Mapping and Quantification of Miombo Deforestation in the Lubumbashi Charcoal Production Basin (DR Congo): Spatial Extent and Changes between 1990 and 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

see attached

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Please find our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the authors quantified the deforestation of the miombo woodland in the LCPB via remote sens-ing and landscape ecology analysis tools. The study is based on Landsat images from 1990, 1998, 2008, 2015 and 2022. The results showed that the LCPB lost more than half of its miombo woodland cover between 1990 (77.90%) and 2022 (39.92%) and was converted mainly to wooded savannah (21.68%), grassland (37.26%), agriculture (2.03%) and built-up and bare soil (0.19). Consecutively, grassland became the new dominant land cover in 2022 (40%). Therefore, the deforestation rate (−1.51%) is almost six times higher than the national average (−0.26%). However, persistent miombo woodland is characterised by the reduction, over time, of its largest patch area and the complexity of its shape. Consequently, because of anthropogenic activities, the dynamics of the landscape pattern are mainly characterised by the attrition of the miombo woodland and the creation of wooded savannah, grassland, agriculture and built-up and bare soil. 

Obviously, this study is valuable to local forest manager to develop a forest management plan and find alternatives to energy sources and the sedentarisation of agriculture by supporting local producers to reverse these dynamics. Also, the research data is rich, including Landsat images from 5 different times. The research results have high credibility.

A slight drawback is that the research methods only involve  Random Forest and Decition Tree. If the author can try to supplement some other machine learning algorithms, such as XGBoost, CatBoost, or deep learning algorithms, such as YOLO series algorithms, it may further improve the performance indicators.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Please find our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The main contribution of this paper is the quantification and mapping of miombo deforestation in the Lubumbashi charcoal production basin (LCPB) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo) using remote sensing and landscape ecology analysis tools. It is a fully developed technical work. However, it has some technical deficiencies that need to be improved. First, the accuracy assessment

 

The evaluation of the reliability, uses very traditional methods already surpassed. Although the bibliographic reference used provides good practice recommendations for accuracy assessment and area estimation*

 

There are more up-to-date references that incorporate spatial distribution. Specifically, quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement evaluation can be robust to the result obtained.

 

Second, although the use of interviews is mentioned, only the number and profile of the interviewees is mentioned. The discussion addresses the dynamics of the Lubumbashi Coal Production Basin (LCPB) through landscape analysis and other literature references. And although some of the arguments expressed are surely based on the general results of the interviews, value is not given to the answers and perceptions of the interviewees.

 

My recommendation is that the results of the interviews be incorporated more explicitly with a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the interviews.

 

* Nelson, M. D., Garner, J. D., Tavernia, B. G., Stehman, S. V., Riemann, R. I., Lister, A. J., & Perry, C. H. (2021). Assessing map accuracy from a suite of site-specific, non-site specific, and spatial distribution approaches. Remote Sensing of Environment, 260, 112442.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Please find our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I highlighted an example where the expression could have been more concise. The manuscript needs a review to ensure that this concise language is followed throughout.

see above

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are getting back to you with a revised version that takes into account the recent comments from the reviewers. Therefore, please find attached a file detailing the additions and corrections made.

We hope for a pleasant continuation and send you our sincere regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The sentence between lines 257 and 258 needs a reference. I suggest incorporating the reference 59 into the AD/QD ratio discussion

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are getting back to you with a revised version that takes into account the your recent comments. Therefore, please find attached a file detailing the additions and corrections made.

We hope for a pleasant continuation and send you our sincere regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx