Dynamics and Anthropisation of Edible Caterpillar Habitats in the Landscape of the Luki Biosphere Reserve, Democratic Republic of the Congo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

According to the authors, the article tests the hypothesis that human activities in the LBR landscape affect the stability of ecosystems that host edible caterpillars, creating habitats that are unsuitable for their availability. The article is interesting and addresses a relevant topic in the country where the study was conducted, especially considering the relationship between people and this resource. Characterizing land use and land cover patterns over a historical time series is an insightful starting point for addressing the proposed theme. Below, I present my comments on each section of the manuscript.

Introduction

The beginning of the introduction is well structured and offers a coherent reading flow. However, from line 87 to the end of the section, I believe a few clarifications are needed. In my view, certain statements seem to be included primarily to justify the methodological choices, which appears unnecessary given that the study is clearly based on a spatial analysis approach. Furthermore, the conclusion of the introduction, which presents points i to iv, is not clearly aligned with the central hypothesis. It is unclear whether these points reflect what the authors expected to find through their analyses or what was actually observed. I found this part of the text somewhat confusing, and I believe the authors could make this section more explicit. Additionally, it seems that the study does not analyze human activities per se, as stated in the hypothesis, but rather the land use and land cover patterns as indicators of different forms of land occupation and natural contexts.

Study Area Characterization

What was the criterion used to define the 20 km buffer around the LBR? Was this landscape boundary established by the authors, or is there a legal framework that defines this geographic extent? Does the protected area have a buffer zone? If so, why was this officially designated buffer not used as the area of analysis? I would appreciate further clarification on these aspects within the context of the study.

Regarding Figure 1:

The boundary of the LBR could be more prominently highlighted on the map. Highways could be shown in red to improve visual distinction. The regional inset map should be improved to provide a clearer understanding of the study area's global location. What datum was used in the map's construction? What were the data sources used to produce the map? Which satellite and what year does the image refer to? Additionally, the point features shown on the map should be included in the legend.

Satellite Data

In the introduction, the authors highlight that the use of caterpillars as a resource began in the early 2000s. In this section, they state that the period between 2004 and 2011 coincides with the beginning of caterpillar collection and consumption in the study area. I recommend that the authors provide references that better contextualize this practice within the region, in order to more effectively justify the selection of this time frame for image analysis. Additionally, the authors should present references to support the choice of the remaining analysis intervals. While they describe their reasoning, no supporting literature is cited to substantiate these claims.

Pre-processing of Landsat Images

Accuracy should be directly related to land use and land cover mapping, as it determines the quality of the classification output. Did the authors collect coordinates exclusively at caterpillar occurrence points? How many field samples were collected per class to validate the mapping? How was the validation process conducted for the 2004, 2011, and 2020 images? Why were no complementary images used for ground-truth verification throughout the historical time series? It is important to note that the outputs from this stage of the work should not be presented as results, since they pertain to the mapping procedures. It is not standard practice to treat accuracy metrics as research results, especially when they are not directly linked to the study’s objectives. I recommend that this information be incorporated into the methods section of the article instead.

Assessment of Landscape Dynamics

It is important to include a citation to support the statement made in lines 232 and 233.

Given that this is a spatial analysis, I believe it is essential to spatialize the observed change patterns, particularly to characterize such changes within the context of the caterpillar habitat, which is the focus of conservation in this study. It would be valuable to visualize areas of land cover persistence and change throughout the historical series, with emphasis on the habitats where caterpillars occur, taking into account the three spatial scales of analysis.

This would strengthen the methodological approach, enabling the use of statistical analyses to determine whether landscape dynamics varied across time and space. Such an addition would move the study beyond a descriptive scope toward a more analytical one, providing a more solid basis for informed decision-making.

Results

In light of the recommendations mentioned above, it is important that the authors recognize that Figure 3 does not portray the dynamics of land use and land cover patterns; rather, it presents a static “snapshot” of land cover based on mapping. Landscape dynamics would be spatially represented if a land use change analysis were employed to visualize what changed and what remained over time. Such an approach would allow the authors to move beyond a visual assessment to a spatially explicit and analytical perspective.

Furthermore, if the authors statistically demonstrate what these patterns mean in relation to the spatial and temporal scales considered, the article will gain greater relevance within the field of Landscape Ecology and attract broader interest from the scientific community.

While the percentages of change across the historical series are informative, I believe it is crucial to spatialize these findings—as mentioned above—in order to enhance the study's contribution to territorial planning. Even though the study area is organized into two main geographic extents—the protected area and its surroundings—it is essential for decision-makers to understand where to intervene based on the described outcomes.

What do the notations “a” and “n” stand for in Table 4? Clarifying this would improve the reader's understanding.

I appreciated the section titled “Spatial Structure of Caterpillar Habitats and Anthropization of the LBR Landscape”. However, as with the rest of the results, the approach remains predominantly descriptive. Coupling this section with a spatially grounded analysis of land use change dynamics would greatly enhance the manuscript's analytical value.

Discussion

From my perspective, the first subsection of the discussion does not seem necessary given the study’s objectives and results. Some of the limitations and data-related choices could instead be addressed in the methods section. This is a personal stance regarding the structure and objectivity expected in an academic article. While it is acceptable to acknowledge certain limitations within the discussion, I would not recommend dedicating an entire subsection exclusively to this topic.

More broadly, the discussion offers limited reflection on the spatial scales that were established as regions of analysis. These spatial aspects deserve a more in-depth examination.

I recommend that the authors revise the subsection titled “Implications of the Study Results and Practical Application”, steering it more directly toward the research problem. As currently written, the text does not specifically discuss the results or how they can support decision-making processes. Another point that stood out in this subsection is the lack of clarity as to whether the authors confirmed their research hypothesis.

Conclusion

I found the conclusion lacking a restatement of the hypothesis and its development in relation to points i through iv presented at the end of the introduction. Ideally, this should be done with more specific reference to each of these points. In my view, there is no need to reiterate the results; rather, the conclusion should emphasize the key takeaways derived from the study, clearly linked to the research objectives. Furthermore, I do not believe that the methodological approach adopted in this article supports drawing conclusions related to the management framework or governance schemes.

Author Response

Responses to comments and Suggestions for Authors-Reviewer 1

According to the authors, the article tests the hypothesis that human activities in the LBR landscape affect the stability of ecosystems that host edible caterpillars, creating habitats that are unsuitable for their availability. The article is interesting and addresses a relevant topic in the country where the study was conducted, especially considering the relationship between people and this resource. Characterizing land use and land cover patterns over a historical time series is an insightful starting point for addressing the proposed theme. Below, I present my comments on each section of the manuscript.

Introduction

The beginning of the introduction is well structured and offers a coherent reading flow. However, from line 87 to the end of the section, I believe a few clarifications are needed. In my view, certain statements seem to be included primarily to justify the methodological choices, which appears unnecessary given that the study is clearly based on a spatial analysis approach. Furthermore, the conclusion of the introduction, which presents points i to iv, is not clearly aligned with the central hypothesis. It is unclear whether these points reflect what the authors expected to find through their analyses or what was actually observed. I found this part of the text somewhat confusing, and I believe the authors could make this section more explicit. Additionally, it seems that the study does not analyze human activities per se, as stated in the hypothesis, but rather the land use and land cover patterns as indicators of different forms of land occupation and natural contexts.

We would like to thank the reviewer for this comment. An effort has been made to improve the introduction and the hypothesis formulation (pp 2-3).

Study Area Characterization

What was the criterion used to define the 20 km buffer around the LBR? Was this landscape boundary established by the authors, or is there a legal framework that defines this geographic extent? Does the protected area have a buffer zone? If so, why was this officially designated buffer not used as the area of analysis? I would appreciate further clarification on these aspects within the context of the study.

Once again, many thanks for this comment. According to the management plans drawn up for biosphere reserves throughout the world, each biosphere reserve is divided into a core zone, a buffer zone and a transition zone. In this work, we have mentioned the study by Opelele et al. 2021, which was carried out in the Luki Biosphere Reserve. That said, in this work, when we talk about the Luki Biosphere Reserve, all three zones are included. However, around the Luki Biosphere Reserve, the local communities' lands extend for an average of 20 km beyond the transition zone, i.e. beyond the reserve. The land of the local communities in this work is what we have called the peripheral zone of the reserve. These local communities derive most of their livelihood from the Luki Biosphere Reserve. However, if a better understanding of the dynamics on the local communities' land were to be gained, strategies could be devised to enable them to obtain much of what they take from the reserve on their community land. For the purposes of cartographic representation, in order to avoid confusion between what is considered a buffer zone (the area between the core zone and the transition zone, according to biosphere reserve management plans) we have represented the LBR as a block. The periphery of the LBR forms a second block. The whole (LBR + periphery) forms the landscape. In addition, the authors have not defined the boundaries of the landscape.This limitation is due to the various development projects that have taken place in this area, for which the Observatoire des Forêts d'Afrique Centrale (OSFAC) has established the limits of project interventions with geographical coordinates. However, we have decided to consider the LBR and its peripheral zone as a landscape, in view of the relationships that exist between the two spatial units. These are two zones with different land management methods, which form a whole in the understanding of socio-spatial mutations linked to access to natural resources.

Regarding Figure 1:

The boundary of the LBR could be more prominently highlighted on the map. Highways could be shown in red to improve visual distinction. The regional inset map should be improved to provide a clearer understanding of the study area's global location. What datum was used in the map's construction? What were the data sources used to produce the map? Which satellite and what year does the image refer to? Additionally, the point features shown on the map should be included in the legend.

The map was produced using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 33 South projection system, to ensure optimum spatial accuracy for the study region. The spatial data comes mainly from Landsat satellite images (p4).

Satellite Data

In the introduction, the authors highlight that the use of caterpillars as a resource began in the early 2000s. In this section, they state that the period between 2004 and 2011 coincides with the beginning of caterpillar collection and consumption in the study area. I recommend that the authors provide references that better contextualize this practice within the region, in order to more effectively justify the selection of this time frame for image analysis. Additionally, the authors should present references to support the choice of the remaining analysis intervals. While they describe their reasoning, no supporting literature is cited to substantiate these claims.

Thank you for your comment. In the study, we specify that caterpillar consumption in the study area began in the early 2000s. We are not saying that it began in 2000. In fact, studies conducted by Lonpi, 2022(https://theconversation.com/en-rdc) and Lonpi et al., 2023 (https://doi.org/10.19182/bft2023.355.a36785) present changes in the eating practices and professional experience of caterpillar collectors and consumers. These studies have shown that the adoption of new food practices, including those related to the consumption of edible caterpillars, has been taking place for almost 40 years in the study area. However, the peak was reached around 2006. For the purposes of this work, we would have liked to analyze maps from years prior to 2006. The only available scene without cloud cover was that of 2004. Analyzing scenes with cloud cover would have required us to mobilize logistics that we didn't have. For this reason, we have listed the availability and quality of the scenes as one of the parameters that also influenced the choice of images studied.

We must also point out that few studies have been carried out on edible caterpillars in the LBR landscape. The one we present here is one of the pioneers. These are the preliminary studies needed to understand the dynamics and issues associated with this wild food resource in the study area. That said, the proposed study periods are not subjective. They are the result of local communities' perceptions of this food resource, but also of the studies carried out in 2022 and 2023. We have added both references for a better understanding of the choice of study periods (p5).

Pre-processing of Landsat Images

Accuracy should be directly related to land use and land cover mapping, as it determines the quality of the classification output. Did the authors collect coordinates exclusively at caterpillar occurrence points? How many field samples were collected per class to validate the mapping? How was the validation process conducted for the 2004, 2011, and 2020 images? Why were no complementary images used for ground-truth verification throughout the historical time series? It is important to note that the outputs from this stage of the work should not be presented as results, since they pertain to the mapping procedures. It is not standard practice to treat accuracy metrics as research results, especially when they are not directly linked to the study’s objectives. I recommend that this information be incorporated into the methods section of the article instead.

Thank you for your comment. The field data used for validation was collected during the most recent period (2024). They were used to validate the classification model, which was then applied to images from previous years (2004, 2011, 2015 and 2020). Once the model has been validated, it is common practice in remote sensing to use it retrospectively, without requiring field data for each year, as long as spectral conditions remain comparable.

In addition, high-resolution images from Google Earth were used to visually check the consistency of the classifications, and local knowledge was used to improve the accuracy of the interpretation. This combined approach ensures robust validation of the entire time series despite the absence of historical field data.All details on how this was done have presented in the manuscrip. The coordinates were not exclusively collected at the caterpillars occurrence points. The number of field samples per class used to validate the mapping have been precised in the text (table 1, p6). Accuracy have been incorporated into methodologie as recommend by the reviewer. 

Assessment of Landscape Dynamics

It is important to include a citation to support the statement made in lines 232 and 233 (p8, point 2.4).

Given that this is a spatial analysis, I believe it is essential to spatialize the observed change patterns, particularly to characterize such changes within the context of the caterpillar habitat, which is the focus of conservation in this study. It would be valuable to visualize areas of land cover persistence and change throughout the historical series, with emphasis on the habitats where caterpillars occur, taking into account the three spatial scales of analysis.

This would strengthen the methodological approach, enabling the use of statistical analyses to determine whether landscape dynamics varied across time and space. Such an addition would move the study beyond a descriptive scope toward a more analytical one, providing a more solid basis for informed decision-making.

We thank the reviewer for this pertinent comment. Our study focuses on the overall impact of anthropisation on edible caterpillar collecting ecosystems in the Luki Biosphere Reserve, through a diachronic analysis of five Landsat images (2004, 2011, 2015, 2020, 2024) supplemented by field verifications. The main objective was not to spatially analyse the fine dynamics of habitats at different scales, but to assess the general influence of agricultural development and demographic growth on habitat stability.

Detailed mapping of areas of persistence and change, focusing on caterpillar habitats, is beyond the scope of the current study, but is an interesting avenue for future research aimed at more targeted conservation. We would like to thank the reviewer for this suggestion, which will enrich our future work.

Results

In light of the recommendations mentioned above, it is important that the authors recognize that Figure 3 does not portray the dynamics of land use and land cover patterns; rather, it presents a static “snapshot” of land cover based on mapping. Landscape dynamics would be spatially represented if a land use change analysis were employed to visualize what changed and what remained over time. Such an approach would allow the authors to move beyond a visual assessment to a spatially explicit and analytical perspective.

Furthermore, if the authors statistically demonstrate what these patterns mean in relation to the spatial and temporal scales considered, the article will gain greater relevance within the field of Landscape Ecology and attract broader interest from the scientific community.

While the percentages of change across the historical series are informative, I believe it is crucial to spatialize these findings—as mentioned above—in order to enhance the study's contribution to territorial planning. Even though the study area is organized into two main geographic extents—the protected area and its surroundings—it is essential for decision-makers to understand where to intervene based on the described outcomes.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for his constructive comments and his interest in deepening our spatial analysis. We fully agree with the importance of integrating a dynamic and spatialised approach to land use change to enrich our understanding of landscape processes. In our study, the dynamics of land cover were explored through a temporal series of maps (Fig. 3), accompanied by the calculation of quantitative landscape indices (fragmentation, dominance, disturbance) that provide a spatial and statistical analysis of the transformations. These elements make it possible to go beyond a simple “static” vision and to objectify the changes in habitats over time and space, in relation to human activity.

However, we recognise that analysing specific changes “pixel by pixel” or explicitly mapping the gains and losses of land-use units would offer a finer-grained perspective on spatial dynamics, in particular to better guide targeted territorial interventions. However, this approach requires a level of detail and a volume of data that are beyond the scope of our current objectives, which focus on the overall characterisation of landscape trends and edible caterpillar habitats. However, statistics on land-use changes have been added to the work to enhance understanding of the cartographic representations (pp10, Table 3- p12).

We consider that our methodology provides a solid basis, combining multi-temporal mapping, landscape indices and field validation, adapted to the main objective of assessing the influence of human activity on the ecosystems concerned. In response to the reviewer's recommendations, in future work we plan to incorporate a detailed analysis of spatialised trajectories of change, combined with fine-grained statistical analyses to provide a deeper understanding of dynamics at different scales.

What do the notations “a” and “n” stand for in Table 4? Clarifying this would improve the reader's understanding.

A clarification has been given  to‘’a’’ and ‘’n’’(table 4, p14)

I appreciated the section titled “Spatial Structure of Caterpillar Habitats and Anthropization of the LBR Landscape”. However, as with the rest of the results, the approach remains predominantly descriptive. Coupling this section with a spatially grounded analysis of land use change dynamics would greatly enhance the manuscript's analytical value.

We thank the reviewer for this pertinent comment. However, we would like to emphasise that our approach is not limited to a simple spatial description. In fact, the methodology used includes the rigorous calculation of quantitative landscape structure indices (fragmentation, dominance, disturbance) that enable land use dynamics to be analysed spatially and statistically. These indices provide a solid analytical basis that goes beyond the descriptive framework, making it possible to objectify landscape transformations linked to anthropisation and changes in caterpillar habitats. In addition, the integration of multi-temporal data and validation by field observations reinforce the robustness of our analyses. We consider that this approach meets the requirements of an in-depth spatial analysis and contributes to a detailed understanding of the dynamics under study.

Discussion

From my perspective, the first subsection of the discussion does not seem necessary given the study’s objectives and results. Some of the limitations and data-related choices could instead be addressed in the methods section. This is a personal stance regarding the structure and objectivity expected in an academic article. While it is acceptable to acknowledge certain limitations within the discussion, I would not recommend dedicating an entire subsection exclusively to this topic.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. This section has been removed from the text. It will be included later in the general discussion of a larger study we are currently conducting on edible caterpillar issues in the LBR landscape.

More broadly, the discussion offers limited reflection on the spatial scales that were established as regions of analysis. These spatial aspects deserve a more in-depth examination.

I recommend that the authors revise the subsection titled “Implications of the Study Results and Practical Application”, steering it more directly toward the research problem. As currently written, the text does not specifically discuss the results or how they can support decision-making processes. Another point that stood out in this subsection is the lack of clarity as to whether the authors confirmed their research hypothesis.

We express our great thank to the reviewer for this comment. These have been taken in to consideration. An effort has been made to show why study has been done in these spatial scales. Many parts of the discussion have been reformulated and we have also shown how the result can be used in the special context of the LBR (p17)

Conclusion

I found the conclusion lacking a restatement of the hypothesis and its development in relation to points i through iv presented at the end of the introduction. Ideally, this should be done with more specific reference to each of these points. In my view, there is no need to reiterate the results; rather, the conclusion should emphasize the key takeaways derived from the study, clearly linked to the research objectives. Furthermore, I do not believe that the methodological approach adopted in this article supports drawing conclusions related to the management framework or governance schemes.

We would like to thank the reviewer for this comments, which enabled us to improve the quality of the writing of the conclusion to this work. The comments have been taken in to consideration (p18).

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is correctly written and contains all necessary chapters (Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion).

The title is clear and fully reflects the research presented in the paper.

Introduction is clear, but the names of tree species, as well as Lepidoptera species (caterpillars) are not mentioned. It is not mandatory to mention these types in the Introduction, but it should definitely be done in the paper (eg Study Area). Common names should be listed, as well as scientific (Latin) names. If it is not possible to list all species, the most common ones should be listed.

As for the rest, the chapter Material and Methods contain data relevant to this type of work. Satellite data are correctly described, and the same can be said for pre-processing of Landsat images and assessment of landscape dynamics. The only recommendation is that Table 1 could be displayed as text (since it mostly contains text).

The results of the research are presented mainly in the form of tables and figures, which is very transparent.

Appropriate literary sources were used.

The topic of the paper is very interesting. The paper relates to landscape dynamics in Luki Biosphere reserve. The authors represent the data on forest, savannah, fallow, field & bare soil and inhabited area and also cite fragmentation as a significant problem. Papers of this type are not rare for this part of Africa. However, there are few works that deal with edible caterpillars, and especially few that deal with their ecology. The special value of this work is that it points to the problem of reducing the area under forest, as well as to the basic causes of this phenomenon. First of all, urbanization should be highlighted here.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. The Luki Biosphere Reserve (together with its periphery, and the entire landscape) is affected by deforestation, the expansion of savannahs, fields and bare soils, which makes unfavourable habitats for caterpillars consumed by the population in this part of the country. The authors see the main problems in the expansion of agriculture and human settlements.

The work is of very high quality and represents a significant scientific contribution.

However, several things should be improved.

First, the authors should present species of edible caterpillars, as well as the species of their host plants (common and scientific names). If it is not possible, they can mention the most important species.

The paper could be slightly shorten since it contains some excessive explanations and some data have been double shown (table and text).

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Reviewer 2

The paper is correctly written and contains all necessary chapters (Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion).

The title is clear and fully reflects the research presented in the paper.

Introduction is clear, but the names of tree species, as well as Lepidoptera species (caterpillars) are not mentioned. It is not mandatory to mention these types in the Introduction, but it should definitely be done in the paper (eg Study Area). Common names should be listed, as well as scientific (Latin) names. If it is not possible to list all species, the most common ones should be listed.

As for the rest, the chapter Material and Methods contain data relevant to this type of work. Satellite data are correctly described, and the same can be said for pre-processing of Landsat images and assessment of landscape dynamics. The only recommendation is that Table 1 could be displayed as text (since it mostly contains text).

The results of the research are presented mainly in the form of tables and figures, which is very transparent.

Appropriate literary sources were used.

The topic of the paper is very interesting. The paper relates to landscape dynamics in Luki Biosphere reserve. The authors represent the data on forest, savannah, fallow, field & bare soil and inhabited area and also cite fragmentation as a significant problem. Papers of this type are not rare for this part of Africa. However, there are few works that deal with edible caterpillars, and especially few that deal with their ecology. The special value of this work is that it points to the problem of reducing the area under forest, as well as to the basic causes of this phenomenon. First of all, urbanization should be highlighted here.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. The Luki Biosphere Reserve (together with its periphery, and the entire landscape) is affected by deforestation, the expansion of savannahs, fields and bare soils, which makes unfavourable habitats for caterpillars consumed by the population in this part of the country. The authors see the main problems in the expansion of agriculture and human settlements.

The work is of very high quality and represents a significant scientific contribution.

We would like to thank the evaluator for this appreciation of the quality of our work. It motivates and encourages us to continue our research into the issues associated with edible caterpillars in the landscape of the Luki Biosphere Reserve. This is a landscape with fragile forest ecosystems that are exposed to numerous pressures. Here, communities are developing mechanisms to cope with the scarcity of certain means of subsistence due to the degradation of natural.

However, several things should be improved.

First, the authors should present species of edible caterpillars, as well as the species of their host plants (common and scientific names). If it is not possible, they can mention the most important species.

Many thanks for this comment. It has been taken in consideration (characterics of the study area, p3).

The paper could be slightly shorten since it contains some excessive explanations and some data have been double shown (table and text).

We express our great thanks to the reviewer. We have tried to shorten the text. But, this was not possible. Following comments made by one of the reviewers, we were obliged to add several paragraphs to the initial version of the manuscript. We also felt it necessary to present the contents of the tables in the text. This is a common practice in science and makes it easier to understand the meaning of the figures presented.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for addressing each point raised in my review. The improvement in the organization of the text is evident, based on the new structure presented in this latest version. The manuscript is now clearer and more concise, which facilitates reading and enhances the overall understanding of the work. I also find the new organization of Table 3 more appropriate, as it better represents the variation in land cover and land use over the historical series. Likewise, I appreciated the structure of both the methods and the discussion.

I recommend only two minor adjustments, described below.

Please check the information in the map legend: the grid coordinates are in degrees, whereas UTM coordinates are in meters. I suggest keeping the coordinates in degrees and removing the mention of UTM from both the map and the legend. Perhaps the datum used for the analyses was WGS84, as it is a geocentric datum.

Additionally, the final sentence on line 270 is somewhat subjective. I recommend that the authors specify how many and which indices were calculated. If the sentence “Several spatial structure indices were calculated” is related to the paragraph beginning on line 288, I suggest moving the sentence closer to that content.

With these two minor adjustments, I recommend the manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for addressing each point raised in my review. The improvement in the organization of the text is evident, based on the new structure presented in this latest version. The manuscript is now clearer and more concise, which facilitates reading and enhances the overall understanding of the work. I also find the new organization of Table 3 more appropriate, as it better represents the variation in land cover and land use over the historical series. Likewise, I appreciated the structure of both the methods and the discussion.

We would like to express our thanks to the reviewer. This result was also possible thanks to his pertinent comments.

I recommend only two minor adjustments, described below.

Please check the information in the map legend: the grid coordinates are in degrees, whereas UTM coordinates are in meters. I suggest keeping the coordinates in degrees and removing the mention of UTM from both the map and the legend. Perhaps the datum used for the analyses was WGS84, as it is a geocentric datum.

Many thanks ! The coordinates have been kept. The UTM were removed from both the map and legend, and replaced in map by the datum WGS84

Additionally, the final sentence on line 270 is somewhat subjective. I recommend that the authors specify how many and which indices were calculated. If the sentence “Several spatial structure indices were calculated” is related to the paragraph beginning on line 288, I suggest moving the sentence closer to that content.

Once again, thanks for this observation. This sentence has been moved to the beginning of the paragraph.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx