Next Article in Journal
Brazil Wave Climate from a High-Resolution Wave Hindcast
Next Article in Special Issue
Periods and Amplitudes of Southern Pine Beetle Infestations under Climate Change
Previous Article in Journal
Parameterization-Driven Uncertainties in Single-Forcing, Single-Model Wave Climate Projections from a CMIP6-Derived Dynamic Ensemble
 
 
Communication
Peer-Review Record

Identifying Forest Degradation and Restoration Opportunities in the Lancang-Mekong Region: A Tool to Determine Criteria and Indicators

Climate 2022, 10(4), 52; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli10040052
by Kalifi Ferretti-Gallon 1,*, James Douglas Langston 1, Guangyu Wang 1, Kebiao Huang 2, Chao Long 2 and Hongbo Zhai 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Climate 2022, 10(4), 52; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli10040052
Submission received: 5 March 2022 / Revised: 17 March 2022 / Accepted: 18 March 2022 / Published: 30 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Climate Change and Deforestation and Forest Degradation)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It’s my pleasure to review climate-1646251 “Identifying forest degradation and restoration opportunities in the Lancang-Mekong Region: a tool to determine criteria and indicators” by Ferretti-Gallon et al. I found this work is interesting, manuscript is well and concisely written, and I recommend its publication in Climate after minor revisions.

General Comments:

** Add research hypothesis, research questions, and research objectives at the end of introduction.

Specific Comments:

** Line 20: Add names of five studied countries in parentheses.

** Line 55: Add same information for southern China.  

** Line 313: Add Information of experts (e.g., experience, study field, education, frequency, etc.).

** Line 315: Refer to tables. 

Author Response

It’s my pleasure to review climate-1646251 “Identifying forest degradation and restoration opportunities in the Lancang-Mekong Region: a tool to determine criteria and indicators” by Ferretti-Gallon et al. I found this work is interesting, manuscript is well and concisely written, and I recommend its publication in Climate after minor revisions.

General Comments:

** Add research hypothesis, research questions, and research objectives at the end of introduction.

Great note, we’ve addressed it by adding the research aim and study objectives to the end of the introduction (Line 83-86). 

Specific Comments:

** Line 20: Add names of five studied countries in parentheses. Good note, it was added to the Abstract (Line 21).

** Line 55: Add same information for southern China.  Again, good note, added to line (Line 52)

** Line 313: Add Information of experts (e.g., experience, study field, education, frequency, etc.). We added a description of the experts that attended the workshop (Lines 323-326)

** Line 315: Refer to tables. We added an extra line that refers to the tables presented in the Appendix (Line 329.)

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Highly relevant scientific effort to assess degradation and restoration mechanism. Very comprehensively presented. However, it would be better if methodology part is explained better specifically the processes of design phase. It is explained in the results section but reader would look for this in methodology section- How the criteria and indicators were developed..any consultations, discussion with stakeholders .. etc. Even the field test for its applicability is better to mention in methodology. Conclusion section can be shortened/make concise in two paragraphs.

Author Response

Highly relevant scientific effort to assess degradation and restoration mechanism. Very comprehensively presented. However, it would be better if methodology part is explained better specifically the processes of design phase. It is explained in the results section but reader would look for this in methodology section- How the criteria and indicators were developed..any consultations, discussion with stakeholders .. etc. Even the field test for its applicability is better to mention in methodology. Conclusion section can be shortened/make concise in two paragraphs.

Great note, we included a brief overview of the mechanism’s process in the Methodology (line 145-153), and have paired the Conclusion down to make it more concise.

Reviewer 3 Report

In general the work is interesting. The only thing would be small details to clarify the methodology and it is very extensive due to the appendices but they are of great interest. The work is feasible to be published and of interest to readers. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

In general the work is interesting. The only thing would be small details to clarify the methodology and it is very extensive due to the appendices but they are of great interest. The work is feasible to be published and of interest to readers. 

Thank you for this helpful note, we have clarified the methodology to include the an overview of DReAMs process (lines 145-153).

Back to TopTop