Sustainability Consequences of Making Land Change Decisions Based on Current Climatology in the Brazilian Cerrados

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting and original paper, focussed on the critical question of sustaining agriculture under climate change in a biodiverse region of the world.  The paper is well structured and logical with a strong narrative that enables the reader to follow the methodological steps, supported by helpful diagrams and clear maps. The paper is well written, with very few syntactical or grammatical errors.

2.1.1 Spatial data. Some assessment of the accuracy of the land cover maps would be helpful here, referencing the source of the original data.  

2.1.2. Climate scenarios data. It is acknowledged that the lower limit of 2° C was selected as a conservative estimate, but additional comments either here or in the Conclusions on the possible (likely) impact of this threshold being exceeded would have added to the ‘context’ of the paper. There is no mention here either how this 2° C threshold fits into the SCP (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) framework or, which specific GCMs (General Circulation Models were used by the TerraClimate project without referring to the paper quoted (Abatzoglou et al., 2018)

Land Change Modelling (p.8). Reference to Cramer’s V is helpful but the results are not shown. A small table here including the significant variables with associated correlation coefficients and  Cramer’s V values would help. The final paragraph of this section is not entirely clear. I do not know the fuzzy similarity index described but presumably a land cover projection was performed for 2016 and the fussy similarity index was used to compare the actual land cover in 2016 with the projected land cover in 2016? Please clarify with a short explainer.

Figure 4. Unclear what the data values across the top of the figure refer to?

Discussion (p.4). avoid terms like ‘stands to reason’.  Use instead ‘it is highly probable’.

Discussion (p.15). ‘we did not assess possible changes in the underlying causes ….etc’ . One possible approach is to use scenario analysis. Modelling different scenarios based on expert opinion/stakeholder participation that depart form the standard ‘business-as-usual’ scenario.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is written in a clear, understandable way. Its meaning is rather local and no clear, concrete conclusions are defined from the obtained results. They are rather of a general recommendation character. In terms of both the abstract and the conclusions, it is necessary to specify the solutions in relation to a specific area with a specific timeline.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The formatting for the review keeps developing errors when pasted, so please see attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript handles the projection of spatiotemporal changes of croplands, pastures and native vegetation in a biome of Cerrados located in Brasilia. Furthermore, water yield was projected for the next three decades considering 2 Celsius increase. The outputs give useful information especially for planners, managers and researchers. English quality is good. The similarity index gave as 58% using Ithenticate software (47% when excluding references). However, the majority of the similarity comes from the thesis of the first author and that value dropped to 11%, when excluding mentioned thesis. The final value of 11% can be considered in accepted levels. Some suggestions/corrections were given as follows to increase the quality of the manuscript:

v Page 1, abstract: The term of “2” should be written in superscript in “km2” (two times in the abstract section).

v Page 2, first paragraph: Similar conducted studies in this region should be given.

v Page 2, second paragraph: The novelty of this study should be emphasized with citing previously conducted studies and explaining filling the gap in the literature.

v Page 2, last paragraph: It is better to move this paragraph to the introduction section. It is better to talk about the background or the arguments of handling this study in the introduction section. This valid for also the last sentence of the previous paragraph.

v Page 2, last paragraph: The reference given as “Brum, 1988” should be “Brum et al. 1988”? Could you please check it?

v Page 3, first paragraph: It is better to move the part of (beginning with the sentence of “Since the early……….” to the end of the paragraph) to the “introduction” section due to the above given reason. (in giving arguments to the need of this study)

v Page 3, first paragraph: The reference of “ANA & Embrapa, 2019” was not given in the references.

v Page 3, last paragraph (under 2. Metods): It is better to cite the software or some previously conducted studies used the software in the references.

v Page 3, last paragraph (under 2. Metods): You can use also “InVEST” to estimate future land use. What is the reason behind choosing different software in future land cover and water yield estimation?

v Page 4, figure 2: The two terms given in the figure, as “ET” and “PAWC” should be explained.

v Page 4, figure 2: It is better to change the caption of the figure from “An analytical framework for this paper” to “An analytical framework of the study”.

v Page 4, last paragraph, second sentence: The term of “wall to wall” should be explained.

v Page 4, last paragraph, second sentence: The term of “since” should be changed to “from”? Could you please check it?

v Page 4, last paragraph: The word of “classes” at the end of the line is incorrectly divided (clas-ses).

v Page 5, under “Subregions for land change modeling”: It is better to cite the related table or figure in the appendices instead of the following sentence given as “results not shown but available upon request to the corresponding author or see the Appendices”.

v Page 7, figure 3: It is better to give a name as “a” and “b” to the figures and mention them separately as “a” and “b” in the sources for better understanding. (Sources: Mapbiomas (a), and author’s analysis (b).

v  Page 8, first paragraph: It is better to provide the statistical results of Crame’s V and Pearson tests at the end of the paragraph.

v Page 8, table 3: It is better to give the cited web pages from USDA and FAO in the references.

v Page 9, second paragraph under “Results”: The outputs for future land cover projections should be given in a separate table as Table 4 for better understanding for the readers.

v Page 9, last paragraph under “Results”: The value of “833 thousand” is for 2016 of crop and pasture? Could you please check it?

v Page 9, last paragraph under “Results”: It is told that, the modeled landscape has 50 to 86% of similarity in 2016. However, it is better to indicate this is valid for 3x3 and above window size.

v Page 13, figure 7: What is the reason using specific breaks in water yield? It is better to select rounded thresholds such as 0-1500, 1500-3000 and so on. Similarly, it is better to use specific thresholds such as -9268 - -2500, -2500 - -1500 for future water yield. Moreover, as I understand from the method, water yield should be surface flow. Therefore, water flow cannot be in minus values. Could you please clarify?

v Page 13, figure 7: The term of “3” should be written in superscript in “m3/ha”.

v Page 13, under “Discussion”: The reference of “ANA & Embrapa, 2019” was not given in the references. Could you please check it? (I mentioned again above)

v Page 14, first paragraph: The term of “MMA, n.d.” should be explained

v Page 14, second paragraph: The reference of “Latawiec et al., 2017” was not given in the references.

v Page 14, last paragraph: The reference of “Feltran-Barbieri & Feres, 2021” was not given in the references.

v Page 15, first paragraph under “conclusion”: The main numerical results of water yield should be given.

v Page 16: The reference of “Copernicus Climate Change service, 2017” was not mentioned within the text.

v Page 17: The reference of “Eyring et., 2019” was not mentioned within the text.

v Page 17: The reference of “Ministerio do Meio Ambiente., 2020” was not mentioned within the text.

v Page 18: The reference of “National Institute of Space Research, 2015” was not mentioned within the text.

v Page 18: The reference of “Sharp et al., 2020” should be moved after “Pousa et al. 2019”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Despite the extensive modifications, I note that there are still only general statements in the conclusions and the abstract that new strategies will be needed. But, in which parts and what? If this is completed, I recommend that the article be published.

Author Response

We made further connections between the results of the analysis with the land use policy recommendations in the conclusion and abstract of the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

All of my suggestions/edits were accepted and successfully incorporated or logical explanations/arguments were given. I have only one minor recommendation that I've come across.

v Revised clean version - page 10, table 5: I suggested a new table including future land cover projections in a separate table. The authors organized a new table, however, I meant a “transition table” like table 4. It would be a good reference for the planners/researchers/readers, to know which land cover will change to another. The reference periods can be between 2016 and 2046.

Author Response

We replace Table 5 with a transition matrix, as suggested.