Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper highlights the critical condition of the Chiquitano Dry Forest (CDF) on the Bolivian side, underscoring its ecological importance in biodiversity, climate change, and social impacts, emphasizing ongoing deforestation and wildfires necessitate urgent global attention and local action to prevent the irreversible loss of this unique ecosystem.

The authors are suggested to refer to remote sensing tools and modern machine learning techniques for monitoring landscape, which is a very necessary step in conducing such studies. Authors can cite this article as a very recent example in environmental monitoring and analysis https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2199608/v1

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive evaluation and constructive comments on the manuscript. These comments have contributed significantly to improving the readability and clarity of the manuscript. Attached you will find the file with the response to the revisions.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1)     Abstract: Please supplement the methods or approaches, results, and conclusions in this study.

(2)     Keywords: The first letter of each keyword should be capitalized.

(3)     Line 44: Please give out the full name of "FCBC".

(4)     Except for the deforestation and wildfires, are there other factors that make the CDF lose its area?

(5)     Is it reasonable to classify wildfires (Subsection 2.2) as human activities? Wildfires could also be natural and unrelated to humans (Lines 115-117).

(6)     Line 126: "[24}" should be "[24]".

(7)     In section 3, are there specific successful examples and numbers to support these policies and social actions?

(8)     Since CDF borders Brazil, is it possible to collaborate with the Brazilian government to jointly address/deal with the CDF's problems?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive evaluation and constructive comments on the manuscript. These comments have contributed significantly to improving the readability and clarity of the manuscript. Attached you will find the file with the response to the revisions.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an opinion article about dry tropical forests in Bolivia. The manuscript is well prepared and interesting for readers. The aims of the manuscript are clear and important. However, the background for risks remains vague as the current situation is not well explained (human population dynamics, wildfire statistics etc.). The planned conservation policy measures might be too specific for Bolivian situation and not easy to follow. The English is fine.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive evaluation and constructive comments on the manuscript. These comments have contributed significantly to improving the readability and clarity of the manuscript. Attached you will find the file with the response to the revisions.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Chiquitano Dry Forest exists and it’s at risk

In this study, the author conducted a multi perspective analysis of the Chiquitano Dry Fores from the perspectives of its current status, importance, environmental education, protected areas, future development, and policy formulation. The author has conducted a comprehensive consideration of the actual situation of the Chiquitano Dry Fores and proposed some problems and suggestions, but lacks corresponding data as support, and the overall reliability needs to be improved. It is recommended that the author provide practical solutions or give examples of other solutions in similar scenarios to the current problems in the Chiquitano Dry Fores, list reliable data, and enrich references to enhance the readability and persuasiveness of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive evaluation and constructive comments on the manuscript. These comments have contributed significantly to improving the readability and clarity of the manuscript. Attached you will find the file with the response to the revisions.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised article is acceptable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No