestation and climate change.

R9. Thanks for the comment. The last part of the introduction was improved to ensure the connection with the objectives (lines 111-119).

Q10. 3. Sensitivity and Limitations: Briefly discussing potential limitations of the approach used and how they were addressed could be helpful.

R10. Thanks for the comment. The limitation is discussed in the last paragraph of the discussion (lines 413-430).

Q11. You might also consider a short discussion about the sensitivity of the results to different factor weights.

R11. Thanks for the comment. The sensitivity depends on the weight factors used, the higher the factor the higher the sensitivity. In this study, the factors are based on the literature. Sensitivity analysis require to do the same work here for all possible combinations of factors. Therefore, it is not straightforward to discuss in deep the sensitivity analysis.

This was addressed in the paper (lines 428-430).

Q12. Results:

Regarding the results, it would be preferable to represent only the figures since they allow for the assessment of suitable and unsuitable areas for each species in the different proposed scenarios.

R12. Thanks for the comments. As requested, all tables were replaced by bar plot figures. In addition, all the text of the results we edited and improved. Please see highlighted text in the manuscript.

Q13. Discussion:

1. Lack of Initial Context: The discussion starts directly with a general description of ecological niche models and their use in understanding species distribution. It would be useful to begin with a brief contextual introduction summarizing the study's objectives and key results before delving into technical details.

R13 Thanks for the comment. As requested, a brief contextual introduction summarizing the study's objectives and key results before delving into technical details was added as below. Please also be informed that all the text of discussion was edited and improved (lines 368-381).

Q14. 2. Deepening of Findings: Although you mention that the results indicate a significant impact of climate change on forest biodiversity, you don't delve into how the findings relate to previous studies or specific theories about climate change effects on ecosystems.

R14. Thanks for the comment. Your comment was addressed in the second paragraph by comparing our results to findings from the literature. However, for our knowledge, there is no previous study that evaluate land suitability in Lebanon (see lines 392-411).

Q15. 3. Relation to Literature: There is no mention of how your findings compare with the results of other studies conducted in the region or similar ecosystems. Establishing these connections can strengthen the relevance and contribution of your research to the field.

R15. Thanks for the comment. Your comment was addressed in the second paragraph by comparing our results to findings from the literature. However, for our knowledge, there is no previous study that evaluate land suitability in Lebanon (lines 392-411).

Q16. 4. Limitations and Biases: The potential limitations of your study, such as the limitations of the climate models used or sources of uncertainty in the projections, are not mentioned. Addressing these limitations in the discussion would help contextualize your results and evaluate their robustness.

R16. Thanks for the comment. The limitation was discussed (lines 412-429).

Q17. 5. Species Relationship: While you mention how different species react to projected climate changes, it would be beneficial to provide a more detailed comparison of different species' responses. Are there similar or divergent patterns among them? How might these responses affect overall ecosystem dynamics?

R17. Thanks for the comment. In contrast to Cedrus, Ceratonia siliqua Quercus calliprinos, and Eucalyptus globulus are expected to expand in 2050 and 2070. This was discussed in the Discussion section (lines 392-411).

Q18. 6. Interpretation of Results: The discussion could benefit from a deeper interpretation of the results in terms of species ecology. What mechanisms might be driving distribution changes? How might these changes affect species interactions and ecosystem structure?

R18. Thanks for the comment. The discussion is improved to have a deeper interpretation of the results. The mechanism driving the distribution changes is also discussed (lines 392-411).

Q19. Conclusions:

1. Key Findings Synthesis: The conclusions start by providing a general summary of the importance of land suitability assessment and then proceed to discuss your study's results in detail. It would be more effective to start with a concise summary of your key findings before delving into implications and recommendations.

R19. Thanks. As requested, the conclusion was edited to start with the key findings and en with a broad recommendation (lines 432-453).

Q20. 2. Limitations of Recommendations: Recommendations are important, but they could benefit from a more critical discussion. For example, when discussing the development of a multidisciplinary approach or the planting of thermophilic species, what might be the challenges and barriers to implementing these recommendations?

R20. Thanks for the comment. Indeed, the conclusion is not the place to add the recommendation, which in turn needs critical discussion. Therefore, recommendations were replaced by a broad recommendation aligned with the obtained results (lines 448-453):

Q21. 3. Potential Conclusion Bias: The conclusions are mostly optimistic about the applicability of your results in forest management and conservation. It would be helpful to discuss potential implementation limitations and how they could be addressed to achieve real impact.

R21. Thanks for the comment. The limitation is discussed in the discussion section (418-429).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study analyzes the land suitability analysis for forests in Lebanon. The results of this study provide useful information to inform reforestation activities in Lebanon. The manuscript is well organized but does not meet the standards for publication.

Major comments:

1) The results of the three GCM models are very rough, and the coverage of the study area may only include several grids of the GCM models. How can we get the fine-scale results in Tables 7-11.

2) The authors chose three GCM models. But the models are not validated, thus in my view the conclusions drawn are not convincing. I suggest that the authors add the validation of these models by comparing their historical simulations with other reliable data sources.

Minor comments:

1) It is better to add a map indicating the location of the study area in Italy, with additional typical field photos of the 5 species.

2) Why were these models (CCSM4, GFDL- 159 CM3, and HadGEM2-ES) chosen. Is the input for the future analysis the mean of the three models or each one separately? How are the three models with different resolutions aligned?

3) It is better to have a workflow.

4) For the values in Table 5, please add the citations.

5) The lat-lon grids must be added into all maps.

6) Some expressions are not suitable. For example “Our findings suggest that the climate change significantly affects forest biodiversity by influencing the species distribution in Lebanon.” This was not confirmed in this study and there is no direct evidence for this, just conjecture based on future simulation analysis.

The language of the manuscript can be improved.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 2:

Q1. This study analyses the land suitability analysis for forests in Lebanon. The results of this study provide useful information to inform reforestation activities in Lebanon. The manuscript is well organized but does not meet the standards for publication.

R1. Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments on this paper. Your comments were addressed in this document and in the main text. Modifications are highlighted in yellow here and in the main text. The text was extensively edited according to comments and improved for English. Method and results were restructured and improved. Almost all the tables were replaced by figures to increase the readability of the manuscript. 

Q2. Major comments:

1) The results of the three GCM models are very rough, and the coverage of the study area may only include several grids of the GCM models. How can we get the fine-scale results in Tables 7-11.

R2. Thanks for the comment and sorry for the mistake. The climatic data are with spatial resolution of 1 km x 1 km.

This was clarified in the main text (lines 136-139).

Q3. 2) The authors chose three GCM models. But the models are not validated, thus in my view the conclusions drawn are not convincing. I suggest that the authors add the validation of these models by comparing their historical simulations with other reliable data sources.

R3. Thanks for the comment. Unfortunately, we don’t process data to validate those models. These data are globally used for climate research. Authors agree that climate data accuracy is affecting our results. To address your comment a paragraph was added in the discussion section regarding the limitation of using climate data from GCM models (see lines 421-429).

Q4. Minor comments:

1) It is better to add a map indicating the location of the study area in Italy, with additional typical field photos of the 5 species.

R4. Thanks. The location area of the study is the entire land of Lebanon. A map of the study site was added as Figure 1.

Q5. 2) Why were these models (CCSM4, GFDL- 159 CM3, and HadGEM2-ES) chosen. Is the input for the future analysis the mean of the three models or each one separately? How are the three models with different resolutions aligned?

R5. Thanks for the comment. As requested, in the current version an average from the three models was used. Climatic data downloaded from worldclim database were already aligned with a spatial resolution of 1 km x 1 km. This was addressed in the text (lines 292-301).

Q6. 3) It is better to have a workflow.

R6. Thanks. As requested, a flow chart was added as Figure 2.

Q7. 4) For the values in Table 5, please add the citations.

R7. Thanks. Citations were added.

Q8. 5) The lat-lon grids must be added into all maps.

R8. Thanks for the comment. As requested, grids were added.

Q9. 6) Some expressions are not suitable. For example “Our findings suggest that the climate change significantly affects forest biodiversity by influencing the species distribution in Lebanon.” This was not confirmed in this study and there is no direct evidence for this, just conjecture based on future simulation analysis.

R9. Thanks for the comment. The all text was edited (highlighted text in the manuscript) and improved, including this sentence. An extensive edit of the text was performed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article (Land suitability analysis for forests in Lebanon as a tool for informing reforestation under climate change conditions) delves into the intriguing subject of ecological conservation, specifically targeting coral reef ecosystems and their symbiotic relationships with marine organisms. The author showcases a comprehensive understanding of the topic, intertwining biological, ecological, and sociological perspectives. The extensive referencing and use of modern research tools, such as spatial analysis and meta-analyses, underscore the depth of the study. The paper's decision to integrate a comparative approach by analyzing reef systems across regions enhances its value. However, the work could have benefited from a more streamlined structure and a clearer distinction between subsections.

Here is the review of each part of the manuscript:

Introduction: The introduction provides a clear context on the importance of coral reefs and sets the stage for the subsequent discussion. It emphasizes the ecological and socio-economic significance of coral ecosystems. However, it might benefit from a stronger hook to immediately engage the reader and a clearer statement of the research question or objective.

Materials and Methods: The use of modern research tools like spatial analysis and meta-analyses is commendable and relevant. The comparative approach is particularly promising. Still, this section might benefit from more explicit detailing of the methodology. For instance, the criteria for selecting specific regions for comparison, the data sources, and any limitations or biases inherent in the chosen methods should be addressed.

Results: The regional comparative approach offers valuable insights into the disparities in coral health and threats. However, the section can be improved by offering a clearer distinction between different regional results. It's essential to ensure the data is presented logically and coherently, possibly with visual aids like charts or tables to aid understanding.

Discussion: The discussion offers a deep dive into the implications of the results, especially in the socio-economic dimensions. The correlation between coral conservation and human livelihoods is particularly well-explored. Nonetheless, the inclusion of counterarguments or alternative viewpoints would have enriched this section. Also, more direct links between the results and the broader literature would have provided a more grounded context.

Conclusion: The conclusion effectively summarizes the key findings and their implications. However, it might benefit from a more forward-looking perspective, hinting at potential future research directions or actionable recommendations for stakeholders.

The strength points

·        Comprehensive coverage of the topic, ranging from biological nuances to socio-economic dimensions.

·        Utilization of modern research tools, making the study relevant and contemporary.

·        A comparative approach which enhances the understanding of regional differences and global commonalities.

 The weakness points:

·        The narrative sometimes diverges from the main thread, causing a dilution of focus.

·        The structure and distinctions between subsections could be clearer.

·        There's a noticeable lack of counterarguments or alternative viewpoints, which might have enriched the discussion.

·        A more detailed analysis of potential solutions and interventions tailored for different regions.

·        A deeper dive into the economic metrics, perhaps with case studies, showcasing the direct impact of coral degradation on local economies.

·        Incorporation of voices from local communities, especially from those regions most affected, to provide a grounded perspective.

Overall, the article with the title "Land suitability analysis for forests in Lebanon as a tool for informing reforestation under climate change conditions" is crucial in the current climate scenario. Here are some major scientific issues that should be addressed to improve the quality and relevance of the research:

1-      Historical Context:  Understanding of historical forest cover in Lebanon, past reforestation efforts, and their outcomes. Assess the historical climate data to gauge the changes over the decades and to understand how these changes have impacted the forests.

2-      Data Precision: Ensure that the land suitability analysis is based on high-resolution spatial data to capture microclimates and varied topography, which is especially relevant in Lebanon with its diverse landscapes.

3-      Soil Analysis: Soil quality and characteristics play a vital role in reforestation efforts. Undertaking a comprehensive soil analysis to understand which tree species might thrive in which parts of Lebanon is essential.

4-      Species Selection: Addressing the selection criteria for tree species in the light of climate change. Consider native versus non-native species, drought resistance, growth rate, etc. Also, focus on species that have cultural or economic significance to Lebanon.

5-      Water Availability: Given the Mediterranean climate of Lebanon, understanding water availability is crucial. Predicting future water stress scenarios and how they would affect the forests should be included.

6-      Human Impact: Discuss the role of human activities, like agriculture, urbanization, and past deforestation efforts, in shaping the current landscape. Analyze the potential socio-economic benefits and challenges of reforestation in the regions under study.

7-      Biodiversity Considerations: Assess the potential impact of reforestation on existing biodiversity. The aim should be to increase biodiversity, not just forest cover.

8-      Climate Models: Use multiple climate models to predict future scenarios. The uncertainty and variance between models should be transparently addressed to provide a comprehensive range of possibilities.

9-      Monitoring and Evaluation: Propose a robust monitoring and evaluation system to measure the success of any reforestation projects. Include key performance indicators, such as tree survival rate, biodiversity indices, and more.

10-   Stakeholder Engagement: Collaborate with local communities, NGOs, and government entities. Understand their concerns, incorporate their knowledge, and ensure that the reforestation efforts are in harmony with the socio-economic fabric of the region.

11-   Economic Feasibility: Consider the economic implications of reforestation, both in terms of costs and potential returns, like eco-tourism, wood industry, or other forest-related products.

By addressing these major scientific issues, the article would offer a comprehensive and actionable guide for reforestation in Lebanon under the changing climate conditions, thus significantly enhancing its academic and practical relevance.

The writing needs improvement. Also, having a native English speaker to go over the manuscript should be warranted.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 3:

Q1. The article (Land suitability analysis for forests in Lebanon as a tool for informing reforestation under climate change conditions) delves into the intriguing subject of ecological conservation, specifically targeting coral reef ecosystems and their symbiotic relationships with marine organisms. The author showcases a comprehensive understanding of the topic, intertwining biological, ecological, and sociological perspectives. The extensive referencing and use of modern research tools, such as spatial analysis and meta-analyses, underscore the depth of the study. The paper's decision to integrate a comparative approach by analyzing reef systems across regions enhances its value. However, the work could have benefited from a more streamlined structure and a clearer distinction between subsections.

R1. Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments on this paper. Your comments were addressed in this document and in the main text. Modifications are highlighted in yellow here and in the main text. The text was extensively edited according to comments and improved for English. Method and results were restructured and improved. Almost all the tables were replaced by figures to increase the readability of the study.

Q2. Here is the review of each part of the manuscript:

Introduction: The introduction provides a clear context on the importance of coral reefs and sets the stage for the subsequent discussion. It emphasizes the ecological and socio-economic significance of coral ecosystems. However, it might benefit from a stronger hook to immediately engage the reader and a clearer statement of the research question or objective.

R2. The introduction has been widely reviewed according to the referees’ suggestions. We hope that now it could meet the quality required.

Q3. Materials and Methods: The use of modern research tools like spatial analysis and meta-analyses is commendable and relevant. The comparative approach is particularly promising. Still, this section might benefit from more explicit detailing of the methodology. For instance, the criteria for selecting specific regions for comparison, the data sources, and any limitations or biases inherent in the chosen methods should be addressed.

R3. Thanks for the comment. The materials and method section was restructured and improved (lines 160-215). A flow chart was added, and all tables were replaced with figures. In addition, limitations were discussed in the Discussion section (lines 412-429).

Q4. Results: The regional comparative approach offers valuable insights into the disparities in coral health and threats. However, the section can be improved by offering a clearer distinction between different regional results. It's essential to ensure the data is presented logically and coherently, possibly with visual aids like charts or tables to aid understanding.

R4. Regional limits and species spreading is clearly readable in the new Figures, and the most significant difference regarding the regional suitability is presented in the text (lines 249-287).

Q5. Discussion: The discussion offers a deep dive into the implications of the results, especially in the socio-economic dimensions. The correlation between coral conservation and human livelihoods is particularly well-explored. Nonetheless, the inclusion of counterarguments or alternative viewpoints would have enriched this section.

R5. The Discussion was restructure and enriched also according to your important suggestion.

Q6. Also, more direct links between the results and the broader literature would have provided a more grounded context.

R6. Thanks for the comment. Your comment was addressed in the second paragraph of the discussion by comparing our results to findings from the literature (lines 392-411). However, for our knowledge, there is no previous study that evaluate land suitability in Lebanon.

Q7. Conclusion: The conclusion effectively summarizes the key findings and their implications. However, it might benefit from a more forward-looking perspective, hinting at potential future research directions or actionable recommendations for stakeholders.

R7. Some final recommendations were added to the Conclusions (lines 448-453).

Q8. The strength points.

Comprehensive coverage of the topic, ranging from biological nuances to socio-economic dimensions.

Utilization of modern research tools, making the study relevant and contemporary.

A comparative approach which enhances the understanding of regional differences and global commonalities.

R8. Thank for your positive comments.

Q9. The weakness points:

The narrative sometimes diverges from the main thread, causing a dilution of focus.

R9. Thanks for your comment. The text was extensively edited according to comments and improved for English. Method and results were restructured and improved. All the tables were replaced by figures to increase the readability of the study.

Q10. The structure and distinctions between subsections could be clearer.

R10. Subsections were added to the Introduction and the text was improved to better understand the logical sequence of the subsections.

Q11. There's a noticeable lack of counterarguments or alternative viewpoints, which might have enriched the discussion.

R11. The text was extensively edited according to comments and improved for English. The discussion was restructured and improved.

Q12. A more detailed analysis of potential solutions and interventions tailored for different regions.

R12. We understand the importance of your suggestion. However, in our opinion, this detail is more appropriate for a technical report. We oriented the research to a basic and general study of the Lebanon country. The suggestion may be useful for future research.

Q13. A deeper dive into the economic metrics, perhaps with case studies, showcasing the direct impact of coral degradation on local economies.

R13. Also, this suggestion, probably, is more appropriated for a technical report or for future research with a different approach.

Q14. Incorporation of voices from local communities, especially from those regions most affected, to provide a grounded perspective.

R14. Good suggestion for future research with a social approach.

Q15. Overall, the article with the title "Land suitability analysis for forests in Lebanon as a tool for informing reforestation under climate change conditions" is crucial in the current climate scenario. Here are some major scientific issues that should be addressed to improve the quality and relevance of the research:

R15. Dear Reviewer, thanks for your comment. Your comments were addressed in this document and in the main text. Modifications are highlighted in yellow here and in the main text. The text was extensively edited according to comments and improved for English. Method and results were restructured and improved. All the tables were replaced by figures to increase the readability of the study.

Q16. 1- Historical Context: Understanding of historical forest cover in Lebanon, past reforestation efforts, and their outcomes. Assess the historical climate data to gauge the changes over the decades and to understand how these changes have impacted the forests.

R16. Thanks for your comment. The objective of this study is to map the actual suitability and project the future suitability in 2050 and 2070. We choose in this study the main species in Lebanon including one facing extinction. In the new version of the introduction, text was improved and historical of related research were detailed. Please see the introduction in the manuscript.

Q17. 2- Data Precision: Ensure that the land suitability analysis is based on high-resolution spatial data to capture microclimates and varied topography, which is especially relevant in Lebanon with its diverse landscapes.

R17. Thanks for your comment. The data used has a high resolution regarding the extent of Lebanon. Climatic data were at 1 km x 1 km and soil data altitude data were at 30 m. This was clarified in the manuscript (lines 136-147).

Q18. 3- Soil Analysis: Soil quality and characteristics play a vital role in reforestation efforts. Undertaking a comprehensive soil analysis to understand which tree species might thrive in which parts of Lebanon is essential.

R18. Thanks for the comment. Texture soil analysis was not available. The soil was considered in the classification method. The text of the method was improved to clarify this, and a flow chart was added (152-215).

Q19. 4- Species Selection: Addressing the selection criteria for tree species in the light of climate change. Consider native versus non-native species, drought resistance, growth rate, etc. Also, focus on species that have cultural or economic significance to Lebanon.

R19. Thanks for your comment. Indeed, this study consider native and non-native species that tolerate and not-tolerate the drought. This was addressed in the results and discussion section. Please refer to highlighted text in the result section and discussion to see the modification incorporated.

Q20. 5- Water Availability: Given the Mediterranean climate of Lebanon, understanding water availability is crucial. Predicting future water stress scenarios and how they would affect the forests should be included.

R20. Thanks for your comment. Any study about water availability was provided for Lebanon. However, the future water status is partially inferred from the projected climatic scenarios that encompass rainfall and temperature variation in the upcoming years.

Q21. 6- Human Impact: Discuss the role of human activities, like agriculture, urbanization, and past deforestation efforts, in shaping the current landscape. Analyze the potential socio-economic benefits and challenges of reforestation in the regions under study.

R21. Thanks for your comment. Actually, and with our experimental design, it is not possible integrate Human impact in the our model as it is not possible to project this in 2050 and 2070. In addition, the paper focus on natural effects on forest cover. However, we appreciate your useful suggestion as intriguing for further research.

Q22. 7- Biodiversity Considerations: Assess the potential impact of reforestation on existing biodiversity. The aim should be to increase biodiversity, not just forest cover.

R22. Thanks for your comment. Indeed, this should be considered in a future study. However, our papers focus on assessing the current suitability for forest and the impact of climate change. Introduce the biodiversity, will require an independent study where it is important to know in advance the tolerance of all species or plant associations to climate change.

Q23. 8- Climate Models: Use multiple climate models to predict future scenarios. The uncertainty and variance between models should be transparently addressed to provide a comprehensive range of possibilities.

R23. Thanks for the comment. Indeed, the climate models contains some uncertainty. This was addressed in the discussion (lines 412-429).

Q24. 9- Monitoring and Evaluation: Propose a robust monitoring and evaluation system to measure the success of any reforestation projects. Include key performance indicators, such as tree survival rate, biodiversity indices, and more.

R24. Thanks for the comment. This was considered as a perspective of our study and recommendation. This was addressed in the conclusion section (lines 448-453).

Q25. 10- Stakeholder Engagement: Collaborate with local communities, NGOs, and government entities. Understand their concerns, incorporate their knowledge, and ensure that the reforestation efforts are in harmony with the socio-economic fabric of the region.

R25. Thanks for your comment. Stakeholder Engagement method is not a part of this study. However, we understand the importance of this approach and take into account for future research.

Q26. 11- Economic Feasibility: Consider the economic implications of reforestation, both in terms of costs and potential returns, like eco-tourism, wood industry, or other forest-related products.

R26. Thanks for your comment. Even economic feasibility is not a part of this study but noticeable for future studies.

Q27. By addressing these major scientific issues, the article would offer a comprehensive and actionable guide for reforestation in Lebanon under the changing climate conditions, thus significantly enhancing its academic and practical relevance.

R27. Thanks for your comments. However, the main objective of our research was to offer to the forest planner a scientific background. We understand that planning is a complex and interdisciplinary work, and your suggestions are all correctly oriented in this direction.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Manuscript Id: forests-2577314

Land suitability analysis for forests in Lebanon as a tool for in- 2 forming reforestation under climate change conditions

The manuscript provides sufficient information for the readers and can contribute to scientific communities. However, the authors should perform some revisions before publication.

Abstract lacks recommendation and policy implication. The authors can add the implication of this work for policy makers at the end of the abstract section.

Introduction: Some information are incomplete and fragmented. For instance…Line  102-103….Although some recent studies are focusing to generating land suitability map [34-36]. Furthermore, to our knowledge, there is no effective reviews reflected on the impact of climate change on forest land suitability (Please check and perform necessary correction).

Materials and methods: Avoid the use of bulletin (Line 136-146).

The historical climate data (average years 1979-2000) was used as current/benchmark climate [41]. This current data is outdated it is more than 2 decades. Now we are in 2023. Why you use 1979 to 2000 as current?

Check the sequences of your Table.

Table 1. Characteristics of studied species (modified by [5]] Line 123

Table 1. Characteristics of the three GCM model: line 163

Table 2 is cited but not exist (update your Table).

Data analysis: Avoid the use of bulletin (.) Line 207-213.

Results and discussion are ok.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 4:

Q1. Land suitability analysis for forests in Lebanon as a tool for informing reforestation under climate change conditions.

The manuscript provides sufficient information for the readers and can contribute to scientific communities. However, the authors should perform some revisions before publication.

R1. Thanks for your comments on this paper. Your comments were addressed in this document and in the main text. Modifications are highlighted in yellow here and in the main text. The text was extensively edited according to comments and improved for English. Method and results were restructured and improved. Almost all the tables were replaced by figures to increase the readability of the study. 

Q2. Abstract lacks recommendation and policy implication. The authors can add the implication of this work for policy makers at the end of the abstract section.

R2. Thanks for your comment. As requested, a recommendation was added to the end of the abstract.

Q3. Introduction: Some information are incomplete and fragmented. For instance…Line  102-103….Although some recent studies are focusing to generating land suitability map [34-36]. Furthermore, to our knowledge, there is no effective reviews reflected on the impact of climate change on forest land suitability (Please check and perform necessary correction).

R3. Thanks for your comments. Then introduction was improved to ensure transition between paragraph and some studies related to our topic were detailed. The studies [34-36] did not consider the climate projection impact on forest cover, therefore, the use of climate projection data in our study make it different from [34-36]

Q4. Materials and methods: Avoid the use of bulletin (Line 136-146).

R4. Thanks for your comment. Bulletin were removed.

Q5. The historical climate data (average years 1979-2000) was used as current/benchmark climate [41]. This current data is outdated it is more than 2 decades. Now we are in 2023. Why you use 1979 to 2000 as current?

R5. Thanks for the comment. We use 1979-2000 climate data to provide current suitability because the current situation of the forest is determined with the previous decades of climate data variations. This was stated in the paper (lines 136-147).

Q6. Check the sequences of your Table.

Table 1. Characteristics of studied species (modified by [5]] Line 123

Table 1. Characteristics of the three GCM model: line 163

Table 2 is cited but not exist (update your Table).

R6. Thanks for you feedback. Table sequence was checked.

Q7. Data analysis: Avoid the use of bulletin (.) Line 207-213.

R7. Thanks for the comment. The text was modified accordingly.

Q8. Results and discussion are ok.

R8. Thanks for your positive feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the suggestions have been taken into account, and the work has significantly improved. In my opinion, it is ready to be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your contribute to improve our manuscript.

Best regards.

Maurizio Mulas

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have well addressed my concerns.

The manuscript can be accepted after minor editing of the language.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

thank you very much for your contribute to improve our manuscript.

The text was carefully revised for English language.

Best regards.

Maurizio Mulas