Socio-Environmental Vulnerability to Drought Conditions and Land Degradation: An Assessment in Two Northeastern Brazilian River Basins

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments: The manuscript, "Socio-environmental vulnerability to drought conditions and land degradation: assessment in the river basins of Northeast Brazil" is very timely, addressing a problem affecting many agricultural areas in many countries. It will surely be read with pleasure. After minor corrections, it may be more universally perceived by the readers of this Journal.
1. The abstract contains the purpose of the research and its results. It should also briefly describe the research method. The authors should care about this because the abstract usually functions independently of the article and should accurately describe it.
2. The introduction describing the State of the Art (SOA) lacks the definition and description of the research gap. The gap should be specified in detail.
2. The research method is poorly described. There is a lack of a clear diagram of the steps taken, a clear presentation of the criteria, and described step-by-step classifications. The description of the test method needs to be refined. This is important due to the required replication of the research.
3. In Figure 5. Relationship between the size of rural properties and Socio-Environmental vulnerability, the description classified as small (area of less than 4 MF) should be corrected; medium (area between 4 and 15 MF), and large (a total area greater than 15 MF) – the current record is illegible (4FM, 415FM, 15 FM)
4. Conclusions should describe in more detail the achievement of the article's objective stated in the introduction.
5. The article is interesting and could be improved to increase readability and scientific impact.

Author Response

Comments: The manuscript, "Socio-environmental vulnerability to drought conditions and land degradation: assessment in the river basins of Northeast Brazil" is very timely, addressing a problem affecting many agricultural areas in many countries. It will surely be read with pleasure. After minor corrections, it may be more universally perceived by the readers of this Journal.

1. The abstract contains the purpose of the research and its results. It should also briefly describe the research method. The authors should care about this because the abstract usually functions independently of the article and should accurately describe it.

      R: Due to the fact that the length of the abstract is limited to 200 words, it            was not possible to describe the methodology in detail. However, included a        sentence with more details about the methodology, as suggested, and                highlighted the policy implications of the study.

2. The introduction describing the State of the Art (SOA) lacks the definition and description of the research gap. The gap should be specified in detail.

     R: We have emphasized why the research is relevant and also included                 paragraphs and references regarding the existent gaps in socio-                           environmental vulnerability in the study region.

3. The research method is poorly described. There is a lack of a clear diagram of the steps taken, a clear presentation of the criteria, and described step-by-step classifications. The description of the test method needs to be refined. This is important due to the required replication of the research.

      R: We appreciate your suggestion and changed the Figure 2.

4. In Figure 5. Relationship between the size of rural properties and Socio-Environmental vulnerability, the description classified as small (area of less than 4 MF) should be corrected; medium (area between 4 and 15 MF), and large (a total area greater than 15 MF) – the current record is illegible (4FM, 415FM, 15 FM)

         R: We have corrected the description and improved the figure.

5. Conclusions should describe in more detail the achievement of the article's objective stated in the introduction.

     R: We have clarified the conclusion section in line with the aim of the study.

6. The article is interesting and could be improved to increase readability and scientific impact.

     R: Thank you for the valuable comments for improving the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Socio environmental vulnerability to drought conditions and land degradation: an assessment in the northeastern Brazilian river basins

Abstract

Well written.

Introduction

It is not clear what the novelty of this study is. What gap is this study addressing other than the fact that it is the first to analyze the socio-environmental vulnerability in two large Brazilian hydrographic basins? This needs to be clear.

Materials and methods

Lines 83-84: I am not sure it is right to cite Figure 1C because this figure is too tiny and shows only boundaries. These boundaries are also shown in Figure 1B, maybe reference that?

Table 1: How did you define the number of days without rain? Is it days in the year that had 0 mm precipitation, or did you have a specific threshold for this?

Table 1: You can convert the source links in this table to references and cite the references instead of these links.

Lines 136-137: It would be great to provide more details about what you did here.

Results and discussion

In your discussion of SEVI results, you mention that deforestation occurred mostly in savanna and grasslands – are you specifically referring to tree loss rather than deforestation?

Lines 271-272: You should consider merging this statement with either the previous or the next paragraph. It is not recommended to have a single-statement paragraph.

Figure 5: Please consider using labels that are understandable to the reader, or at least define the unique labels in your captions. I know you have defined 4FM, 415FM, and 15FM, but that happened a while ago in the methods. Readers will probably have forgotten by now.

How are your results similar or different from other studies of socio-environmental vulnerability in Brazil or other locations? This is not clear in your results and discussion section.

Conclusions

Lines 326-329: Please consider merging this paragraph with the one below it.

General comments

Your work needs a thorough review of grammar, please have your work proofed by someone whose first language is English. There are parts where words have improperly been used and sentences do not have the flow.

You do not use your acronyms consistently. For example, you are defining SEVI and CUs again in the conclusion. You need to stick to the acronym throughout the manuscript once you have created it. Also,

make sure that you use the correct acronyms in your subsequent mentions. I saw HDMI and HDIM which I am assuming is the same(?)

There are many instances where you have single statements as standalone paragraphs. This is not recommended. Please merge the statements with other paragraphs.

I did not see the supplementary material, but you referred to it quite a bit in the text.

Author Response

Introduction

It is not clear what the novelty of this study is. What gap is this study addressing other than the fact that it is the first to analyze the socio-environmental vulnerability in two large Brazilian hydrographic basins? This needs to be clear.

R: We rewrote several paragraphs of the introduction to highlight the novelty and contribution of the study.

Materials and methods

Lines 83-84: I am not sure it is right to cite Figure 1C because this figure is too tiny and shows only boundaries. These boundaries are also shown in Figure 1B, maybe reference that?

R: Figure 1 has been changed, and in the text called Figure 1B as suggested.

Table 1: How did you define the number of days without rain? Is it days in the year that had 0 mm precipitation, or did you have a specific threshold for this?

R: We have defined the number of days without rainfall as the sum of all days with less than 1 mm not to include dew as precipitation. This has been clarified in the new version of the manuscript.

Table 1: You can convert the source links in this table to references and cite the references instead of these links.

R: We appreciate your suggestion and changed the Table 1.

Lines 136-137: It would be great to provide more details about what you did here.

R: In response to this comment, we have added more details in pages 5-6 lines 163-183.

Results and discussion

In your discussion of SEVI results, you mention that deforestation occurred mostly in savanna and grasslands – are you specifically referring to tree loss rather than deforestation?

Lines 271-272: You should consider merging this statement with either the previous or the next paragraph. It is not recommended to have a single-statement paragraph.

R: We appreciate your suggestion and the text has been changed.

Figure 5: Please consider using labels that are understandable to the reader, or at least define the unique labels in your captions. I know you have defined 4FM, 415FM, and 15FM, but that happened a while ago in the methods. Readers will probably have forgotten by now.

R: Figure 5 has been changed in the new version of the manuscript.

How are your results similar or different from other studies of socio-environmental vulnerability in Brazil or other locations? This is not clear in your results and discussion section.

Conclusions

Lines 326-329: Please consider merging this paragraph with the one below it.

R: Text has been changed in the new version of the manuscript.

General comments

Your work needs a thorough review of grammar, please have your work proofed by someone whose first language is English. There are parts where words have improperly been used and sentences do not have the flow.

R: We have sent the manuscript to a professional editing service.

You do not use your acronyms consistently. For example, you are defining SEVI and CUs again in the conclusion. You need to stick to the acronym throughout the manuscript once you have created it. Also make sure that you use the correct acronyms in your subsequent mentions. I saw HDMI and HDIM which I am assuming is the same(?)

R: Acronyms have been corrected.

There are many instances where you have single statements as standalone paragraphs. This is not recommended. Please merge the statements with other paragraphs.

R: In response to this comment the text has been changed in the new version of the manuscript.

I did not see the supplementary material, but you referred to it quite a bit in the text.

R: It is included as a link in the manuscript. I suppose this has to be with the submission system which build the pdf files for the reviewers which we don´t have access I cannot provide guidance, though the associate editor can help.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing my previous comments and improving the manuscript. Please make sure that you are not using single-statement paragraphs in your manuscript. I still see several instances (e.g. the conclusion) where some of your paragraphs are single statements.