Network of Landscapes in the Sustainable Management of Transboundary Biosphere Reserves
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I find the manuscript very interesting on it topics - and it is important to evaluate the results of these kinds of international efforts to preserve biological important areas with across nations borders with fairly similar ecological conditions, but also with cultural/language differencies, and administrative different organization. The results of this Research show that it is not simple.
Within the frames here - present the objectives of research more clearly - now I fell i have the conclusions presented. (Lines 141 - 158).
The language need to be improved - it is hard to catch the real meaning of many sentences. Latin names must be given for the wild animals (lines 416-418) and proper English names. Some abbreviations lack explanations. The maps are difficult to read and need English text an explanation.
I like the focus on the biodiversity aspect of old and local farm animals and the explanation of the importance and way to save these breeds.
2: MATERIALS AND METHODS
This chapter is very descriptive, but I still do not clearly see how materials used are collected with a clear reference to the objectives of the research. It is a heavy load of references - so I guess this research is a kind of sum-up of several articles - but if so this should be stated clearly -
Fig 2 is probably explaining something - but text is not sufficient to understand the meaning - and here is all in Spanish/Portuguese language - it need to be improved and explained better - and also with a clear marking of the national borders and the Reserves border.
I think the chapter havee3xplained to much - parts of it should have been in the introduction (like the Table 1) - or it could have been part of a separate chapter or underchapter that describe the areas ecology, landscapes and biodiversity - wild as well as farmed animals and vegetation and socioeconomic systems in former and time and nowdays.
In Fig. 3 the historical landscapers units should have been explained to us who are unfamiliar with the area (but I have once visited the Valladoid area and have at least seen some part of the landscape at the Spanish side here).
Chapt. 3: The results given here is of great interest and importance, but I do not find it easy to see the connection clearly between the objectives - methods - materials and results - given. (But I am mainly used to research with detailed quantitative methods - here we are in a more - but not completely qualitative methods and presentation formula).
There are many postulates/results that I cannot find the numeric research behind. Maybe some could have been given i table forms with a presentation of the questions given - numbers of answers and what answers were given ?
I find chapt. 3.2 of great importance as the describe the socioeconomic challenges of rural life in a global world market. I also recognize the importance of creating tourism-based economy - partly as a kind of eco-torurism - to help and sustain rural settlement and economy - and the there are differencies in this approach and result on each site of the national border - and why it is so. The importance of local understanding and support and being a part og decissions is crucial to succed - this is pinpointed well.
Chapt. 4 and 5 - are OK and show that the complex of this research are well understood -
OVERALL: The research prensted and explained is og great importance - but I think the manuscript can be much better and easier to understand with a serious language corrections and a litle shorter and more pinpointed text because this is well worth to be published !
Author Response
I find the manuscript very interesting on it topics - and it is important to evaluate the results of these kinds of international efforts to preserve biological important areas with across nations borders with fairly similar ecological conditions, but also with cultural/language differencies, and administrative different organization. The results of this Research show that it is not simple.
1.- Within the frames here - present the objectives of research more clearly
Response: A thorough review of the introduction has been carried out. The specific research objectives have been highlighted and listed in the introduction (Lines 80-102)
2.- - now I fell i have the conclusions presented. (Lines 141 - 158).
Response: The conclusions have been summed up at the end of the Introduction section, Lines 105-116, following the instructions for the authors of the journal that indicate, “Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions”.
3.- The language need to be improved - it is hard to catch the real meaning of many sentences.
Response: The introduction has been shortened and language has been revised in order to clarify all the sentences of the document and make them more understandable.
4.- Latin names must be given for the wild animals (lines 416-418) and proper English names.
Latin names for wild animals have been included and the names in English have been revised (Lines 133-136).
5.- Some abbreviations lack explanations.
Response: Abbreviations have been revised.
6.- The maps are difficult to read and need English text an explanation.
Response: The original maps of the "Paisaje Ibérico" (Iberian Landscape) project were presented. The legends have now been translated for better understanding.
I like the focus on the biodiversity aspect of old and local farm animals and the explanation of the importance and way to save these breeds.
2: MATERIALS AND METHODS
7.This chapter is very descriptive, but I still do not clearly see how materials used are collected with a clear reference to the objectives of the research. It is a heavy load of references - so I guess this research is a kind of sum-up of several articles - but if so this should be stated clearly
Response: It is indeed a summary of a broader project, which we are main researchers, for which it has been indicated in the text that (Lines 68-71): “The research is framed in the project entitled “Iberian Landscape- Network of Rural Landscapes on the Border of the Douro: A Strategic Map of the Iberian Plateau” (0421_PAISAJE_IBERICO_2_E) under the Cooperation Programme INTERREG V-A Spain-Portugal (POCTEP) 2014-2020”
In addition, the following is added (Lines 194-195): “The collection of materials and the cartography used have been carried out in the "Paisaje Ibérico" (Iberian Landscape) project and are available online [46]”.
8. Fig 2 is probably explaining something - but text is not sufficient to understand the meaning - and here is all in Spanish/Portuguese language - it need to be improved and explained better - and also with a clear marking of the national borders and the Reserves border.
Response: Figure 2 shows an example of the mapping offered by the viewer. Moreover, in order to clarify it, the legend has been translated and the following text has been included (Lines 209-211): “Figure 2 shows an example of the mapping possibilities offered by the viewer according to the selected layers, in this case of the limits of the MITBR and its zoning.”
9. I think the chapter have explained to much - parts of it should have been in the introduction (like the Table 1) - or it could have been part of a separate chapter or underchapter that describe the areas ecology, landscapes and biodiversity - wild as well as farmed animals and vegetation and socioeconomic systems in former and time and nowdays.
Response: Following these indications, Overview of the Study Area subsection has been created (Lines 118). Some explanations have also been simplified, and some paragraphs related to methodology have been removed.
10. In Fig. 3 the historical landscapers units should have been explained to us who are unfamiliar with the area (but I have once visited the Valladoid area and have at least seen some part of the landscape at the Spanish side here).
Response: A brief explanation of the historical landscape units has been introduced in the lines 326-342. The figure 3 has also been revised to improve the identification of these historical landscape units.
11.-Chapt. 3: The results given here is of great interest and importance, but I do not find it easy to see the connection clearly between the objectives - methods - materials and results - given. (But I am mainly used to research with detailed quantitative methods - here we are in a more - but not completely qualitative methods and presentation formula).
There are many postulates/results that I cannot find the numeric research behind. Maybe some could have been given i table forms with a presentation of the questions given - numbers of answers and what answers were given ?
Response: This observation is very relevant and can be found at the origin of many of the controversies of the landscape literature. In order not to extend the document, the difficulty of analysis has only been pointed out in lines 164-167: “Socio-ecological landscapes, characterized by non-linear dynamics in space and time, are difficult to be analyzed using standard methods due to multiple processes interacting on different spatial and temporal scales”. The research adopts the framework promoted by the European Landscape Convention, which seeks to approach the perception of the reality of the inhabitants of a place through the application of multiple methodologies and gives a relevant role to qualitative and subjective aspects.
The interviews and questionnaires carried out in the Iberian Landscape Project generated very extensive material, some of which are presented on the project's website (The YOUTUBE Iberian landscape channel which contains the summary of some of the interviews recorded with breeders of indigenous breeds.)
Paisaje Ibérico. Canal YouTube. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFRPdGfekjXvGDn3XNNM4lg
12. I find chapt. 3.2 of great importance as the describe the socioeconomic challenges of rural life in a global world market. I also recognize the importance of creating tourism-based economy - partly as a kind of eco-torurism - to help and sustain rural settlement and economy - and the there are differencies in this approach and result on each site of the national border - and why it is so. The importance of local understanding and support and being a part og decissions is crucial to succed - this is pinpointed well.
Response: The document highlights the notable demographic differences between the Spanish and Portuguese sides (Lines 137-146), which partly explain their different capacity for entrepreneurship, also in the tourism sector. In general, Portugal has managed to better exploit the border, and also in the tourist offer with a better value for money combination (Lines 521-530).
Chapt. 4 and 5 - are OK and show that the complex of this research are well understood -
OVERALL: The research prensted and explained is og great importance - but I think the manuscript can be much better and easier to understand with a serious language corrections and a litle shorter and more pinpointed text because this is well worth to be published!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, I believe this is a very strong manuscript and important research study. I suggest making a few additions to increase the accessibility of information to a larger audience of readers:
First, I'd consider inclusion of additional figures and maps. For example, The methods section would benefit from some sort of table or flowchart that includes that various methodologies employed and how they were integrated in a sound way. Additionally, I would consider adding a few more maps. This project leans heavily on spatial tools and methods and therefore could include some more products from this effort. This may not be necessary as the writing is strong, but I think it could benefit the readers.
Second, the current maps should include English legends and symbology if the article is to be printed in English.
Finally, it may be helpful to include a little more detail upon the key elements of the landscape approach. For example, the difference between landscape composition vs. configuration and the implications for ecological processes.
Author Response
Overall, I believe this is a very strong manuscript and important research study. I suggest making a few additions to increase the accessibility of information to a larger audience of readers:
First, I'd consider inclusion of additional figures and maps. For example, The methods section would benefit from some sort of table or flowchart that includes that various methodologies employed and how they were integrated in a sound way. Additionally, I would consider adding a few more maps. This project leans heavily on spatial tools and methods and therefore could include some more products from this effort. This may not be necessary as the writing is strong, but I think it could benefit the readers.
Response: This research is a part of a larger project, of which we are main researchers, that has the cartographic viewer available on its website. This has been indicated by including the following text (Lines 68-71): “The research is framed in the project entitled “Iberian Landscape- Network of Rural Landscapes on the Border of the Douro: A Strategic Map of the Iberian Plateau” (0421_PAISAJE_IBERICO_2_E) under the Cooperation Programme INTERREG V-A Spain-Portugal (POCTEP) 2014-2020,”.
In addition, the following is added (Lines 194-195): “The collection of materials and the cartography used have been carried out in the "Paisaje Ibérico" (Iberian Landscape) project and are available online [46]”.
Figure 2 shows an example of the mapping offered by the viewer. Moreover, in order to clarify it, the legend has been translated and the following text has been included (Lines 209-211): “Figure 2 shows an example of the mapping possibilities offered by the viewer according to the selected layers, in this case of the limits of the MITBR and its zoning.”
In addition, Figure 5 regarding the goat breeders location map in the MITBR has been incorporated, given its significance in the research to test in practice the conservation and replacement of these breeders.
Second, the current maps should include English legends and symbology if the article is to be printed in English.
Response: The original maps of the "Paisaje Ibérico" (Iberian Landscape) project were presented. The legends have now been translated for better understanding.
Finally, it may be helpful to include a little more detail upon the key elements of the landscape approach. For example, the difference between landscape composition vs. configuration and the implications for ecological processes.
Response: This observation is very relevant and can be found at the origin of many of the controversies of the landscape literature (eg, Li and Reynolds, 1994; Riitters et al., 2000; Neel et al., 2004; Zurlini et al. , 2006, 2007; Proulx and Fahrig, 2010). In order not to extend the document, the difficulty of analysis has only been pointed out in lines 164-167: “Socio-ecological landscapes, characterized by non-linear dynamics in space and time, are difficult to be analyzed using standard methods due to multiple processes interacting on different spatial and temporal scales”. The research adopts the framework promoted by the European Landscape Convention, which seeks to approach the perception of the reality of the inhabitants of a place through the application of multiple methodologies and gives a relevant role to qualitative and subjective aspects.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
You present research from a case study of a Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (TBR) between Spain and Portugal. You evaluated the condition of the protected area with respect to multiple aspects of the landscape and socio-ecological systems and applied the landscape approach to make recommendations for the improvement of the governance and protection of the biosphere reserve.
Your research approach is sound but your presentation of your research in your paper has to be improved for important parts of the manuscript.
Abstract
Add a conclusion sentence to the end of the abstract.
L 18 + 23: What do you mean with “to guide” and “stand out”? What has to be guided and what stands out?
Introduction
The introduction needs to be reduced significantly in its length. It is excessively long so it is too hard to flow your argument/aims. I recommend to shorten the introduction section to max 2 or 2.5 layout pages.
I miss a paragraph at the end of the introduction section, in which you specifically state your research aims/objectives and, in short, your research approach. Currently, you scatted them all over the introduction, with is hard to follow up.
L 85-95: This paragraph belongs to the Materials section. Please move to the beginning of the Materials and Methods section (also Figure 1).
L 29: Put the reference at the end of the sentence.
L 54: “almost 50 years later” of what? Please clarify.
L 66-66: please consider rewriting (e.g. by reducing the referenced aspects to the essential) of the sentence to enhance readability and to better communicate the message of the sentence.
L 72: check for missing commas in the sentence
Figure 1: add an English translation of the legend items in the figure caption and spell in full MITBR in the caption.
L 104-105: I recommend deleting this sentence because this is an unnecessary detail.
Materials and Methods
This section is again far too long, which reduced the readability of the text significantly. Please shorten the text to the core of the analyses you made and leave all unnecessary details you included now out of the text and write the paragraphs in a concise manner.
Reduce the used abbreviations to the minimum of the once you use regularly in the text to enhance readability.
L 195-201: This whole quote is unnecessary to provide as this brings your text not further in your arguments. Please delete.
Results
It is not clear what the specific outcome of your research is. After your evaluation of the landscape units, has there been an actual update in the zonation of the biosphere reserve or whether you only recommended to do so. To illustrate this, please provide a map, in which you overlay the currently implemented and updated zonation.
In general, you have to highlight the results/output of your work/project more in the text. At several points in the text, this is not clear for the reader what your actual results are (e.g. in subsection 3.4 -> Has the border actually been re-defined or not?)
L 489: use round brackets for EU
References
Your reference list is excessively long (i.e. 117 references) because you often cite several reference for a single aspect (e.g. in line 165, 171, 283, etc.). In general, your work meets scientific principles in a commendable manner and your work is based in a complex research area. However, I recommend that you try to reduce your references to the important once and leave out all the references of less important details to which you refer. A further reduction of your references will probably come by the recommended restructuring of your sections.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
You present research from a case study of a Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (TBR) between Spain and Portugal. You evaluated the condition of the protected area with respect to multiple aspects of the landscape and socio-ecological systems and applied the landscape approach to make recommendations for the improvement of the governance and protection of the biosphere reserve.
Your research approach is sound but your presentation of your research in your paper has to be improved for important parts of the manuscript.
Abstract
1.- Add a conclusion sentence to the end of the abstract.
L 18 + 23: What do you mean with “to guide” and “stand out”? What has to be guided and what stands out?
Response: The abstract has been revised and the conclusion has been included at the end of the abstract (Line 23). Likewise, the aforementioned ambiguous terms have been changed in search of greater clarity.
Introduction
2.- The introduction needs to be reduced significantly in its length. It is excessively long so it is too hard to flow your argument/aims. I recommend to shorten the introduction section to max 2 or 2.5 layout pages.
I miss a paragraph at the end of the introduction section, in which you specifically state your research aims/objectives and, in short, your research approach. Currently, you scatted them all over the introduction, with is hard to follow up.
Response: A thorough review of the introduction has been carried out. The introduction has been shortened and language has been revised in order to clarify all the sentences of the document and make them more understandable. The specific research objectives have been highlighted and listed in the introduction (Lines 80-95).
3.- L 85-95: This paragraph belongs to the Materials section. Please move to the beginning of the Materials and Methods section (also Figure 1).
Response: The subsection 2.1. Overview of the Study Area has been created, to which this paragraph and Figure 1 have been moved.
To this subsection have also been moved and reviewed other information about the area, such as Table I.
4.- L 29: Put the reference at the end of the sentence. Corrected.
5.- L 54: “almost 50 years later” of what? Please clarify.
Response: The text has been modified (Line 48): “Nonetheless, recent revisions of the BR have shown that, almost 50 years after its creation…”.
6.- L 66-66: please consider rewriting (e.g. by reducing the referenced aspects to the essential) of the sentence to enhance readability and to better communicate the message of the sentence.
Response: The revision and simplification of the introduction has included that of that particular paragraph, which has been deleted in search of better clarity on the subject.
7.- L 72: check for missing commas in the sentence.
Response: That sentence was auxiliary and has been removed.
8.- Figure 1: add an English translation of the legend items in the figure caption and spell in full MITBR in the caption.
Response: The elements of the Figure 1, as well as of the remaining Figures, have been translated. MITBR has been written in full. (Line 124)
9.- L 104-105: I recommend deleting this sentence because this is an unnecessary detail.
Response: This sentence has been removed.
Materials and Methods
10.- This section is again far too long, which reduced the readability of the text significantly. Please shorten the text to the core of the analyses you made and leave all unnecessary details you included now out of the text and write the paragraphs in a concise manner. Reduce the used abbreviations to the minimum of the once you use regularly in the text to enhance readability.
Response: In order to facilitate the readability of the text, in addition to creating subsection 2.1. Overview of the Study Area, the text and the use of abbreviations have been reduced.
11.- L 195-201: This whole quote is unnecessary to provide as this brings your text not further in your arguments. Please delete.
Response: The quote has been deleted
Results
It is not clear what the specific outcome of your research is. After your evaluation of the landscape units, has there been an actual update in the zonation of the biosphere reserve or whether you only recommended to do so. To illustrate this, please provide a map, in which you overlay the currently implemented and updated zonation.
In general, you have to highlight the results/output of your work/project more in the text. At several points in the text, this is not clear for the reader what your actual results are (e.g. in subsection 3.4 -> Has the border actually been re-defined or not?)
Response: The breadth of the research has required a strong synthesis of results. This section has been revised and shortened to clarify and highlight the different results obtained. For example it indicates:
L 383: “Evidence is provided that the zoning introduced by the MITBR (Figure 1) loses its practicality by not corresponding with these traditional landscape units (Figure 3)”.
L 573: “The differences in identity of the historical landscape units of the Spanish part are largely lost with the strong depopulation and aging of the population that all of them show. Demographic dynamics linked to productive capacities result in the perception of a more national and less local identity.”
L685: “Second, results have been obtained from the evaluation of the role played by the ZASNET EGTC in this gap, which is the institution responsible for the management of the MITBR”
…..
L 489: use round brackets for EU. Corrected.
References
13.- Your reference list is excessively long (i.e. 117 references) because you often cite several reference for a single aspect (e.g. in line 165, 171, 283, etc.). In general, your work meets scientific principles in a commendable manner and your work is based in a complex research area. However, I recommend that you try to reduce your references to the important once and leave out all the references of less important details to which you refer. A further reduction of your references will probably come by the recommended restructuring of your sections.
Response: The amount of references has been reduced, both due to the recommended restructuring of the sections and the selection of those that we consider most significant for the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This version of the manuscript is now acceptable, but I still would like the English to be improved, made al litle "simpler" in its style. Many sentences are troubled with - maybe un-necessary included sub-sentences. This makes it more hard to grab the meaning of the text. It does not mean they are wrong.
Read it over again and consider shorter and less complicated sentences. (I will comment some of the lines where it could be done - and hopefully improved).
Line 24-46 in Abstract: Is this conclusion in harmony with the main text conclusions - where I feel that you pinpoint some of the troubles - here in the abstract you say it has had an outstanding effect on biodiversity? (For the wild biodiveristy - this is hardly mentioned or documented in the paper - but Ok for breeds of domestic animals - though with a possible negative result if specific actions are not implemented ?'
LINE 103. I still do not see the name for the ZASNET - which seems to be a kind of official institution - but I their role is explained now.
Just some comment on the Landscape Concept as ikt can be used in many ways: FIrs - as an ecologist I normally think of Landscape as an area defined by its Ecological Communty - defined by climate, soil and geological basics.
IT can also be defined as a more socio-economic unit - defined by its administrative organization level - a geografical region without any strong concern on the ecological part - both are OK as long as we understand what "we talk/write about.
In this manuscript the concept is focused on a landscape shaped by its long historical human use - and that is the reason for its BR- creation and Status. So the main challenge to preserve the BR - is also needed to preserve its historical way of using the landscape - and that is questioned in this research - Portugal seems to have done better than Spain - and why is it so ! Her you have a lot of good and documented answers - and also suggesting solutions.
I jump to lines 133 - 135. make the latin names in italics - which is common way to do so. You must give the specific name for the deer species present ( Red deer or Roe deer - and/or others ? ).
The Cock og the rock bird is definitely wrong -(The genus Rupicola is a South-American group f birds. And I cannot understand what species you really mean ? Maybe you mean some kind of grouse-bird including Partridge ? I would like to help but cannot find any relevant species to suggest.
Chapt. 3: You present here the Landcapes units - which I from Fig 3 understand as administrative units and describe them well - and Fig 4 is relevant and we can our selve observe the differencies of todays landscapes which ibn Spain have changed due to their administrative practice.
in 3.2 nsa 3.3 focus on the consequensis of the BR-approach - - good -and how local people know about it and how it can be used for creating new income - but maybe less used to keep the pastoral landscape intact - - which is a goal in itself for this BR !
Please look at the sentences from lines 543 - 553 -. It can most probably be rewritten and made less complicated ?
In Chapt. 3.4 i Cannot see any redefinition of the border(s) of the MITBR - and not the real border between Spain and Portugal - but probably how it is observed by the people - and the ecosystems observed - Pasture land to forests - have changed ? The sentence in line 558 is not easy to understand for me ? Check it - kit might be me that is the problem".
Chapt 3.5 and 3-6 is OK - but take a look at the lines 650 - 660 - can it be made easier without loosing important details ?
Chapt 3.7 - if I understand the last lines of this Chapt correctly - you state that it is the organization/administration/ bureaucracy of the MITBR on both sides that gain the income from the BR from EU- Spain and Portugal - and that less - or to litle of this input money are used at the basic level - the locals and their original farming activity ? Just make it clear for me and others !
I find the last 2 chapters to be OK - but do an English improvement.
For the reference list: it look very correct
I only have to comment that the year for publication is most places in fat letters - 2015 and some times in common letters. It might be correct according to the style required by land - but just look at the first 10 references and you'll understand what i mean. - and also know what to correct if needed.
Good luck with the next round !
Author Response
This version of the manuscript is now acceptable, but I still would like the English to be improved, made al litle "simpler" in its style. Many sentences are troubled with - maybe un-necessary included sub-sentences. This makes it more hard to grab the meaning of the text. It does not mean they are wrong.
Read it over again and consider shorter and less complicated sentences. (I will comment some of the lines where it could be done - and hopefully improved).
1.- Line 24-46 in Abstract: Is this conclusion in harmony with the main text conclusions - where I feel that you pinpoint some of the troubles - here in the abstract you say it has had an outstanding effect on biodiversity? (For the wild biodiveristy - this is hardly mentioned or documented in the paper - but Ok for breeds of domestic animals - though with a possible negative result if specific actions are not implemented ?'
REPONSE: A reference to the importance of the relationship between agroecology and biodiversity has been included in the document (Lines 162-171):
" The management systems of each of these breeds have provided information on land management models, and community organizations and networks that were created at the municipal and bioregional levels. The conservation of traditional agroecological models, based on the diversification of farms, is essential for optimizing biodiversity and stimulating interactions between different species [27]. The relationship between agricultural biodiversity and the functions of agroecosystems is a prominent topic that requires attention [28]. The project LIFE Rupis - Egyptian Vulture and Bonelli’s Eagle Conservation in Douro/Duero Canyon is tackling the main threats to Egyptian vultures, namely, food shortages and habitat degradation. Among the actions undertaken, collaborations with farmers and livestock keepers stand out, such as maintaining a network of supplementary feeding stations."
2.- LINE 103. I still do not see the name for the ZASNET - which seems to be a kind of official institution - but I their role is explained now.
REPONSE: The name of ZASNET has been eliminated from the introduction, to be later introduced and commented in the corresponding section (3.7. Lines 696-734)
3.- I jump to lines 133 - 135. make the latin names in italics - which is common way to do so. You must give the specific name for the deer species present ( Red deer or Roe deer - and/or others ? ).
REPONSE: Names have been italicized.
4.- The Cock og the rock bird is definitely wrong -(The genus Rupicola is a South-American group f birds. And I cannot understand what species you really mean ? Maybe you mean some kind of grouse-bird including Partridge ? I would like to help but cannot find any relevant species to suggest
REPONSE: We mainly seek to highlight that there is an important biodiversity in the study area, in which the fauna is prominent. The fauna information is a small sample obtained primarily from the plans of the five natural parks declared in the MITBR. We do not have ecological training, so the references to the aforementioned species, that are surely misnamed, have been eliminated. Moreover, the following text is added (LINEs 132-140):
“ In it, all the fauna groups find food and refuge, from insects to mammals. Some emblematic threatened species in the area are the Iberian wolf (Canis lupus signatus), Iberian desman (Galemys pyrenaicus), Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus), Bonelli's Eagle (Aquila fasciata), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) or black stork (Ciconia nigra). The loss of herpetofauna is a prominent indicator of the pressures on ecosystems due to climate change, fires and the abandonment of traditional water management systems in pond or canal networks [26]. Obviously, the relationship between biodiversity and human activities is much broader and, in general, has not been sufficiently studied or recognized in the Area.
[26]. Lizana, M.; de Fuentes S. Revisión de la distribución y abundancia de la herpetofauna de los Arribes del Duero salmantinos. Boletín de la Asociación Herpetológica Española 2015, 26(1), 64-71.
5.- Chapt. 3: You present here the Landcapes units - which I from Fig 3 understand as administrative units and describe them well - and Fig 4 is relevant and we can our selve observe the differencies of todays landscapes which ibn Spain have changed due to their administrative practice.
in 3.2 nsa 3.3 focus on the consequensis of the BR-approach - - good -and how local people know about it and how it can be used for creating new income - but maybe less used to keep the pastoral landscape intact - - which is a goal in itself for this BR !
REPONSE: To better clarify this matter, the following text has been included (Line 356):
¨The historical regions that are identified as landscape units are not properly official administrative units, which at the local level are municipalities. These places are rather groups of populations from nearby municipalities that maintain close informal ties through markets, fairs, common-pool resource management, family relationships, among others¨.
6.- Please look at the sentences from lines 543 - 553 -. It can most probably be rewritten and made less complicated ?
REPONSE: The text has been rewritten as follows (Lines 558-572):
¨In the project, the ecotourism offer of 32 private nature tourism entities that operate in the territory has been analyzed. A significant percentage of them, 54%, in addition to offering recreation services in natural areas, offer education, interpretation and maintenance services for the ecosystems visited. The tourism sector also relies on the public offer of services, linked to current environmental policies where protected areas fulfill a dual function of protection and use.
The offer of services of the four Houses of the Junta de Castilla y León Park on the Spanish side, which are the main interpretation centers of protected natural areas, has been studied in depth. They received 78,284 visitors in 2018 and 80,095 in 2019, where the most important group of visitors are schools, which use these interpretation centers as a resource for day trips or excursions marked by their recreational or extracurricular nature. Although from the tourist point of view their contribution is outstanding, their role in education and stimulation of cross-border relations is more limited. First, only 12% of schools state having included this environmental resource in their compulsory education planning. Second, these interpretation centers have a very low incidence in cross-border education, estimating at 5% the schoolchildren from the Portuguese side who have visited these Houses. ¨
7.- In Chapt. 3.4 i Cannot see any redefinition of the border(s) of the MITBR - and not the real border between Spain and Portugal - but probably how it is observed by the people - and the ecosystems observed - Pasture land to forests - have changed ? The sentence in line 558 is not easy to understand for me ? Check it - kit might be me that is the problem".
REPONSE: The text has been modified (Lines 576- 598):
¨The landscape approach applied to the MITBR shows the importance of endogenous cultural factors and spatial planning in the capacity of rural systems to create resilience mechanisms in their landscape units to the transformative pressures of economic globalization. In general, policies of cross-border integration in the EU and of community development have extended the establishment of an economic model that has weakened the functions and social capital of traditional landscape units. This has a differentiated national impact in Spain and Portugal on demographic imbalances, depopulation and the expansion of risks induced in rural systems [70].
…
The identity differences of the historical landscape units of the Spanish side are largely lost with the increasing depopulation and aging of the population that all of them present. Demographic dynamics linked to productive capacities result in the perception of a more national and less local identity. Although the bioregional differences of the five landscape units still exist, now they do not represent a determining factor in their perception and sense of place. The five landscape units are increasingly reduced to the two marked by the national border, which is redefined. ¨
8.- Chapt 3.5 and 3-6 is OK - but take a look at the lines 650 - 660 - can it be made easier without loosing important details ?
REPONSE: The text has been revised for clarity (Lines 670-684):
¨A replacement program has been implemented based on the identification and creation of the necessary conditions to promote entrepreneurship that gives continuity to goat farms in the same landscape unit. The two outstanding difficulties for replacement are related to training and financial resources. The activity requires highly specialized TEKs in extensive management techniques for this breed in the communal space of the Arribes del Duero Natural Park in the municipality of Fariza. A second difficulty identified is the initial investment to acquire the herd, of about € 90 per goat. Ranchers have traditionally faced these difficulties by passing the farms down from parents to children, reason why similar conditions have been created. First, the cost of the herd has been fully subsidized, which has made it possible for people who do not have enough financial resources to access it. Second, technical support from the ANCAM and the rancher has been coordinated. The farmer was involved in a six-month TEK training and transmission program, which facilitated the learning of herd management techniques. These actions allowed the replacement to be successfully completed in favor of a new young and female rancher, who maintains the activity in the same municipality. This has been disseminated through the documentary short film Landscapes on the Douro border. The last goatherds of breeds [72].¨
9.- Chapt 3.7 - if I understand the last lines of this Chapt correctly - you state that it is the organization/administration/ bureaucracy of the MITBR on both sides that gain the income from the BR from EU- Spain and Portugal - and that less - or to litle of this input money are used at the basic level - the locals and their original farming activity ? Just make it clear for me and others !
REPONSE: The text has been revised for clarity (Lines 713-719):
¨They are entities that exhibit a notable legal problem in guaranteeing the principle of uniform application of European Union law [73], and whose capacity for ecological action is conditioned by the prevailing economic objectives [74]. ZASNET was created with the aim of obtaining financing for investments without a defined sector. In its ten years of operation, both its orientation to tourism, and a lack of action with the agroecological networks of the territory and of recognition of traditional landscape units have been observed¨.
10.- I find the last 2 chapters to be OK - but do an English improvement.
REPONSE: These chapters have been revised and minor changes have been made in order to simplify the sentences.
11.- For the reference list: it look very correct. I only have to comment that the year for publication is most places in fat letters - 2015 and some times in common letters. It might be correct according to the style required by land - but just look at the first 10 references and you'll understand what i mean. - and also know what to correct if needed.
REPONSE: We understand and share this observation, but we believe we should to adjust to the style required by Land in the “Instructions for Authors”.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
