Effect of Deforestation on Land Surface Temperature in the Chiquitania Region, Bolivia
, Roberto Vides-Almonacid 1, Álvaro Salazar 2,3 and Daniel M. Larrea-Alcazar 4,5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Congratulations and thanks for your effort.
Author Response
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Dear authors,
thank you very much for relevant investigation.
Results this study is so important for forest conservation and green future.
It seems, you can show more details of forest cover estimation. The manuscript needs more data on the annual or periodic dynamics of forest cover in the sampling sites in deforested areas. Data on the accuracy and uncertainties of forest cover estimation should be provided. It is important to focus on the size of fields or pastures in the deforested area and the features of protective shelterbelts.
You can find some remarks and comments below.
Line 21 – Ten 10 × 10 km – Is it correctly?
L. 38 – Please, change keyword “Bolivia” because the title contents this word.
L. 92 – 2rea?
L. 42-103 – Authors should add more data about last research of deforestation with focus on tropical forests.
L. 106 – Study 3rea?
L. 175 – Why did you select ten quadrants? What was the rationale for such a selection? Could authors add data about structure landscapes in the region of research? Were the sample locations randomly selected?
L. 200 – Is there 110 or 100 pixels?
L. 207 – For which year does the figure show deforestation?
L. 214 – "The Mann-Kendall test" has been written twice in one row.
L. 242-245 – Table 2 has a too-long title. How was forest cover determined for 2001 and 2020? What definition of the forest was used in the study? Have you determined the error of forested area estimation?
L. 371-379 – Figure 8-9. Why are the scales for the X-axis different in the figures?
L. 393-396 – Table 6 has a too-long title.
L. 400 – Authors have to improve discussion and compere their results with other researches. For example, authors can compare estimated forest cover with data of Global Forest Change.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her assessment of the manuscript and the constructive comments that he/she has provided. We have made several adjustments to the document based on your suggestions. In this version we have augmented a new analysis on the annual forest cover dynamics as well as data on the classification accuracy of the MODIS product.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Dear authors,
thanks for your explanations and efforts in improving the article.
I am glad to see improved text and figures.
A couple of remarks:
The captions in Figure 2 are very small.
L. 42-103 – Authors should add more data about the last research on deforestation with a focus on tropical forests. Please, use primary research and don't use only the report FAO (2020) because this report mostly was based on many relevant publications of scientists. Please, add an overview of the most relevant publication about deforestation, drivers of forest degradation and forest management in tropical forests.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please find attached a point-by-point response to your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for the exciting research on the impact of deforestation on land surface temperature in the Chiquitania region (Bolivia). This study is very relevant. The article is written concisely and clearly, and the structure of the paper is good.
You can find below some comments and remarks:
Lines 63-65 - Could you add information on forest fragmentation and the size of agricultural fields for study regions? Also, please, add data about the main drivers of deforestation.
Line 95 - Could you add data on altitude for sampling sites? Also, could you add more descriptions for forested (species, age and other) and non-forested (% built-up area, % water bodies, % forest patches) sites?
Lines 168-169 - You can use abreviature NDVI.
Lines 175-178 - Please, improve figure 2. Sampling sites look unclearly.
Line 182 - Add a reference to the nonparametric Mann-Kendall trend test.
Line 199 - Is used here "Index" two times?
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her assessment of the manuscript and the constructive comments that he/she has provided. We have made several adjustments to the document based on your suggestions.
Attached are the responses to the revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is very interesting, it certainly has relevance. The research plan seems well done. The methodology is good but needs more robust information in the introduction, analysis, and discussion. However, the relevance to the Journal should be enhanced in the entire paper with the considerations of scope and readership of the Journal. My major observations are mentioned below
1. The introduction needs to be enhanced with more literature review by reducing unnecessary ones. There are more than 90 citations which is excessive. There are many Climate Change Projections in Urban Centers studies published recently that need to bring the findings and methods used in those studies in the introduction section. Some results found from the search of Google Scholar search mentioned below. Need to bring the findings of these articles and research gaps should be mentioned accordingly Some of the documents are mentioned below. Authors might find others which also relevant to the present article：
Assessing the impacts of vegetation cover loss on surface temperature, urban heat island and carbon emission in Penang city, Malaysia
Assessment on controlling factors of urbanization possibility in a newly developing city of the Vietnamese Mekong delta using logistic regression analysis
Remote sensing-based urban sprawl modeling using multilayer perceptron neural network markov chain in Baghdad, Iraq
Simulating the Relationship between Land Use/Cover Change and Urban Thermal Environment Using Machine Learning Algorithms in Wuhan City, China
Application of the Optimal Parameter Geographic Detector Model in the Identification of Influencing Factors of Ecological Quality in Guangzhou, China
Prediction of seasonal urban thermal field variance index using machine learning algorithms in Cumilla, Bangladesh
Predicting changes in land use land cover and seasonal land surface temperature using multi-temporal landsat images in the northwest region of Bangladesh
Assessment of urban thermal field variance index and defining the relationship between land cover and surface temperature in Chattogram city: a remote sensing and statistical …
2. What is the novelty of your work?
3. What is the usefulness of this study? Is this applicable to low and medium-sized cities? Kindly mention the importance of this study in the introduction section
4. Need to show the accuracy assessment of the temperature and deforestation classification.
6. The interaction between results & discussion and conclusion needs to be enhanced, which is missing. The information needs to be revised in the conclusion which is already discussed in the discussion section. Need to add new and important information only in the conclusion section which is not been discussed previously.
7. Proofreading by a professional should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality. Without proper proofreading, the article cant is accepted in its present form. I recommend proofreading the paper from http://digonresearch.org/ and adding the proofreading certificate.
Author Response
Thanks for your positive assessment and constructive comments of the manuscript. These comments have contributed significantly to improve the manuscript’s readability and clarity. We have made several adjustments to the document based on your suggestions.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The topic is very interesting, it certainly has relevance. The research plan seems well done. The methodology is good but needs more robust information in the introduction, analysis, and discussion. However, the relevance to the Journal should be enhanced in the entire paper with the considerations of scope and readership of the Journal. My major observations are mentioned below
R: Thanks for your positive assessment and constructive comments of the manuscript. These comments have contributed significantly to improve the manuscript’s readability and clarity. We have made several adjustments to the document based on your suggestions.
- The introduction needs to be enhanced with more literature review by reducing unnecessary ones. There are more than 90 citations which is excessive. There are many Climate Change Projections in Urban Centers studies published recently that need to bring the findings and methods used in those studies in the introduction section. Some results found from the search of Google Scholar search mentioned below. Need to bring the findings of these articles and research gaps should be mentioned accordingly Some of the documents are mentioned below. Authors might find others which also relevant to the present article：
Assessing the impacts of vegetation cover loss on surface temperature, urban heat island and carbon emission in Penang city, Malaysia
Assessment on controlling factors of urbanization possibility in a newly developing city of the Vietnamese Mekong delta using logistic regression analysis
Remote sensing-based urban sprawl modeling using multilayer perceptron neural network markov chain in Baghdad, Iraq
Simulating the Relationship between Land Use/Cover Change and Urban Thermal Environment Using Machine Learning Algorithms in Wuhan City, China
Application of the Optimal Parameter Geographic Detector Model in the Identification of Influencing Factors of Ecological Quality in Guangzhou, China
Prediction of seasonal urban thermal field variance index using machine learning algorithms in Cumilla, Bangladesh
Predicting changes in land use land cover and seasonal land surface temperature using multi-temporal landsat images in the northwest region of Bangladesh
Assessment of urban thermal field variance index and defining the relationship between land cover and surface temperature in Chattogram city: a remote sensing and statistical …
R: We did not understand about the 90 citations, the document mentioned only 59, and only 19 in the introduction, each one necessarily supports the content of the research. However, we kindly thank the reviewer for sending us a list of suggested references. However, we must remind him that the objective of this paper is to analyze the effects of deforestation and temperature trends and not a study of climate change projections in urban areas. However, we have made adjustments to the introduction and added the following:
“In addition, changes in land use due to the growth of urban areas are generating notable increases in LST levels, as urbanization processes reduce natural vegetation, increasing impervious areas and albedo alteration, which in turn causes urban residents to be exposed to a greater risk of heat stress than rural residents, in an effect known as Urban Heat Island ...”
- What is the novelty of your work?
R: In the introduction we made some changes and increased this:
“The novelty of this work is that we were able to identify that there is a relationship between the increase in the temperature of the earth's surface and the loss of forest cover, a topic that has not been studied much in tropical forests, especially in Bolivia.”
- What is the usefulness of this study? Is this applicable to low and medium-sized cities? Kindly mention the importance of this study in the introduction section
R: In the introduction it was described, but it was not mentioned as the importance of the study. We have made some adjustments in the last paragraph:
“The importance of this research is that it can help decision makers in the formulation of risk prevention strategies for natural disasters, adaptation to climate change and the establishment of public policies that help improve land use planning, thus avoiding the progressive advance of land use change.”
- Need to show the accuracy assessment of the temperature and deforestation classification.
R: We are using MODIS products, which are widely used and which have been used for accuracy assessment in many parts of the world, showing the reliability of the data (p.e. Wan et al. 2015). We believe that a new validation is not necessary in this case.
For the Chiquitania there are meteorological stations at several sites, but we decided not to use them in this study and limit ourselves to data provided based on remote sensing products, precisely based on the results of Hinojosa et al. (2021), which indicate a high correlation between LST and air surface temperature.
- The interaction between results & discussion and conclusion needs to be enhanced, which is missing. The information needs to be revised in the conclusion which is already discussed in the discussion section. Need to add new and important information only in the conclusion section which is not been discussed previously.
R: In different parts we have improved the wording of the draft so that there is a better interaction between the results, the discussion and the conclusion.
- Proofreading by a professional should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality. Without proper proofreading, the article cant is accepted in its present form. I recommend proofreading the paper from http://digonresearch.org/ and adding the proofreading certificate.
R: In this version we have improved the wording, but if necessary we will send the document for revision to MDPI's English revision service once we have the versions accepted by the reviewers.
Submission Date
28 September 2022
Date of this review
05 Oct 2022 00:53:56
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Some important questions:
line 72-75, introduction, A reference is cited to conclude that daytime temperatures of forested areas showed a positive difference (1'1 ºC) in relation to primarian use, after authors tell tropical deforestation exerts a warming influence. This reviewer searched the reference and the diference is not positive but negative: " Among the results obtained, it is evident that the daytime temperatures of LST forest areas are lower compared to urban areas (-2.4°C) and agricultural/livestock use (-1.1°C)."
By the way, this reference supports its results with meteorological data. Is there no meteorological data available in Chiquitania record?
Line 175, figure 2. Ten sample areas are selected. Five in forested areas, other five in non forested areas. Why just those zones? In the figure 2, I can see some vast homogeneous areas with no forest but the five non forests area selected apparently only one have pixels without forests. Is not better to select other areas? The study analyzes data from GEE, then any area can be selected, and the selection is not determined by availability the meteorological data, that are not used. There is no info in the text about the process of selection.
NDVI trends: I have found some questions comparing data en table 2 and discussion between lines 327 and 337. In lines 328 and 329 we can read 2 of five non forest areas have negative and significant trends in NDVI. You mention el Cerro y Santa Ana, but in table 2 San Ignacio shows a negative trends also with a p<0'05 (concretely 0'007). The discussion is very poor. There is no interpretation searching causes of these results. Why are the negative trends in non forest areas significative only in some cases? No try to get answers. Surprisingly, one forest area has negative trends. Authors solve the result with a simple patterns of phenological changes. What changes? Why are so influencers? In conclusion there is no discussion about NDVI, only a bad description (two instead of three areas with significant negative trends.
LST/day non forest area: line 227 and followings. We can see differences in annual average LST but there is no reason provided in discussion. You justify the forest differences in temperature by latitude. If you had mapped the average temperature, you can get more conclusions: urban area are hotter than the other uses in higher latitudes; and a new question: Why are NUeva Esperanza and El Cerro much hotter that other non forested areas in higher latitude? Altitude?
Figure 4: it easy to identify series with data above 30 ºC but for the rest of non forest areas the identification is very confusing. Among the data, the increase in El Cerro whose values are reaching similar levels than from 2008. Nothing in the discussion about that. What happened in 2007 in El Cerro that rockets LST? Curiously, El Cerro does not show the higher trend, that is for San Ignacio with ¡¡¡¡45!!!! although the increase in El Cerro is more apparent.
Nevertheless, the authors focus their explanation in latitudinal variations. Why? No forest area has significative trends, in any latitude. Only one of non forest shows non significative. Those with significative trends are in different latitudes.
In line 348, the cooling effect of the forest is due to latitudinal variations? Really? I don't understand. NOthing about evolution of land uses? And finally, LST/night. No explanation for its averages, specially Concepcion, an urban site with such a low value respect the rest. Authors write there is only three sites (really four, Conception shows p value of 0'038<0'05. The two non forest area show, then, significant positive trends, that is coherent with the urban effect. But there is no mention of this question, neither some references. The only explanation to significative trends are release thermal energy stored during the day. Does this thermal energy not stored and then released in the other forests and no forest areas? Again, very poor explanations.
Finally, about temperatures, the begin. line 342. Global temperatures are increasing. Is the evolution of temperatures in Bolivia or Santa Cruz not more important to this research than global studies?
The last question is around conclusions. I wait for a the main results of the paper, but, as I have written above, there are a lot of shortcomings: descriptions and explanation of temperatures and their trends. Then the conclusions are limited environmental allegation that is not the issue of the research. I think the authors must improve the research about LST and trends, and, then, build up a better block of conclusions.
Author Response
Thanks for your positive assessment and constructive comments of the manuscript. These comments have contributed significantly to improve the manuscript’s readability and clarity. Herein, we include a detailed response to all your comments.
Attached are the responses to the revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have failed to address all the recommendations addressed by the reviewer. The article is not suitable for publications in its present status. Need to revise effectively
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have improved their paper significantly, but I am sorry to tell you that there are still some questions without answer.
First of all, a new question: between lines 57 and 61, comparing effects of deforestation in tropical and boreal areas, both suffering evapotranspiration decreases and albedo increases, but the consequences in temperature are different, warming in tropical areas, cooling in boreal those. Is this explanation correct?
Line 220: you have to write "a change", not "achange".
Line 228: forested areas with significant trend, but one of them is a decrease trend, Although this a significative trend, there is no explanation about this singularity.
In the first review, I questioned about figure 4.
Figure 4: it easy to identify series with data above 30 ºC but for the rest of non forest areas the identification is very confusing. Among the data, the increase in El Cerro whose values are reaching similar levels than from 2008. Nothing in the discussion about that. What happened in 2007 in El Cerro that rockets LST? Curiously, El Cerro does not show the higher trend, that is for San Ignacio with ¡¡¡¡45!!!! although the increase in El Cerro is more apparent.
The authors continue without answering these aspects. I do not understand no interest in explaining what happened in El Cerro in four years for arrive to similar lst level than Nueva Esperanza. The authors prefer to show the peaks in LST, but, one more time, without explanation.
The discussion is much better than the first version. I like the explanation of the increase in nighttime LST for Noel Kempff and Bajo Paragua. But why no similar explanation for other results: the above mentioned trend in Cerro, the great differences in non significative trends for non forested areas or those peaks?
Finally, the authors mention again phenological changes (line 391)? What are these changes? I haven't gotten any reason.
I wish the authors can concret these aspects to finish their good work.
