Environmental Zoning in a Context of Strong Pressure from Productivist Agriculture in Brazil’s Northeast: The Case of the Ipojuca River, Pernambuco, Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript shows an interesting topic about environmental zoning and river restoration. After reading the first version. I have some details to suggestion.

I suggested the author rewrite the manuscript and resubmit it.

Major issue: This paper introduced a conceptual elaboration of a propositional zoning, however, I do not get any framework. How to do the data processing. What method are use to zoning. What method are used define the criterion of recovery, rehabilitation and restoration. Overall, this manuscript does not explain the method and results clearly. Many results are simply showed and lack of theoretical explanation.

Details:

(1) The title is too long to understand. It is suggested to refine the title. Especially, two of the nation name in one sentence.(2) There are many mistakes in the Abstract section. It does not contain the results of data analysis. “The purpose of this work was the conceptual elaboration of”, ” which is the primary focus of this study..”(3) What is “MapBiomas”?(4)Table 1 is redundant. (5) How to understand the relationship of column 1 and column 2 in Table 2.(6)Figure 1 is redundant.

Author Response

Dear colleague

Many thanks for your recommendations. They will undoubtedly improve the quality of the article.

We send the pdf file with all comments to all recommendations suggested by reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have prepared a most relevant case study with significant practical relevance for the readership of the journal. The manuscript is well written, figures and tables are clearly presented, references are up to date. As a result the manuscript is recommended for publication in its present form.

Author Response

Dear colleague

Many thanks for your recommendations. They will undoubtedly improve the quality of the article.

We send the pdf file with all comments to all recommendations suggested by reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

An interesting attempt to apply environmental zoning to a river in Brazil with distinct rainfall and land use sectors. Writing is clear, references and figures are appropriate. The description of the different sectors that appears in the discussion is very helpful and would perhaps serve the reader better in the methods as a site description. The table giving specific management recommendations is good, but more discussion of why those recommendations are specific to each region is missing. The figures have lines deleating rivers, and names of cities that are too faint to read. The authors need to more clearly tie the recommendations they are making to the site conditions they have discovered. I realize that information may be lacking in this region, but there is very little actual description of the river. It is described as degraded, but better linkages between the land use cover and the degradation needs to be made. It is unclear in the figure whether the proposed activities apply to the entire watersheds in each sector or to the riparian areas. The figure implies that certain reaches need restoration or rehabilitation, and other reaches do not, but it is not explained why. For this reason, the methodology used may be inappropriate. It hinges on the ability of the authors to link the land use cover maps with the river degradation and the proposed restoration solutions in a convincing manner. 

Further comments are found on the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear colleague

Many thanks for your recommendations. They will undoubtedly improve the quality of the article.

We send the pdf file with all comments to all recommendations suggested by reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I do not have further questions. I suggest to accept it.