A New Climatology of Vegetation and Land Cover Information for South America

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the manuscript titled "A New Climatology of Vegetation and Land Cover Information for South America" submitted to Sustainability. This paper has some research significance and the workload is large. But I recommend Accept this manuscript after minor revision. Here I have three comments on how to make manuscript better:

1. Please explain why the validation sampling points in Figure 2 are choosing differently, but compare the results with each other.

2. It is said that a new LAI and GVF climatology will be created based on the Global Land Surface Satellite (GLASS) products, and this new climatology will be compared to the input information of numerical models in SA. Here only partial discussion results compared with of models were presented. Please add the others results in the attachment materials.

3. The article generally written in third person, please change your expression.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

1. Please explain why the validation sampling points in Figure 2 are choosing differently, but compare the results with each other.

Ans.: The validation points in Figure 2 are chosen randomly, just like in Figure 1, as this is crucial to ensure that the information is tested on a representative variety of data, rather than relying on a specific selection that may introduce unwanted biases. Furthermore, this ensures that the obtained results are more generalized and applicable to different datasets, making the model evaluation more robust.

2. It is said that a new LAI and GVF climatology will be created based on the Global Land Surface Satellite (GLASS) products, and this new climatology will be compared to the input information of numerical models in SA. Here only partial discussion results compared with of models were presented. Please add the others results in the attachment materials.

Ans.: The GLASS products were selected because they mitigate cloud contamination effects in Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data through the General Regression Neural Networks (GRNNs) method, making them a more refined product for surface assessments (refer to lines 69-75 of this article). The results of assessing the impacts of changes in these variables (LAI, GVF, and LC) on models over South America will be presented in subsequent articles, which are still in the drafting phase. This article aims to evaluate the initial conditions, verify observed changes in this study, and validate land cover.

3. The article generally written in third person, please change your expression.

Ans.: I revisited the text as requested and applied the recommended corrections.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study focuses on evaluating the suitability of various land surface and weather forecasting models in South America. It examines the distribution of land cover classes and updates on vegetation information, especially regarding the Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Greenness Vegetation Fraction (GVF).

Even though the study provided substantial, good data, a few aspects need further examination:

Data Currency and Relevance: The article uses outdated data series for key variables like Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Greenness Vegetation Fraction (GVF), which may not accurately reflect current environmental conditions.

Model Adaptation and Initialization: There's a need for better adjustment in model initialization parameters to align with recent changes in land cover classifications, enhancing the models' accuracy and applicability.

Inconsistent Model Performance Across Different Land Covers: The performance of the models in representing various land cover types, particularly forests, is uneven, indicating a requirement for model refinement and more focused research on specific land cover types.

Author Response

Data Currency and Relevance: The article uses outdated data series for key variables like Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Greenness Vegetation Fraction (GVF), which may not accurately reflect current environmental conditions.

Ans.: The data used in the study is indeed current, as we employed climatology covering the period from 2010 to 2020. It's worth noting that the last available climatology prior to this interval dates back to before 2010. Therefore, the data accurately reflects recent environmental conditions, providing a solid foundation for the conducted analyses.

 

Model Adaptation and Initialization: There's a need for better adjustment in model initialization parameters to align with recent changes in land cover classifications, enhancing the models' accuracy and applicability.

Ans.: These applications will be carried out in future works, which are already in progress and are expected to be published later.

 

Inconsistent Model Performance Across Different Land Covers: The performance of the models in representing various land cover types, particularly forests, is uneven, indicating a requirement for model refinement and more focused research on specific land cover types.

Ans.: Certainly, this work aims to elucidate errors in land cover representation. Therefore, the incorporation of more updated information is necessary, as exemplified by new land cover climatologies, Leaf Area Index (LAI), and Greenness Vegetation Fraction (GVF). Sensitivity experiments for simulations in surface-coupled atmospheric models are already underway and will be published later.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors evaluated the suitability of ‘Catchment Land Surface Models-Fortuna 2.5’ (CLSM), Noah, and Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) for the region and found significant changes in the distribution of land cover classes. They proposed new land cover classifications. The new land cover classifications were found to have an overall accuracy greater than 80%, offering an improved alternative.

 

Major comments/questions:

Introduction section:

Better to strengthen the literature review part to compare your work with more extensive existing research.

 

Method section:

Better to have an overall flow chart.

 

 

 

Minor comments/questions:

 

Figures

Better to move Figure.2 and 4 a little bit left.

 

Tables

Where is Table 3? Table 4 and Table 5 are not referred to in the text.

 

References

Some reference information is missing. For example, [55] [56] The page information are missing.

Author Response

Introduction section: Better to strengthen the literature review part to compare your work with more extensive existing research.

Ans.: New references have been added to support certain arguments and proposals for future studies that can be conducted for South America. This is considering that the references are based on studies conducted in other areas of the globe. See lines 54 to 63.

Method section: Better to have an overall flow chart.

Ans.: The overall flowchart of the work is presented in Figure 1. The following figures have been adjusted.

 

Minor comments/questions:

Figures

Better to move Figure.2 and 4 a little bit left.

Ans.: The figures have been adjusted.

 

Tables

Where is Table 3? Table 4 and Table 5 are not referred to in the text.

Ans.: The necessary adjustments have been made.

 

References

Some reference information is missing. For example, [55] [56] The page information are missing.

Ans.: The information has been updated and included in the references.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A New Climatology of Vegetation and Land Cover Information for South America

 

This study emphasizes the importance of accurate vegetation and land cover information for numerical forecasting models in South America and the need for regular updates for generating realistic forecasts that can guide accurate decision making. The authors evaluated the suitability of ‘Catchment Land Surface Models-Fortuna 2.5’ (CLSM), Noah, and Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) for the region and found significant differences in land cover classes. They adjusted a parameter and generated a new landcover classification with satisfactory accuracy.  

This manuscript is not appropriate for the Sustainability journal in its current form, the manuscript needs some major revisions to be accepted.

1)     Though the literature review sets a clear context for the study, it can be better expanded to highlight study’s unique contributions and provide more examples on how it is different than existing studies.

2)     Missing Table 3

3)     No need for tables 4 and 5 and adjust the table numbers accordingly.

4)     Adjust Table numbers for confusion matrix and the relevant text in the manuscript.

5)     Make sure the table formats and titles are consistent throughout the manuscript according to the guidelines.

6)     Make sure the figure formats and titles are consistent throughout the manuscript according to the guidelines.

7)     For figure 2, figure 4 and figure 5– Change the placement of the legends for maps.

8)     I will recommend authors to simplify certain lengthy sentences by breaking them down into smaller sentences for better readability.

9)     Review the references for better consistency with the guidelines of the manuscript.

 

I recommend that authors briefly discuss any limitations of the study and also consider including potential research directions of future research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires significant improvement in the quality of the writing, including clarity, structure and language.

Author Response

1) Though the literature review sets a clear context for the study, it can be better expanded to highlight study’s unique contributions and provide more examples on how it is different than existing studies.

Ans.: In general, LAI (Leaf Area Index) and GVF (Ground Vegetation Fraction) information is underexplored in the South American region. Therefore, assessing the conditions under which currently operational models represent this information is essential for local modeling. This evaluation is crucial for the region as it highlights, through the presented results, the inadequacy in representing this information, as well as indicates which types of land cover are poorly represented in the area.

2) Missing Table 3

Ans.: The table was named incorrectly; therefore, the necessary adjustments were made.

 

3) No need for tables 4 and 5 and adjust the table numbers accordingly.

Ans.: In the requested correction, the deletion of Tables 4 and 5 was proposed. However, I would like to emphasize the importance of these tables in the context and interpretation of the presented results. The mentioned tables play a crucial role in providing detailed information about Pearson correlation values and associated confidence coefficients.

The exclusion of these tables could significantly compromise the integrity of the conducted statistical analyses, limiting the readers' ability to comprehend and interpret the results. Through these tables, it is possible to visualize and understand more fully the relationship between the variables under study, as well as the reliability of the obtained results.

Considering the relevance of this information for the validity and credibility of the study, it would be appropriate to retain Tables 4 and 5 in the document. The inclusion of these tables strengthens the statistical foundation of the work, contributing to a more robust analysis and a more precise interpretation of the achieved results.

 

4) Adjust Table numbers for confusion matrix and the relevant text in the manuscript.

Ans.: Correction implemented and adjustment of the tables has been made.

 

5) Make sure the table formats and titles are consistent throughout the manuscript according to the guidelines.

Ans.: The article has been reviewed, and formatting issues have been corrected.

 

6) Make sure the figure formats and titles are consistent throughout the manuscript according to the guidelines.

Ans.: Same response as the previous question.

 

7) For figure 2, figure 4 and figure 5– Change the placement of the legends for maps.

Ans.: The adjustments have been made.

 

8) I will recommend authors to simplify certain lengthy sentences by breaking them down into smaller sentences for better readability.

Ans.: The recommendations have been met; for example, in the first paragraph, the text has been adjusted for shorter sentences. This same pattern can be observed throughout the article.

 

9) Review the references for better consistency with the guidelines of the manuscript.

Ans.: The references have been reviewed and corrected as needed.

 

10) I recommend that authors briefly discuss any limitations of the study and also consider including potential research directions of future research.

Ans.: The identified specifications were considered and future studies were recommended to remedy these limitations. This information was mainly included in the conclusions of the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made great improvements! I recommend accepting this manuscript after one very minor modification.

 

 

Page 2 Line 46 Here, the authors give the names of "LAI" and "FC" for the first time. I recommend the authors give the definition of  "LAI" and "FC" at this place. Even though in Line 50 the authors say, "LAI (representing vertical vegetation density characteristics), GVF (illustrating horizontal vegetation density)", they are not definitions.

 

I recommend the authors add the definition of LAI and cite corresponding literature, "the one‐sided green leaf area per unit ground area in broadleaf canopies and one‐half the total needle surface area per unit ground area in coniferous canopies" [Using the Negative Soil Adjustment Factor of Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI) to Resist Saturation Effects and Estimate Leaf Area Index (LAI) in Dense Vegetation Areas. Sensors, 21, 2115], and GVF, "the green vegetation fraction covering a unit ground area as seen from the nadir direction" [A. Global MODIS Fraction of Green Vegetation Cover for Monitoring Abrupt and Gradual Vegetation Changes. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 653.]

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the review and all recommendations, including definitions and references, were accepted. The changes made are clearly highlighted in the text of the article.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my concerns to an adequate level. This paper reads much better than the original and I suggest that it be accepted for publication with only one more read through for typos or grammar checks.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough analysis. We would like to emphasize that all identified errors have been duly highlighted in the text, and the corrections have been implemented according to your suggestions.