The Configuration of Forest Cover in Ribeirão Preto: A Diagnosis of Brazil’s Forest Code Implementation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review comments

INTRODUCTION

1. Line 47-52: Some previous research has linked specific occupation standards to the maintenance of ecosystem functions, and has focused the analyses on the negative effects of forest fragmentation as well as on the benefits of forest conservation to the adjustment of hydric flows, carbon supply, biodiversity and the ecologic and climatic equilibrium on Earth [6–11].

Please revise the sentence and break it to make clear sense.

2. Line 87-88: The implementation of Law No. 12651/12 produced impacts on vegetation cover that have been 88 mentioned in several studies [38,40–43].

Please specify explain what impacts (changing composition of the species or anything else)

3. Line 93-97: Considering the intensive conversion of native forest cover into agriculture in these lands; the decisive role of Brazil's environmental legislation as instrument to protect the native forest ecosystems, the objective of the this study was to provide new insights about the implementation of Law No. 12651/12 focused on patterns, shape evolution, dimension and 97 spatial distribution of native forest remnants.

Please break this long sentence and focus on what you want to achieve in the objective. At the moment this is not clear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

4. Line 121-151, separate these lines in a new paragraph “Data collection and analysis”

RESULTS

5. Line 158-160: Please rewrite the sentence: In the years of 2010, 2013 and 2016, the number of forest fragments increased 159 from 393 to 413 and then to 445, which means a 13.2% increase in the studied period.

Example: The number of forest fragments increased from 159 in 2010 to 393 and 413 in the year of 2013 and 2016 respectively. Over the study period from 2010 to 2016, the fragments increased to 13.2%.

6. Similar advice for the line 162-164

Please replace the word “depicted” for presented

 

Discussion

 

7. Line 227-In the Ribeirão Preto municipality, the farming expansion occupied the areas of low slope, because machinery can easily move across these areas.

Is this your study finding or cite literatures

8. Line- 230: The standard of fragmentation in the Ribeirão Preto municipality is mostly of small areas.

What do you mean by “Standard”?

9. Line 238-242: This is likely to trigger various negative effects on wildlife quality and biodiversity because of potential pollution increase inside the fragment, among other disturbances. The edge effects also change the growth conditions of vegetation in the fragment centers, because of drastic changes in temperature, moisture, light and wind, which in turn decrease the biomass and change the nutrient cycles. The effects are more important in the small and more isolated patches.

Is this your findings? if not cite the literatures properly

Author Response

Answers to Reviewer #1

 

INTRODUCTION

Comment #1

Line 47-52: Some previous research has linked specific occupation standards to the maintenance of ecosystem functions, and has focused the analyses on the negative effects of forest fragmentation as well as on the benefits of forest conservation to the adjustment of hydric flows, carbon supply, biodiversity and the ecologic and climatic equilibrium on Earth [6–11].

Please revise the sentence and break it to make clear sense.

Answer

The sentence was fragmented and re-written as follows

Line 47-52: The maintenance of ecosystem functions has been related to specific occupation standards in some research. The data analyses described the negative effects of forest fragmentation as well as the benefits of forest conservation to the adjustment of hydric flows, carbon supply, biodiversity and the ecologic and climatic equilibrium on Earth [6–11].

 

Comment #2

Line 87-88: The implementation of Law No. 12651/12 produced impacts on vegetation cover that have been mentioned in several studies [38, 40–43].

Please specify explain what impacts (changing composition of the species or anything else)

Answer

The sentence was completed as follows:

Line 87-88: The implementation of Law No. 12651/12 produced impacts on vegetation cover that have been mentioned in several studies [38, 40–43]. The law defined Areas of Permanent Protection delineated along the watercourses to work as environmental buffer, with a predefined width. The Legal Reserve was also defined as percentage of a rural property that must be allocated to sustainable economic land uses.

 

Comment #3

Line 93-97: Considering the intensive conversion of native forest cover into agriculture in these lands; the decisive role of Brazil's environmental legislation as instrument to protect the native forest ecosystems, the objective of the this study was to provide new insights about the implementation of Law No. 12651/12 focused on patterns, shape evolution, dimension and spatial distribution of native forest remnants.

Please break this long sentence and focus on what you want to achieve in the objective. At the moment this is not clear.

Answer

The sentence was broken as suggested.

Line 93-97: Considering the intensive conversion of native forest cover into agriculture in these lands, the Brazil's environmental legislation should be an instrument to protect the native forest ecosystems and regulate the land use land cover areas inside rural properties.

This study aims to analyze the forestry areas and to provide new insights about the implementation of Law No. 12651/12 focused on patterns, shape evolution, dimension and spatial distribution of native forest remnants.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 

Comment #4

Line 121-151, separate these lines in a new paragraph “Data collection and analysis”

Answer

The “materials and methods” section was divided into the “study area” and “Data collection and analysis” subsections.

 

RESULTS

 

Comment #5

Line 158-160: Please rewrite the sentence: In the years of 2010, 2013 and 2016, the number of forest fragments increased 159 from 393 to 413 and then to 445, which means a 13.2% increase in the studied period.

Example: The number of forest fragments increased from 159 in 2010 to 393 and 413 in the year of 2013 and 2016 respectively. Over the study period from 2010 to 2016, the fragments increased to 13.2%.

Answer

We re-wrote the sentence according to the reviewer suggestion

 

Comment #6

Similar advice for the line 162-164

Please replace the word “depicted” for presented

Answer

We replaced the word.

DISCUSSION

 

Comment #7

Line 227-In the Ribeirão Preto municipality, the farming expansion occupied the areas of low slope, because machinery can easily move across these areas.

Is this your study finding or cite literatures

Answer

It is a common practice. We clarified this point in the revised version

Line 227-In the Ribeirão Preto municipality, as common practice the farming expansion occupied the areas of low slope, because machinery can easily move across these areas.

 

Comment #8

Line- 230: The standard of fragmentation in the Ribeirão Preto municipality is mostly of small areas.

What do you mean by “Standard”?

Answer

We changed the word “standard” by “traditional”.

Line- 230: The traditional of fragmentation in the Ribeirão Preto municipality is mostly of small areas.

 

Comment #9

Line 238-242: This is likely to trigger various negative effects on wildlife quality and biodiversity because of potential pollution increase inside the fragment, among other disturbances. The edge effects also change the growth conditions of vegetation in the fragment centers, because of drastic changes in temperature, moisture, light and wind, which in turn decrease the biomass and change the nutrient cycles. The effects are more important in the small and more isolated patches

Is this your findings? if not cite the literatures properly

Answer

The following references were added: [4, 6, 7, 9, 11].

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have found the revised version much improved. However, still some aspects need clarification.

Introduction is now much better, but new terms have appeared – i.e. Areas of Permanent Protection (APP) and Legal Reserve (LR). Both terms should be better explained, especially that later some analyses are performed for those areas, and their relations with the new regulations is discussed, so readers should be more familiarized with those terms.

Also in method section more information especially on riparian strips (I assume that it is related with APP) should be added. Probably even previous version of the MS was more clear in this respect, but APP was not mentioned in that version. Information why such width of buffers were used should be added. Maybe after better description of APP it will be more clear, but the way of analyses of forest areas in buffers will be useful. Did you calculated the share of forests in those buffers, or analysed them in other way? I also assume that analyses of APP were not related with analyses of distribution of forest fragments – probably it was something complementary, but it should be clear.

Also presentation of forest areas in buffers in result section should be improved, as it is not clear. Especially that it is not clear what is presented in the Figure 3, whas is the unit of Y axis (the caption is not in English). Even if we assume that it is distribution of forests fragments within buffer – is this mean that e.g. 20% of all studied fragments were located in buffers? But in this way in buffer 250 m more fragments should be observed than in 30 m buffer – not less. This should be clear for readers (and reviewers), and need clarification.   

Conclusions should be consistent with this what is presented in the abstract (and vice versa), as the message for readers from this paper should be clear.  Now – according to the abstract - an impression appears that implementation of  this Law is rather positive – as forest cover slowly increased, but at the end of conclusions – that this New Forest Code is not effective. It should be standardized.   

Minor comments:

Changes hectares (ha) to hm2 is rather odd and not understandable. Maybe it is related with comments of second reviewer, but for me hectares (ha) are much clearer.

Abbreviations in Table 1 i.e. A and Fa are not explained in the caption to the table, thus the table is not very clear.

Author Response

Answers to Reviewer #2

I have found the revised version much improved. However, still some aspects need clarification.

 

Comment #1

Introduction is now much better, but new terms have appeared – i.e. Areas of Permanent Protection (APP) and Legal Reserve (LR). Both terms should be better explained, especially that later some analyses are performed for those areas, and their relations with the new regulations is discussed, so readers should be more familiarized with those terms.

Answer

We completed the sentence “The implementation of Law No. 12651/12 produced impacts on vegetation cover that have been mentioned in several studies [38, 40–43]”, including the notion of “Areas of Permanent Protection” and “Legal Reserve”. We added the following new sentence next to the previous sentence:

“The law defined Areas of Permanent Protection delineated along the watercourses to work as environmental buffer, with a predefined width. The Legal Reserve was also defined as percentage of a rural property that must be allocated to sustainable economic land uses.”

 

Comment #2

Also in method section more information especially on riparian strips (I assume that it is related with APP) should be added. Probably even previous version of the MS was more clear in this respect, but APP was not mentioned in that version. Information why such width of buffers were used should be added. Maybe after better description of APP it will be more clear, but the way of analyses of forest areas in buffers will be useful. Did you calculated the share of forests in those buffers, or analyzed them in other way? I also assume that analyses of APP were not related with analyses of distribution of forest fragments – probably it was something complementary, but it should be clear.

Answer

Following the sentence added to the Introduction section about the definition of “Area of Permanent Protection”, we rephrased the following sentence of Methods section to clarify why forest fragments were analyzed within the predefined buffers. In the revised version, the sentence is written as follows:

“The forestland was also analyzed along the drainage network. The purpose was to quantify the share of forests within riparian strips defined alongside the perennial and seasonal watercourses of Ribeirão Preto, and verify the impact of forest code implementation in the Areas of Permanent Protection.”

The sentence also clarifies that we calculated the share of forests within the buffers.

 

Comment #3

Also presentation of forest areas in buffers in result section should be improved, as it is not clear. Especially that it is not clear what is presented in the Figure 3, whas is the unit of Y axis (the caption is not in English). Even if we assume that it is distribution of forests fragments within buffer – is this mean that e.g. 20% of all studied fragments were located in buffers? But in this way in buffer 250 m more fragments should be observed than in 30 m buffer – not less. This should be clear for readers (and reviewers), and need clarification.  

Answer

The title of YY axis in Figure 3 was translated to English and clarified. It represents to share of forest fragments inside the buffer. It is expected that the total area inside a wider buffer is larger than that of a narrower buffer. But the percentage in regard to the respective buffer area may not follow the same trend. The results make evident that as the buffer widens the forest fragments become sparser, i.e. with a lower density. This is clarified in the revised text, where we added the following sentence:

“The figure also shows that as the buffer widens the share of forests decreases, which means that the forest occupation becomes sparser.”

 

Comment #4

Conclusions should be consistent with this what is presented in the abstract (and vice versa), as the message for readers from this paper should be clear.  Now – according to the abstract - an impression appears that implementation of  this Law is rather positive – as forest cover slowly increased, but at the end of conclusions – that this New Forest Code is not effective. It should be standardized. 

Answer

The conclusions were rephrased in keeping with the suggestion. Now the text is:

“The New Forest Code (Brazilian Law No. 12651/12) was established in 2012 and implemented since then. The results of a remote sensed assessment of area, perimeter and circularity index allowed the checking of forest fragmentation in Ribeirão Preto municipality from 2010 to 2016. The forests were fragmented in 2010, because the number of small and elongated patches was dominant in the landscape. In 2016, the situation improved because the forest cover increased. However, the dominance of elongated patches persisted. A promising outcome from the diagnosis was that reforestation around the watercourses (Areas of Permanent Protection) improved. Overall, the implementation of Brazilian’s New Forest Code in the studied period was positive but not as active as should be and therefore requires a more strict enforcement in the future.”

 

 

 

 

 

MINOR COMMENTS:

 

Comment #5

Changes hectares (ha) to hm2 is rather odd and not understandable. Maybe it is related with comments of second reviewer, but for me hectares (ha) are much clearer.

Answer

The units were changed to hectares.

 

Comment #6

Abbreviations in Table 1 i.e. A and Fa are not explained in the caption to the table, thus the table is not very clear.

Answer

We now present a description of the symbols in the caption of Table 1

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript deal with forest habitat loss and fragmentation in Brazilian administrative unit Ribeirao Preto. In the background of the study is implementation of new legal regulation in Brazil – new Brazilian Forest Code.

The subject could be potentially interesting, as forest loss and fragmentation especially in South Americas is important and not so frequently studied especially in already deforested areas.

However, there are several weakness of the paper, and problems that should be solved before potential second round of reviews. When authors rethink the whole paper, present results in more understandable way, as well as greatly improve the English, such new (revised) paper could be potentially interesting. 

At the beggining Intoduction and methods should be greatly improved.

First of all, this new regulation mentioned in the title and later in the text should be clearly described. In introduction is mentioned that this law regulates “the usage of land and stablish general rules about the protection of vegetation in private properties”. Later nothing is mentioned about private properties, whether studied forests are located in such land, or all forests were analysed etc. Also in discussion the problem of private land was somehow omitted.

In the manuscript no expectations/assumptions related with this new law are presented as well as clear prediction of this paper. Did authors expect that forest cover will increase, or only forest configuration or shape will change? It should be clearly written. Is this possible to find any changes, especially in new forest areas in such very short time scale (2010-2016)? Probably this problem should also be elaborated in Discussion.  

Study area and methods should be better described. Why this administrative unit was chosen?

Did authors check whether “forests” in Google Earth are also present in the field? Also what is the lowest tree age class to be included to forest class in Google Earth? Probably use of Google Earth is not a standard way of such data collection – at least a few papers published in good journals that use such data should be mentioned, to show how reliable is such a method of data acquisition. Similar studies are quite frequent, but as far as I remember mostly topographic maps, or satellite imagines were analysed. It is strange that authors not mentioned older papers that deal with the problem. It will be useful if Authors should calculated/estimated error of their measurements. Maybe small increase of forest cover is related with inaccurate measurements from Google Earth webpage? Also probably readers are not familiar with Panizza & Fonseca paper published in rather local journal also not in English. Many papers on habitat loss and fragmentations, were published in e.g. 1990-ites (authors may start from Landscape Ecology journal). Authors should look to them and use and described their methods of analyses accordingly.

Also I’m not sure why Authors calculate Circularity Index (CI), when in many similar papers dealing with forest fragmentation the “shape index” is calculated (see eg. Laurance & Yensen 1991. Biol. Conserv. 55: 77–92, or Bellamy et al. 1996 J. Appl. Ecol. 33:249-262). Maybe it is related with the fact that such index is calculated in Brazil, but it will be useful to calculate the shape index, to present studied forest fragments in similar way as in papers from other parts of the World.  

In Results the edge effects is mentioned, so authors may also try to analyse also changes in interior areas assuming that various edge effects (both biotic and abiotic) are observed up to 50 m (see e.g. Murcia 1995 TREE 10:58-62). 

Results sections could be shortened, also Table 1 should be rethink – whether data for perimeters are necessary – especially averages and data presented in column entitled “ha” (what is obviously wrong).

Authors should pay attention, that mentioned Figure 3 in the text which is not included in the manuscript.

Discussion should be rethink and changed especially according to changes in Introduction and Results.

The last but not least – language should be carefully verified. Besides many typos in many places it is hard to understand what authors really want to show. It make evaluation of the text much harder.    

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Introduction

- Line 45-62: please rewrite from the global context then begin the Brazil. For example  “Moreover, the conversion of forestal areas to the detriment of human activity, consists on the main factor of environment damage and descrease of functions and ecosystemic services [20-23]” is not clear to me.

- Likewise there are many sentences in the introduction including the objective ( line 83-86) that should be revised.

- Please mention the research questions you will address to achieve the objective

2. Methods

- Merge lines 96-109

- Rewrite lines 110-114, this is now a large sentence, split it to make clear sense please

3. Results

- Organise your interesting results/findings according to the research questions. Please go back to research questions and ask yourself how will you present the findings in this section. For instance, you have 2 research questions what you have to do is to divide the findings in different result sections. It will present a clear sense.