Effects of Grassland Afforestation on Water Yield in Basins of Uruguay: A Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Historical Trends Using Remote Sensing and Field Measurements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear authors.

 

The article is extremely interesting and relevant. I believe that the presented material, the methodological approach of the authors, will be of interest to readers. After revision, the article may be published.

However, there are several comments:

1. In Figure 2, next to the numerical values of latitude and longitude - indicate the southern and western hemispheres ("S"/"W"). Do not use the "-" sign. There are no names of countries in the figure on the left.

2. Use [] to refer to references in the text.

3. Figure 1 is rather primitive against the background of the rest of the high-quality graphic material. It is reasonable to consider removing it from the manuscript.

4. In the Discussion section, it is interesting to compare the data you obtained on forest change with data from public sources that analyze land cover change worldwide (https://lcviewer.vito.be/download, http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download.php, http://www.globallandcover.com/home_en.html). These data often have similar spatial resolution. If your data are more accurate, it will increase their value to the global scientific community.

5. In Figure 4, check the appropriateness of the word "meses". Perhaps it should be "month"?

6. Why were the NDVI data used at a spatial resolution of 8 km/pixel and not calculated from Landsat images (30m/pixel)? What is the verification and accuracy of the calculations when using such data? What are the NDVI maps for the study area?

 

7. How did you take into account cloud cover when choosing space images? How many total space images were used? Describe the methodology section in more detail. Step by step.

Eliminating these minor points will improve the quality of the article.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article evaluated the effects of grassland afforestation on water yield in basins of Uruguay during 1984-2014, through spatial and temporal analysis of historical trends with the use of remote sensors, considering the effect on water yield through field measurements. The results of this study may contribute to further understand the effects of grassland afforestation on water yield in basins of Uruguay. However, there are some concerns that the authors should address before it can be considered for publication.

(1) In the introduction, I suggest the authors add some recent references to back "Forest plantations could have consequences on the water balance, affecting the two main paths of the normal flow of precipitation, evapotranspiration (ET) and liquid flow from the surface (e.g., Zhang et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022)".

(2) Some references should be added to support climate and natural conditions in "2.1. Study Zone".

(3) In the data, the authors should add more information about data, such as data availability and access.

(4) A paragraph of limitation discussion should be added to clarify the limitation or uncertainty of data and methods in this current study. For example, the uncertainty of remote sensing data including NDVI data will have a certain impact on the research results of this paper (Shen et al., 2022).

(5) I suggest the authors highlight the significance of this study in the conclusion.

(6) The resolution of Figure 3 should be improved.

References:

Effect of shrub encroachment on land surface temperature in semi-arid areas of temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2022, 320: 108943.

Effects of forest growth in different vegetation communities on forest catchment water balance. Science of The Total Environment, 2022, 809: 151159.

Vegetation greening, extended growing seasons, and temperature feedbacks in warming temperate grasslands of China. Journal of Climate, 2022, 35, 5103-5117.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article can be accepted in its present form.