Half-Century of Forest Change in a Neotropical Peri-Urban Landscape: Drivers and Trends

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper discusses the topic of ecosystem service loss in neotropical peri-urban landscapes, analyzing the case study of the city of Xalapa in Mexico. The objective of the research and the methodology adopted are clear. However, some revisions could improve the manuscript and effectiveness of presentation of the research results.

Some of the information about the context of Mexico and the City of Xalapa, included in the introduction section, could be better integrated into the case study description section.

At line 286, the sentence appears as being incomplete.

The discussion of the results and conclusions could be improved with a more organized presentation. I suggest that, firstly, the results of the cartographic analysis illustrated in the previous section could be discussed, highlighting any limitations of the research. Next, the discussion could focus on the causes of deforestation or forest recovery and finally reflect on the implications and possible role of urban planning (introduced in lines 335-345). Perhaps it would be useful to further investigate, also with additional bibliographic references, the issue of integration of ecosystem services in urban planning, also to strengthen the final conclusions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have addressed and responded to all your thoughtful comments.

The main changes included an extra panel in figure 3 to highlight the differences between 1966 and 2018 and the reorganization of the discussion section. Minor changes were also made to highlight the importance of evaluating ecosystem services provision and our approach's methodological caveats and limitations.

Please, find the answer to your comments in the attached document.

All the best,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

• Non-forested areas have also undergone significant spatial changes (Fig.2). It would have been interesting to show how the proportion of forest, non-forest, and urban areas changes between the 2 dates (1966 and 2018). What happened to non-forest, what happened to agricultural land, where did it shift to? What other land is available to supply the increased urban population, to maintain food levels?

• This can be explained by the fact that deforestation has typically occurred in the western, north-western reforestation and eastern, south-eastern areas, and then changes in the next period studied. The discussion chapter shows that private land was more conducive to deforestation, while communal land favored forest protection. However, what explains the change in this trend and the spatial differences in another period under study?

• No information on the 4 omitted variables (distance of rivers, roads, aspect, population growth)? What about these? If they do not influence trends in deforestation or reforestation or are not detectable, is it worth including 12 aspects?
• The sentence beginning on line 285 is not complete.
• And finally, an interesting analysis that would be worth continuing and deepening in terms of the degree of species diversity, the typical species dominance, how much it has changed, and the degree of leveling observed in the deforested and reforested areas. And to what extent has the sustainability of the areas changed due to climate change.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I have attached the answer to your kind comments and the revised manuscript entitled: Half-century of forest change in a neotropical peri-urban landscape: drivers and trends.

The main changes included an extra panel in figure 3 to highlight the differences between 1966 and 2018 and the reorganization of the discussion section. Minor changes were also made to highlight the importance of evaluating ecosystem services provision and our approach's methodological caveats and limitations.

Please, find the response to your comments in the attached document.

All the best,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I was very interested into the theme of your article and was enjoying reading it. But there are some points which needs to be done better. Eventhought you are primarly dealing with methods you are mentioning ecosystem services, benefits for people etc. There is need to explain it a bit further. These can not be left as just terms in your paper (because you explain some other aspects of forest areas, it would be better to unify the text).

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

I am attaching the revised manuscript entitled: Half-century of forest change in a neotropical peri-urban landscape: drivers and trends.

The main changes included an extra panel in figure 3 to highlight the differences between 1966 and 2018 and the reorganization of the discussion section. Minor changes were also made to highlight the importance of evaluating ecosystem services provision and our approach's methodological caveats and limitations.

Please, find below the response to your kind comments.

I was very interested in the theme of your article and was enjoying reading it. But there are some points which need to be done better. Even though you are primarily dealing with methods, you mention ecosystem services, benefits for people, etc. There is a need to explain it a bit further. These cannot be left as just terms in your paper (because you explain some other aspects of forest areas, it would be better to unify the text).

Good luck!

[Authors Response]:  We appreciate this favorable opinion of our manuscript. Regarding the comment about ES, we included a paragraph in the introduction (L40-45) about the importance of the relationship between ES provision and forest cover change. Also, we highlighted the importance of direct field measurements (monitoring) in the discussion section. Also, we re-ordered the discussion and conclusion to improve text fluidity and clarity.