Analysis of Deforestation and Water Quality in the Talgua River Watershed (Honduras): Ecosystem Approach Based on the DPSIR Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment

It has been presented in the manuscript that the DPSIR model was applied to understand cause-effect relationships and interactions with anthropogenic pressures on deforestation and water quality in the Talgua river watershed and associated valley and plain areas in central-eastern Honduras. The result showed that the Talgua river watershed faced high contamination and low water quality, which was impacted by socio–demographic and economic growth of the area, as well as the high demand for water, vulnerability to climate change, and intense agro–livestock and industrial activity. Although the manuscript holds a merit to be published, many efforts need to be made as the details of methods should be explained and the quantitative analysis should be added. I will address myself in detail as follows.

 

Specific comment

1. The first citation should have the full name: DPSIR in the Abstract.

2. It is recommended to remove Figure 1 or merge it with Figure 2

3. How are the weight coefficients in Table 1 obtained? Does it need to be optimized for local conditions (such as the Talgua River Watershed)?

4. It is recommended to describe the processing process of the remote sensing images in the more detailed language in the Method section.

5. The current content lacks quantitative analysis of the impact of various parameters on ecological services (ES). It is recommended that the author focus on supplementing this part and provide improvement suggestions on the intensity of the impact of different parameters on ecological services.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your time and review of the manuscript; your comments and recommendations we believe have enriched the work and we have considered them in accordance with your suggestions.

Specific comment

1. The first citation should have the full name: DPSIR in the Abstract.

The full name of the DPSIR model has been included in the abstract.

2. It is recommended to remove Figure 1 or merge it with Figure 2

In accordance with your suggestion, figure 1 has been produced because of the merger of figures 1 and 2.

3. How are the weight coefficients in Table 1 obtained? Does it need to be optimized for local conditions (such as the Talgua River Watershed)?

The weighting coefficients for each parameter evaluated are defined following the NSF-WQI index methodology, described in the Materials and Methods section (reference #16). This methodology has been validated and accepted by the scientific community. In our study we have also used the ICATest v1.0 software, which is developed under the conditions established by the NSF-WQI index, considering the stated coefficients and adapted to tropical regions.

4. It is recommended to describe the processing process of the remote sensing images in the more detailed language in the Method section.

The processing of the remotely sensed images has been described in more detail in section 2.5 of Materials and Methods. 

5. The current content lacks quantitative analysis of the impact of various parameters on ecological services (ES). It is recommended that the author focus on supplementing this part and provide improvement suggestions on the intensity of the impact of different parameters on ecological services.

We appreciate your suggestion and agree with it. However, in this study, we have focused on analysing how anthropogenic effects, mainly deforestation, affect a primary forest and its repercussions on water quality following the DPSIR scheme. In this context and according to your suggestion, we are in the drafting phase of a study, specifically focused on how land use change, after deforestation of primary forest, and agricultural uses impact on soil properties, and carbon sequestration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled ‘Analysis of deforestation and water quality in the Talgua river watershed (Honduras): ecosystem approach based on the DPSIR model’ presents results of land use change for surface waters and groundwater in topical watershed located in Central America. The analysis was conducted using Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) analytical model recommended by FAO. The water condition was evaluated based on Water Quality Index and Contamination Indexes using chemical analysis of samples from 6 points representing different parts of the watershed. The authors also propose recommendations for authorities to improve the water management in the study area. My impression about the manuscript is generally positive, it is easy to follow, and both methodology and results are clearly described. The only factor which, I think, was insufficiently described is climate change, while it is usually significant for the water resources forming, including quality. The authors can use figure 6 to estimate the trend or variability of precipitation. I would also suggests some minor revisions:

P.2, L:97 – please provide the explanation (full name) of DPSIR abbreviation.

P. 3, L:114-120 – it would be good to shortly describe results of previous water quality investigations for the study watershed, eg. ref. 98,99.

P. 4, L:139-143 – could you add an brief information about climate change effects for the investigated area?

Chap. 2.7 – the heading is identical with chap. 3.2. Maybe change it for ‘DPSIR Model structure’ instead?

Table 2 – Groundwater is usually one word. I am not sure if the phrase ‘outdoor and outdoor interactions’ is correct.

P. 11, L:407-409 – this statement requires a reference.

Figure 6 – is it possible to determine a trend for the monthly precipitation (see general comment)?

Chap. 3.2.3 – it would be convenient to describe results of TDS with EC, and FC with BOD and DO, since they are strongly related parameters.

P.14, L:503-504 – please highlight it more in the manuscript, it could be interesting for many researchers.

P.14 L:527-532 – this section requires a broader comment to present the spatial variability of the water quality since each of the sampling points is affected by different factors.

P. 17, L:664-666 – this sentence is not quite clear to me.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well written in English and barely has grammatical mistakes or clerical errors.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your time and review of the manuscript; your comments and recommendations we believe have enriched the work and we have considered them in accordance with your suggestions.

P.2, L:97 – please provide the explanation (full name) of DPSIR abbreviation.

The full name of the DPSIR model has been included.

99. 3, L:114-120 – it would be good to shortly describe results of previous water quality investigations for the study watershed, eg. ref. 98,99.

At present, there is a lack of studies related to water quality in our study area, except for those already cited in the work that refer to the basin. The studies cited in references #98 and #99 refer to similar studies carried out in Brazil.

1. 4, L:139-143 – could you add an brief information about climate change effects for the investigated area?

We have included information concerning the effects of climate variability and climate change, specifically related to our study area. 

Chap. 2.7 – the heading is identical with chap. 3.2. Maybe change it for ‘DPSIR Model structure’ instead?

In accordance with your suggestion, we have modified the heading of section 2.7 in the Materials and Methods section.

Table 2 – Groundwater is usually one word. I am not sure if the phrase ‘outdoor and outdoor interactions’ is correct.

The sentence has been modified based on the suggestion made in Table 2.

1. 11, L:407-409 – this statement requires a reference.

In our study area, during the last decade, an increase in groundwater abstraction has been observed, both for commercial purposes and for human and agricultural and livestock supply. In addition, testimonies from locals indicate difficulties in certain places in finding water by drilling wells. Personal communications from hydrological experts indicate that these phenomena are interrelated and that the flow of aquifers is being altered. However, we lack bibliographical references to support these claims due to the lack of more specific studies. We have therefore modified the wording of the paragraph. 

Figure 6 – is it possible to determine a trend for the monthly precipitation (see general comment)?

We have included a graph of monthly precipitation in the Materials and Methods section, as an example of its annual distribution. 

Chap. 3.2.3 – it would be convenient to describe results of TDS with EC, and FC with BOD and DO, since they are strongly related parameters.

We have expanded the information as, according to your assessment, we had dealt with it very briefly.

P.14, L:503-504 – please highlight it more in the manuscript, it could be interesting for many researchers.

Considering your appreciation, we have highlighted this aspect in sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. Furthermore, in chapter 3.2.2, the effect of climate variability and climate change in our study area was emphasized.

P.14 L:527-532 – this section requires a broader comment to present the spatial variability of the water quality since each of the sampling points is affected by different factors.

We have included more information. Similarly, chapter 3.2.4 provides a more comprehensive analysis, following the DPSIR model, offering a more exhaustive explanation of the spatial variability of water quality at each of the sites studied.

1. 17, L:664-666 – this sentence is not quite clear to me.

The sentence structure has been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my concerns have been addressed