Forest Transition and Fuzzy Environments in Neoliberal Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an excellent paper, well-founded theoretically and empirically. I am happy to see it published in its current form. The authors are to be congratulated.

Author Response

On behalf of my co-authors, we are pleased you like our manuscript. Thank you for your time.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper entitled “Forest Transition and Fuzzy Environments in Neoliberal Mexico” aims to provide an overview of the way that forest transition across Mexico region has been conceptualized both spatially and temporally at the present time. The topic of this study is suitable for publishing the manuscript in Land. However, the presentation of the study is of poor quality regarding the structure of the manuscript and the writing. Material and methods are not written clearly. In addition, the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.  Therefore, the manuscript should be thoroughly revised considering the following general comments:

     1.      LN 17: .36%-yr-1? It is 0.36 or 36?

2.      LN 18: .11 %-yr -1à same as comment #1.

3.      LN 21: Land Sparing; Neoliberal Policy; NAFTAà use the keywords that you use in the abstract.

1.      Which question does the research seek to answer?

2.      Comparing your study with other published material, what difference does it make?

3.      Introduction with different sections makes it so boring. In my opinion, it is better to summarize it in one section as introduction. What are the advantages of these sections? Your study is not a review paper.

4.      LN 221-225: All the scientific names must be written in Italic.

5.      Figure 1 and 2: I suggest having one figure as a study map. Combine these two figures together.

6.      LN 288: What kind of method did you use for visual interpretation? Give more explanation. Are the aerial photos in black and white?

7.      I Suggest showing the changes (using graphs) in 5- or 10-years period. e.g., 1996-2006, 2006-2012, etc. the reader easy can understand the changes during the time.

8.      What is the novelty of your study?

9.      What are the limitations of your study? And what are suggestions for further studies?

Author Response

On behalf of my co-authors, we wish to thank you for your valuable feedback. Efforts have been made to improve the structure of the manuscript.

In response to your specific comments/suggestions:

• LN 17: .36%-yr-1? It is 0.36 or 36?

It is .39% per year, not 39% per year. In response to another reviewer, we expanded our analysis of deforestation rates at national scale to 2018. This impacted concerns you had at LN 17 and 18.

• LN 18: .11 %-yr -1à same as comment #1.

It is .07% per year, not 7% per year.

• LN 21: Land Sparing; Neoliberal Policy; NAFTAà use the keywords that you use in the abstract.

With all due respect, there are different schools of thought when it comes to key word choice. The ones we chose are reflected in the manuscript, and the use of acronyms is often suggested for those that are common and often used in searches.

• Which question does the research seek to answer?

We recognize there are different writing styles and expectations for articles across the disciplines. The structure and writing style of our manuscript aligns with others published in Land, as well as others from the social sciences.

LN 45-53 we discuss the importance of Forest transition to address reductions in ghg, and the relevance to contemporary policy, including Mexico. LN54 The purpose of our study “. In particular, we present results of a study addressing land cover change dynamics in an old agricultural frontier where FT was observed over twenty years ago. Our objective is to assess the continuity of this process given significant changes in the institutional and economic environments affecting Mexico and the global economy more generally.”

• Comparing your study with other published material, what difference does it make?

We clarified this in the introduction, current study in 288-297 "Our research complements earlier work by providing a quantitative assessment that disaggregates land change processes in PLW into source land covers, and by extending the analysis to the post-NAFTA period."

• Introduction with different sections makes it so boring. In my opinion, it is better to summarize it in one section as introduction. What are the advantages of these sections? Your study is not a review paper.

We consider this suggestion and removed the first subsection on critiques of Forest transition, but we kept the others.

Again, with all due respect, we recognize there are different writing styles and expectations for articles across the disciplines. The structure and writing style of our manuscript aligns with others published in Land, as well as others from the social sciences. We did remove the first subsection that wasn’t necessary for the structure of our argument.

• LN 221-225: All the scientific names must be written in Italic.

Completed

• Figure 1 and 2: I suggest having one figure as a study map. Combine these two figures together.

Thanks, we are using fig 1.

• LN 288: What kind of method did you use for visual interpretation? Give more explanation. Are the aerial photos in black and white?

Explanation was expanded LN303 - 308

• I Suggest showing the changes (using graphs) in 5- or 10-years period. e.g., 1996-2006, 2006-2012, etc. the reader easy can understand the changes during the time.

 We agree that information of land use change for every 5 or 10 years is informative, however, in our case, it is not possible to show the changes in 5- or 10- years period, since we don't have such data. We consider that our land use change analysis from 1996 to 2018 is suitable for our research purpose since it reflects the forest transition that we observed during this period, which stems from field abandonment as forming systems intensity production with avocado plantations and cow-calf operations. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is an interesting piece of work, and I thank you for the hard work done by the authors. But the authors have a lot of room to improve the manuscript, and here's what I think:

Abstract: At the end of the abstract, the authors need to include a general recommendation for worldwide readers. Do not use an abbreviated word (e.g., NAFTA) as a keyword, if it is not a common one.

The most recent data in Table 1 was in 2014; it would be more interesting to obtain more recent data, if available.

Figure 1 also represents 2014 data; I suggest using the latest colorful map for better understanding.

Use the sub-title ‘Forest Transition’ instead of FT in 3.2. (Page 9, Line 336)

I recommend using some maps to present the Land-use transition (e.g., forest cover) between 1996 to 2018.

Conclusion: some parts of the conclusion may be merged with discussion; I strongly recommend making the conclusion precise with a future direction for the worldwide readers.

 Based on the above comments, the manuscript will need minor revisions.

Good luck

Author Response

On behalf of my coauthors, thank you for your constructive feedback and your time. We addressed your comments as follows:

•    Abstract: At the end of the abstract, the authors need to include a general recommendation for worldwide readers. Do not use an abbreviated word (e.g., NAFTA) as a keyword, if it is not a common one. 
We have revised to include a recommendation to worldwide readers. However, we left NAFTA since it a very common acronym, especially in the Americas. It is likely NAFTA would be used in a search engine.

•    The most recent data in Table 1 was in 2014; it would be more interesting to obtain more recent data, if available. 
LN 218-219 We updated data point to 2018, and presented the results in a bar chart, and in text.

•    Figure 1 also represents 2014 data; I suggest using the latest colorful map for better understanding. 

The map in the figure doesn’t reflect the data point 2014. The base layers is the topographic map And the source is INEGI 2014.

•    Use the sub-title ‘Forest Transition’ instead of FT in 3.2. (Page 9, Line 336) 
Done
•    I recommend using some maps to present the Land- use transition (e.g., forest cover) between 1996 to 2018. 

Unfortunately, we only have this data for 1996 and 2018, and one change period.

•    Conclusion: some parts of the conclusion may be merged with discussion; I strongly recommend making the conclusion precise with a future direction for the worldwide readers. 

Thanks, edits have been made.
• 

Reviewer 4 Report

I suggest completing the paper with a greater number of contemporary literature items as, at the moment, only a few relatively new publications have been cited by you and these publications belong mostly to you.

I have the following minor remarks, too:

Line 116

in which indigenous and other rural peoples
-->
...rural people


Lines 324-328

For its part, avocado expanded by ~230 ha. This represents dramatic growth, given only 5 ha were dedicated to the crop in 1996. In general, these dynamics reflect land use changes on the private properties, where area under annual crops fell by 547 ha and avocado added 215 ha to the 5 ha that were planted in 1996.
---
IMHO presented avocado crop data seem to be self-inconsitent, here, as 'about 230 ha' isn't just '215 ha' or am I wrng?
BTW - IMHO opinion tabular representation of described data will help in presenting them in a more readable manner!


Lines 342-351

About half of the study area’s forest gain is accounted for by the private properties, 219 ha. This is followed by the gain of 169 ha in the indigenous community, San Jerónimo, in contrast to the forest cover stasis in San Andrés. Both ejidos show transition, with an additional 28 ha of forest cover acquired by Ejido Erongarícuaro for the period, and 16 ha by Ejido Zarzamora. The expansion of forest land on private properties is mostly accounted for by the suspension of annual crop production on 220 ha; 122 ha are contributed by succession from secondary vegetation. Sources of FT in San Jerónimo are reversed, with 123 ha coming from succession and 48 ha from the abandonment of crop fields. Hence, for these two localities, 268 ha of transition stem from field abandonment, and 245 ha, from vegetative succession.
---
IMHO opinion tabular representation of described data will help in presenting them in a more readable manner!

Author Response

On behalf of my coauthors, thank you for your time and instructive feedback. We responded to your comments/suggestions as follows:

• I suggest completing the paper with a greater number of contemporary literature items as, at the moment, only a few relatively new publications have been cited by you and these publications belong mostly to you.

Thank you, we have included a number of important and relevant citations/

• Line 116 in which indigenous and other rural peoples -->
  ...rural people

done

• Lines 324-328

For its part, avocado expanded by ~230 ha. This represents dramatic growth, given only 5 ha were dedicated to the crop in 1996. In general, these dynamics reflect land use changes on the private properties, where area under annual crops fell by 547 ha and avocado added 215 ha to the 5 ha that were planted in 1996.

---
IMHO presented avocado crop data seem to be self- inconsitent, here, as 'about 230 ha' isn't just '215 ha' or am I wrng?

Thank you for pointing out this errors; we rewrote this section accordingly.

• Lines 342-351

About half of the study area’s forest gain is accounted for by the private properties, 219 ha. This is followed by the gain of 169 ha in the indigenous community, San Jerónimo, in contrast to the forest cover stasis in San Andrés. Both ejidos show transition, with an additional 28 ha of forest cover acquired by Ejido Erongarícuaro for the period, and 16 ha by Ejido Zarzamora. The expansion of forest land on private properties is mostly accounted for by the suspension of annual crop production on 220 ha; 122 ha are contributed by succession from secondary vegetation. Sources of FT in San Jerónimo are reversed, with 123 ha coming from succession and 48 ha from the abandonment of crop fields. Hence, for these two localities, 268 ha of transition stem from field abandonment, and 245 ha, from vegetative succession.

---
IMHO opinion tabular representation of described data will help in presenting them in a more readable manner!

 We agree that providing this information in tabular form would improve readability.. Unfortunately, due to time constraints given the short turn around time for revisions, we are not able to consolidate all of the data into tabular form. We have verified it for accuracy and edited it for readability.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good job!