Connectivity Index-Based Identification of Priority Area of River Protected Areas in Sichuan Province, Southwest China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Idea is good, hard to be concentrated on the main idea. There are some overlapping in the text- the same statements, information
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please, proceed to a language cross-checking by an English native speaker. It has not significant linguistic issues, but it needs some further improvement.
Please include the references below, so that to add a more global influence of your work, covering both a) more geographic areas and b) scientific case studies.
Psilovikos A., Katsada A., Malamataris D., Papathanasiou T., Psilovikos T. & Spiridis A., 2021. Impacts of Land Use and Land Cover Change in a Mediterranean Mountainous Area on Surface Runoff During the Period 1945 – 2018. 17th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology (CEST 2021), Athens, Greece, 1 – 4 Sep 2021.
Benez-Secanho F.J., Dwivedi P., Ferreira S. et al, 2022. Trade-offs Between the Value of Ecosystem Services and Connectivity Among Protected Areas in the Upper Chattahoochee Watershed. Environmental Management (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01584-6
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript titled "Connectivity index-based identification of priority area of river protected areas in Sichuan province, Southwest China" intends to construct an analysis model and conducts spatial visualization analysis. This analysis further identifies the priority areas of the RPAs and determines the priority conservation reach (PCR). Moreover, the manuscript aims to provide ideas for RPAs system planning.
The research is original; it could be characterized as novel and in my opinion important to the field, it also has almost the appropriate structure and language been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has a good extent (about 7,920 words) and it is comprehensive. The tables (3) and figures (8) make the paper to reflect well to the reader. For this reason, paper has a "diversity look", not only tables, not only numbers, not only words. It is advised to revise figures, compare them, or use appendix if you agree.
The title is all right. The abstract did not reflect well the findings of this study, and it has not the appropriate length. Please revise the abstract of the manuscript and do not forget abstract need to encourage readers to download the paper. The Abstract needs further work. It is not clear. Abstracts should indicate the research problem/purpose of the research, provide some indication of the design/methodology/approach taken, the findings of the research and its originality/value in terms of its contribution to the international literature. The abstract has a long length (about 280 words). Please, revise the abstract, it must be up to 200 words long, for this reason I would be good to reduce [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot)].
The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized; it really introduced and put into perspective what research is negotiating but is too short. Please revise the Introduction of the manuscript and include references which are already exists in bibliography (as you did). Moreover, it does not contain a clear formulation and description of the research problem. This makes it difficult for the reader to understand the argumentation. Please insert a clear description and justification of the problem the article deals with.
For the Methodology chapter, the research conduct has been tested in several areas of the world, with similar results and will probably be tested in others. Appropriate references to the methodology included in the already published bibliography. The methodology followed is not sufficiently documented and needs to be explained clearly. It is advised to revise the Discussion and Conclusion. Both sections should be consistent in terms of Proposal, Problem statement, Results, and of course, future work. Your conclusion section is too short and does not justice to your work. Make it your key contributions, arguments, and findings clearer. You must refer to the literature and previous studies in your discussion and conclusion sections. It is recommended to remove paragraphs from Results and Discussion and put them in the Conclusion with nice order and to be enriched.
Please revise the references of the manuscript and include references which are already exists in bibliography. I would be much more satisfied if the number of references was slightly higher (about 20 - 25 references) and I would appreciate it if also included data from the entire world (Asia, America, Europe and Australia e.tc.). In this way it is documented that a project which is tested in a place with its own characteristics can be implemented in other places around the world. References, must have an appropriate style, for this reason I would be good to change [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation / Back Matter / References: - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions or https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references)]. Do not forget, DOI numbers (Digital Object Identifier) are not mandatory but highly encouraged and make the review easier.
Please, revise the reference "48. Soulé, M. E.; Sanjayan, M. A. Conservation Targets: Do They Help? 1998, 279, 2060–2061", line 745. I think must be revised as “Soulé, M. E.; Sanjayan, M. A. ECOLOGY: Conservation Targets: Do They Help? Science (80). 1998, 279, 2060–2061, doi:10.1126/science.279.5359.2060.”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript titled " Connectivity index-based identification of priority area of river protected areas in Sichuan province, Southwest China" intends to construct an analysis model and conducts spatial visualization analysis. This analysis further identifies the priority areas of the RPAs and determines the priority conservation reach (PCR). Moreover, the manuscript aims to provide ideas for RPAs system planning.
The manuscript has been revised according the first review comments. The authors carefully studied the comments and revised the manuscript by considering all the comments. All the comments are responded in the new manuscript. I believe the revised manuscript has been improved carefully and I hope the desired level of Land can be reached.
The introduction was modified, conclusions and discussion are better than the previous one, they have general logic and on justification of interpretations as the author’s attribute.
In general, the manuscript is completely different from the previous one, since all the comments of the previous review have been revised.
