Land Use and Land Cover Changes in the Diversity and Life Zone for Uncontacted Indigenous People: Deforestation Hotspots in the Yasuní Biosphere Reserve, Ecuadorian Amazon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is paper that shows how remote sensing and other LULC methods can be used to monitor a “ Diversity of Life Zone that was set up for “territorial management for the protection of migrant settlers, indigenous nationalities and uncontacted indigenous peoples who live in the Yasuní National Park”.

Abstract:

Ln 31: change Landsate to Landsat.

Ln 32: Capitalize

Introduction:

The introduction includes good and all the necessary information. However, reorganizing the information would make it easier for an outside reader to understand.

• Reorganize to read from “big picture” to specifics of this study. I recommend: 1)LULC and how it contributed to meeting UN Goals ln74-105, 2) NEA region, why it is important and social-ecological dynamics/issues ln 41- 72; 3) YBR issues and DLZ objective ln 108, and 4) DLZ focus and study objectives ln125-137
• Avoid the lists as they are awkward for the reader. ln 44-46, ln 47-67
• The many acronyms are distracting to the user. Only use acronyms for important places or institutions that are central to the paper and used many times such as DLZ.

Study area:

• The multiple scales presented in Figure 1 are helpful, but the the color map is busy with features that are not mentioned in the study area text, such as buffer, core, ZITT, buffer zone. Only include the most relevant information to help the reader orient.
• The parishes on the map would be easier to identify if they had bigger text. Within the entire manuscript the parishes are mentioned. Include why the parishes matter. Do they set or enforce rules in the DMZ?
• Ln 143 Ecuadorian Amazon Region (EAR) isn’t mentioned enough to complicate reading with an acronym.

Methods:

The methods seem reasonable.

• Not clear why the study area had to be split into zones. Was it to make computer processing faster? Or some other reason. Figure 2 is referenced, but the North-South zones are not clear on the map.
• Figure 2 is helpful. Add information about the management boundaries and Provincial boundary to the caption so that figure is stand alone for the reader.
• Ln 166 - I don’t know what  “high technological development”  means
• Lns 197-201 – the acronyms for all the public institutions are distracting. Only include if they will be mentioned multiple times or are important to the paper.
• Ln 220 – “using test samples”. Explain if these were an independent validation dataset or a subset of the training data.

Results and Discussion:

LULC changes seems like a good tool for monitoring the DLZ for how incentives are working. As a reader  unfamiliar to the area, the rationale for the north-south split is not clear.

• Ln 249: user accuracy and producer accuracy are introduced here, but not explained in the methods. Ln 248-269 seem to be methods and not results.
• LN 274: Explain trend in Tables 4 and 5 and Figures 5 and 6 and reference them as support. Ln 272- 276 these sentences do not give any information as written and can be deleted.
• Here is becomes clear that the North – South zones are related to the Parishes, but the rationale for why the analysis is split in this way is not clear. Why group the  Dayuma and Taracoa Parishes from the Inés Arango Parish? Why not look at each separately? Or since the trends are similar for the North and South, why not look at the whole DLZ together?

Conclusions

• Ln 516- 520 sentences seem to be missing words.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This is paper that shows how remote sensing and other LULC methods can be used to monitor a “ Diversity of Life Zone that was set up for “territorial management for the protection of migrant settlers, indigenous nationalities and uncontacted indigenous peoples who live in the Yasuní National Park”.

Abstract:

Ln 31: change Landsate to Landsat.

Ln 32: Capitalize

On Line 31, we made suggested change

On Line 32:  after colon, they should not be capitalized

Introduction:

The introduction includes good and all the necessary information. However, reorganizing the information would make it easier for an outside reader to understand.

• Reorganize to read from “big picture” to specifics of this study. I recommend: 1)LULC and how it contributed to meeting UN Goals ln74-105, 2) NEA region, why it is important and social-ecological dynamics/issues ln 41- 72; 3) YBR issues and DLZ objective ln 108, and 4) DLZ focus and study objectives ln125-137
• Avoid the lists as they are awkward for the reader. ln 44-46, ln 47-67
• The many acronyms are distracting to the user. Only use acronyms for important places or institutions that are central to the paper and used many times such as DLZ.

• We accepted all of your suggestions. We therefore re-structured the “Introduction section” according to your proposal:

1. LULC and how it contributed to the fulfillment of the UN Goals in lines 41 - 73
2. the NEA region, why it is important and the socio-ecological dynamics/problems in lines 75 - 106
3. YBR Issues and DLZ Objective 108 - 123
4. DLZ's focus and study objectives 125 - 130

• In addition, the lists between the lines were removed. Acronyms were simplified and only used for places and the acronym DLZ was minimized in the text.

Study area:

• The multiple scales presented in Figure 1 are helpful, but the the color map is busy with features that are not mentioned in the study area text, such as buffer, core, ZITT, buffer zone. Only include the most relevant information to help the reader orient.
• The parishes on the map would be easier to identify if they had bigger text. Within the entire manuscript the parishes are mentioned. Include why the parishes matter. Do they set or enforce rules in the DMZ?
• Ln 143 Ecuadorian Amazon Region (EAR) isn’t mentioned enough to complicate reading with an acronym.

The suggestions were adopted in the text: in lines 142-152

In the text, all the characteristics of the map were described (Figure 1), since they are fundamental to understand the context of the research. In addition, the name of the largest parishes was placed.

in line 144 the acronym EAR was removed and not anymore used along the manuscript.

Methods:

The methods seem reasonable.

• Not clear why the study area had to be split into zones. Was it to make computer processing faster? Or some other reason. Figure 2 is referenced, but the North-South zones are not clear on the map.
• Figure 2 is helpful. Add information about the management boundaries and Provincial boundary to the caption so that figure is stand alone for the reader.
• Ln 166 - I don’t know what “high technological development”  means
• Lns 197-201 – the acronyms for all the public institutions are distracting. Only include if they will be mentioned multiple times or are important to the paper.
• Ln 220 – “using test samples”. Explain if these were an independent validation dataset or a subset of the training data.

The suggestions were very important and were adapted in the text: lines 157 -160

We Between lines 187-190 (Figure 2), it was clarified why it was divided into two zones (North and South)

Figure 2 was modified and the zoning was identified: North and South

In Figure 2 the title was modified by including the “management limits” and provincial limits were included

Lines 204-206 were reworded.

In line 242-250 The initials of the institutions were kept because they are important for the context of the article

In line 208-282  we explained that the test samples you use are different data from the training samples.

Between lines 215-223 the methodology of user precision, producer precision and KAPPA index are explained

Results and Discussion:

LULC changes seems like a good tool for monitoring the DLZ for how incentives are working. As a reader  unfamiliar to the area, the rationale for the north-south split is not clear.

• Ln 249: user accuracy and producer accuracy are introduced here, but not explained in the methods. Ln 248-269 seem to be methods and not results.
• LN 274: Explain trend in Tables 4 and 5 and Figures 5 and 6 and reference them as support. Ln 272- 276 these sentences do not give any information as written and can be deleted.
• Here is becomes clear that the North – South zones are related to the Parishes, but the rationale for why the analysis is split in this way is not clear. Why group the Dayuma and Taracoa Parishes from the Inés Arango Parish? Why not look at each separately? Or since the trends are similar for the North and South, why not look at the whole DLZ together?

1. The justification for the north-south split is explained in detail on lines 158-160.
2. In line 294-296 the trend is used in Tables 4 and 5 and Figures 5; and it was placed as a reference to them as support.
3. In lines 187 and in Figure 2, the reasons for the separation of the north and south areas as the study area are explained.

Reviewer 2

Interesting research, providing knowledge on long-term changes in areas that are valuable both in terms of nature and culture. After some corrections, the article should be published.

There are no comments on the part related to the research methodology and the presentation of the results. The only remark concerns chapter 2.2.3: Too laconic description of the used model of neural networks, it should be improved.

Following your recommendation, between lines 228-239 the neural network model is described in more detail.

The introduction is structured in a rather strange way, first the authors put the details of the research area (lines 41-72), only then comes the general part, which should be at the beginning (lines 74-85, and even up to 106). The organization of admission should definitely be changed.

The structure of the introduction was deeply reorganized by the following sections:

1. LULC and how it contributed to the fulfillment of the UN Goals in lines 41 - 73
2. the NEA region, why it is important and the socio-ecological dynamics/problems in lines 75 - 106
3. YBR Issues and DLZ Objective 108 - 123
4. DLZ's focus and study objectives 125 - 130

The way of selecting the references  is sometimes surprising. In just two sentences, the first author self-cited nine times. There is no substantive justification for this, apart from the desire to increase the number of own citations in scientific databases. Please eliminate redundant references.

Right, there was a mistake in including references from the draft article. Citations of the first author was drastically reduced. See on the lines 90-347

First case:

"It is essential to implement practical actions aimed at the sustainability of traditional production systems worked on by indigenous and migrant settlers [Heredia et al., 2000a, b, c; Heredia et al., 2020]."

Perhaps in the cited studies there are a number of interesting activities that can be implemented, but can and should be mentioned. Only two of them are mentioned later (the promotion of field schools that encourage the rescue of these traditional systems, as well as the consumption of food products from the systems)

Second case:

"These groups include the Waorani and Kichwa, who continue with their often unsustainable traditional production systems [8-12]" (all five references related to the one author (self-citations)

Additionally, there is no publication by this author from 2000 year in the list of publications.

Thanks. We noticed we made a mistake with the year; we therefore cancelled such citation.

Moreover, the total number of 140 works used alone is more typical for review articles.

We drastically reduced the number of references in the manuscript.

There are different citation styles in the text (lines 508, 510), this is probably a remnant of the previous version of the article, it should be brought into line with the requirements of the current journal.

The style of the citations was unified throughout the manuscript, to the format of the journal.

Overall, after a series of minor changes, the study has valuable contribution to research into use change in the Amazon region.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting research, providing knowledge on long-term changes in areas that are valuable both in terms of nature and culture. After some corrections, the article should be published.

There are no comments on the part related to the research methodology and the presentation of the results. The only remark concerns chapter 2.2.3: Too laconic description of the used model of neural networks, it should be improved.

The introduction is structured in a rather strange way, first the authors put the details of the research area (lines 41-72), only then comes the general part, which should be at the beginning (lines 74-85, and even up to 106). The organization of admission should definitely be changed.

The way of selecting the references  is sometimes surprising. In just two sentences, the first author self-cited nine times. There is no substantive justification for this, apart from the desire to increase the number of own citations in scientific databases. Please eliminate redundant references. 

First case:
"It is essential to implement practical actions aimed at the sustainability of traditional production systems worked on by indigenous and migrant settlers [Heredia et al., 2000a, b, c; Heredia et al., 2020]."
Perhaps in the cited studies there are a number of interesting activities that can be implemented, but can and should be mentioned. Only two of them are mentioned later (the promotion of field schools that encourage the rescue of these traditional systems, as well as the consumption of food products from the systems)

Second case:
"These groups include the Waorani and Kichwa, who continue with their often unsustainable traditional production systems [8-12]" (all five references related to the one author (self-citations)

Additionally, there is no publication by this author from 2000 year in the list of publications.

Moreover, the total number of 140 works used alone is more typical for review articles.

There are different citation styles in the text (lines 508, 510), this is probably a remnant of the previous version of the article, it should be brought into line with the requirements of the current journal.

Overall, after a series of minor changes, the study has valuable contribution to research into use change in the Amazon region. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This is paper that shows how remote sensing and other LULC methods can be used to monitor a “ Diversity of Life Zone that was set up for “territorial management for the protection of migrant settlers, indigenous nationalities and uncontacted indigenous peoples who live in the Yasuní National Park”.

Abstract:

Ln 31: change Landsate to Landsat.

Ln 32: Capitalize

On Line 31, we made suggested change

On Line 32:  after colon, they should not be capitalized

Introduction:

The introduction includes good and all the necessary information. However, reorganizing the information would make it easier for an outside reader to understand.

• Reorganize to read from “big picture” to specifics of this study. I recommend: 1)LULC and how it contributed to meeting UN Goals ln74-105, 2) NEA region, why it is important and social-ecological dynamics/issues ln 41- 72; 3) YBR issues and DLZ objective ln 108, and 4) DLZ focus and study objectives ln125-137
• Avoid the lists as they are awkward for the reader. ln 44-46, ln 47-67
• The many acronyms are distracting to the user. Only use acronyms for important places or institutions that are central to the paper and used many times such as DLZ.

• We accepted all of your suggestions. We therefore re-structured the “Introduction section” according to your proposal:

1. LULC and how it contributed to the fulfillment of the UN Goals in lines 41 - 73
2. the NEA region, why it is important and the socio-ecological dynamics/problems in lines 75 - 106
3. YBR Issues and DLZ Objective 108 - 123
4. DLZ's focus and study objectives 125 - 130

• In addition, the lists between the lines were removed. Acronyms were simplified and only used for places and the acronym DLZ was minimized in the text.

Study area:

• The multiple scales presented in Figure 1 are helpful, but the the color map is busy with features that are not mentioned in the study area text, such as buffer, core, ZITT, buffer zone. Only include the most relevant information to help the reader orient.
• The parishes on the map would be easier to identify if they had bigger text. Within the entire manuscript the parishes are mentioned. Include why the parishes matter. Do they set or enforce rules in the DMZ?
• Ln 143 Ecuadorian Amazon Region (EAR) isn’t mentioned enough to complicate reading with an acronym.

The suggestions were adopted in the text: in lines 142-152

In the text, all the characteristics of the map were described (Figure 1), since they are fundamental to understand the context of the research. In addition, the name of the largest parishes was placed.

in line 144 the acronym EAR was removed and not anymore used along the manuscript.

Methods:

The methods seem reasonable.

• Not clear why the study area had to be split into zones. Was it to make computer processing faster? Or some other reason. Figure 2 is referenced, but the North-South zones are not clear on the map.
• Figure 2 is helpful. Add information about the management boundaries and Provincial boundary to the caption so that figure is stand alone for the reader.
• Ln 166 - I don’t know what “high technological development”  means
• Lns 197-201 – the acronyms for all the public institutions are distracting. Only include if they will be mentioned multiple times or are important to the paper.
• Ln 220 – “using test samples”. Explain if these were an independent validation dataset or a subset of the training data.

The suggestions were very important and were adapted in the text: lines 157 -160

We Between lines 187-190 (Figure 2), it was clarified why it was divided into two zones (North and South)

Figure 2 was modified and the zoning was identified: North and South

In Figure 2 the title was modified by including the “management limits” and provincial limits were included

Lines 204-206 were reworded.

In line 242-250 The initials of the institutions were kept because they are important for the context of the article

In line 208-282  we explained that the test samples you use are different data from the training samples.

Between lines 215-223 the methodology of user precision, producer precision and KAPPA index are explained

Results and Discussion:

LULC changes seems like a good tool for monitoring the DLZ for how incentives are working. As a reader  unfamiliar to the area, the rationale for the north-south split is not clear.

• Ln 249: user accuracy and producer accuracy are introduced here, but not explained in the methods. Ln 248-269 seem to be methods and not results.
• LN 274: Explain trend in Tables 4 and 5 and Figures 5 and 6 and reference them as support. Ln 272- 276 these sentences do not give any information as written and can be deleted.
• Here is becomes clear that the North – South zones are related to the Parishes, but the rationale for why the analysis is split in this way is not clear. Why group the Dayuma and Taracoa Parishes from the Inés Arango Parish? Why not look at each separately? Or since the trends are similar for the North and South, why not look at the whole DLZ together?

1. The justification for the north-south split is explained in detail on lines 158-160.
2. In line 294-296 the trend is used in Tables 4 and 5 and Figures 5; and it was placed as a reference to them as support.
3. In lines 187 and in Figure 2, the reasons for the separation of the north and south areas as the study area are explained.

Reviewer 2

Interesting research, providing knowledge on long-term changes in areas that are valuable both in terms of nature and culture. After some corrections, the article should be published.

There are no comments on the part related to the research methodology and the presentation of the results. The only remark concerns chapter 2.2.3: Too laconic description of the used model of neural networks, it should be improved.

Following your recommendation, between lines 228-239 the neural network model is described in more detail.

The introduction is structured in a rather strange way, first the authors put the details of the research area (lines 41-72), only then comes the general part, which should be at the beginning (lines 74-85, and even up to 106). The organization of admission should definitely be changed.

The structure of the introduction was deeply reorganized by the following sections:

1. LULC and how it contributed to the fulfillment of the UN Goals in lines 41 - 73
2. the NEA region, why it is important and the socio-ecological dynamics/problems in lines 75 - 106
3. YBR Issues and DLZ Objective 108 - 123
4. DLZ's focus and study objectives 125 - 130

The way of selecting the references  is sometimes surprising. In just two sentences, the first author self-cited nine times. There is no substantive justification for this, apart from the desire to increase the number of own citations in scientific databases. Please eliminate redundant references.

Right, there was a mistake in including references from the draft article. Citations of the first author was drastically reduced. See on the lines 90-347

First case:

"It is essential to implement practical actions aimed at the sustainability of traditional production systems worked on by indigenous and migrant settlers [Heredia et al., 2000a, b, c; Heredia et al., 2020]."

Perhaps in the cited studies there are a number of interesting activities that can be implemented, but can and should be mentioned. Only two of them are mentioned later (the promotion of field schools that encourage the rescue of these traditional systems, as well as the consumption of food products from the systems)

Second case:

"These groups include the Waorani and Kichwa, who continue with their often unsustainable traditional production systems [8-12]" (all five references related to the one author (self-citations)

Additionally, there is no publication by this author from 2000 year in the list of publications.

Thanks. We noticed we made a mistake with the year; we therefore cancelled such citation.

Moreover, the total number of 140 works used alone is more typical for review articles.

We drastically reduced the number of references in the manuscript.

There are different citation styles in the text (lines 508, 510), this is probably a remnant of the previous version of the article, it should be brought into line with the requirements of the current journal.

The style of the citations was unified throughout the manuscript, to the format of the journal.

Overall, after a series of minor changes, the study has valuable contribution to research into use change in the Amazon region.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors correctly responded to the comments contained in the review. The current version of the manuscript.