Key Ecological and Cultural Characteristics of Homestead Windbreak Forest Landscapes in Okinawa, Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the study is extremely interesting, with an analysis conducted with scientific rigour. However, some concerns emerge regarding specific aspects that could benefit from further study, in order to make the work even more complete and useful for the practical context even more complete and useful for the practical context. Even at the level of formatting there are some critical issues.

Firstly, there is a need to clarify in detail the meaning of some key terms, such as ‘Agroforestry’. This concept, which integrates agricultural and forestry practices to achieve environmental, economic and social benefits, should be precisely defined to avoid ambiguity. A proper definition would allow the reader to fully understand the context and objectives of the practices described.

Secondly, it would be useful to provide examples concrete examples to illustrate the theme. For example, it would be useful to explain how the forests in Fukugi, in addition to protecting villages from the weather also manage to profoundly influence the local culture, reflecting their presence in traditions, architecture and land management systems territory.

From the point of view of formatting, it is essential to ensure consistency of terminology. For example, the term ‘Figure’ should be used uniformly to identify all images, avoiding variations such as ‘Photo’. Furthermore, figures should be numbered consecutively and accompanied by captions that are correctly aligned, both in terms of position and style. This improves readability and facilitates reader comprehension, making the text more professional and scientifically rigorous.

Scrupulous attention to these details will significantly improve the overall quality of the document, making it clearer, more cohesive and accessible.

In summary, while the study is valid and thorough, further exploration of these points could enhance it, making it more comprehensive and applicable to the real challenges of the sector.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Overall, the study is extremely interesting, with an analysis conducted with scientific rigour. However, some concerns emerge regarding specific aspects that could benefit from further study, in order to make the work even more complete and useful for the practical context even more complete and useful for the practical context. Even at the level of formatting there are some critical issues.

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the scientific rigor of our study and are glad it was of interest. We acknowledge the areas that need further exploration and will enhance them to improve the study's completeness and practical relevance. Additionally, we will address the formatting issues you pointed out to ensure the paper meets the required standards.

Firstly, there is a need to clarify in detail the meaning of some key terms, such as ‘Agroforestry’. This concept, which integrates agricultural and forestry practices to achieve environmental, economic and social benefits, should be precisely defined to avoid ambiguity. A proper definition would allow the reader to fully understand the context and objectives of the practices described.

Response: Thank you for your very scrupulous reading through our manuscript. We have revised/corrected based on your suggestions. And specific responses have been added in the PDF files.

 

Secondly, it would be useful to provide examples concrete examples to illustrate the theme. For example, it would be useful to explain how the forests in Fukugi, in addition to protecting villages from the weather also manage to profoundly influence the local culture, reflecting their presence in traditions, architecture and land management systems territory.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for highlighting the need for more concrete examples to illustrate the theme of the Fukugi windbreak forests' cultural and ecological significance. I have revised the manuscript to include additional details that address your suggestions.

From the point of view of formatting, it is essential to ensure consistency of terminology. For example, the term ‘Figure’ should be used uniformly to identify all images, avoiding variations such as ‘Photo’. Furthermore, figures should be numbered consecutively and accompanied by captions that are correctly aligned, both in terms of position and style. This improves readability and facilitates reader comprehension, making the text more professional and scientifically rigorous.

Response: Thank you for your comments to keep the terminologies unified. We have corrected and are willing to apply your suggestions to our future writing.

Scrupulous attention to these details will significantly improve the overall quality of the document, making it clearer, more cohesive and accessible.

In summary, while the study is valid and thorough, further exploration of these points could enhance it, making it more comprehensive and applicable to the real challenges of the sector.

Response:  Thank you for your very scrupulous reading through our manuscript. We have revised/corrected based on your suggestions. And specific responses have been added in the PDF files.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on Fukugi (Garcinia subelliptica) windbreak landscapes in Sonai and Hoshitate, proposing to integrate Cultural Heritage and Ecosystem Services in Rural Landscape Management. It is an interesting approach to integrating the natural and human environment. Some issues raise some doubts in my mind.

-          In the Introduction, the authors present the following research question: How did the Fukugi tree windbreak system originate and evolve in Okinawa, and what role has it played in shaping sustainable rural landscapes over time? However, it was not clear to me what the period in analysis is.

-          Also in the Introduction, the following research question was presented: How do Fukugi windbreaks in Okinawa contribute to ecosystem services such as disaster mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and cultural heritage preservation…Although interesting, I don’t think that is research question was answered, so I suggest removing it.

-          Figure 2 can be clearer; I suggest using Google Earth images with higher detail than the ones that are presented in the text. On page 8 it is mentioned east and west areas. Still, I did not find a map of where those areas are located. Also, there is no map of where the cultural heritage is located.

-          Section 4.3 Contribution to Ecosystem Services and Cultural Heritage seems more like a survey of what has been done by other authors, rather than the result of the work developed by the authors of this paper.

-          Figure 1 does not display a scatter plot of tree height and estimated age of the Fukugi trees, showing that most Fukugi are under 150 years old and under 12 m tall as stated on page 7.

- Figure 3 is on page 6 and page 8.

-          On Figure 3 of page 8, there is an interesting graph where the tree height is related to the estimated tree age. However, it is not analyzed.

It is not clear how the work supports the following conclusion: However, the continued diminishment of rural populations and the declining maintenance of Fukugi forests present challenges to their preservation.

 

 

Summing up, the authors conducted a survey which constitutes added value and is worth exploring. However, it does not answer the research questions. I suggest reframing the work, and exploring what the survey has to add.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

This study focuses on Fukugi (Garcinia subelliptica) windbreak landscapes in Sonai and Hoshitate, proposing to integrate Cultural Heritage and Ecosystem Services in Rural Landscape Management. It is an interesting approach to integrating into the natural and human environment. Some issues raise some doubts in my mind.

General Response:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for highlighting the importance of our approach to integrating cultural heritage and ecosystem services within rural landscape management. We appreciate your recognition of the potential significance of our study on Fukugi windbreak landscapes in Sonai and Hoshitate. Below, we address the specific doubts and issues you raised to clarify our approach and its alignment with the study’s objectives.

 

-          In the Introduction, the authors present the following research question: How did the Fukugi tree windbreak system originate and evolve in Okinawa, and what role has it played in shaping sustainable rural landscapes over time? However, it was not clear to me what the period in analysis is.

Response:

Thank you for pointing out the need for clarity regarding the time frame of the analysis. We have revised the research question to specify the historical period, encompassing the inception of the Fukugi windbreak system during the Ryukyu Kingdom era to its current state. The updated research question now reads:

What historical and environmental factors influenced the origin and development of the Fukugi tree windbreak system in Okinawa, particularly from its inception during the Ryukyu Kingdom era to its current state, and how has this system supported sustainable rural landscapes over time?

-          Also in the Introduction, the following research question was presented: How do Fukugi windbreaks in Okinawa contribute to ecosystem services such as disaster mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and cultural heritage preservation…Although interesting, I don’t think that is research question was answered, so I suggest removing it.

Response: We appreciate your observation regarding the alignment of this research question with the study’s findings. After careful consideration, we have removed this question from the manuscript to ensure consistency and focus on the research objectives that are directly addressed.

 

-          Figure 2 can be clearer; I suggest using Google Earth images with higher detail than the ones that are presented in the text. On page 8 it is mentioned east and west areas. Still, I did not find a map of where those areas are located. Also, there is no map of where the cultural heritage is located.

Response: A map from Google Earth images has been added as suggested. On page 8, we mentioned the four directions to a house.

 

-          Section 4.3 Contribution to Ecosystem Services and Cultural Heritage seems more like a survey of what has been done by other authors, rather than the result of the work developed by the authors of this paper.

Response:

Thank you for this observation. We recognize the importance of distinguishing our findings from the broader context provided by existing literature. In response to your comment, we have revised Section 4.3 to better reflect the results of our fieldwork and analysis while incorporating prior research as supporting context.

-          Figure 1 does not display a scatter plot of tree height and estimated age of the Fukugi trees, showing that most Fukugi are under 150 years old and under 12 m tall as stated on page 7.

Response: We apologize for the numbering mistakes. It should be Figure 4.

- Figure 3 is on page 6 and page 8.

Response: Thank you for mentioning this issue and we apologize for the numbering mistakes. It is Figure ３ on Page 6 and Figure 4 on Page 8.

-          On Figure 3 of page 8, there is an interesting graph where the tree height is related to the estimated tree age. However, it is not analyzed.

Response: A sentence as “It was found that the tree height is related to the estimated tree age.” Has been added as suggested.

It is not clear how the work supports the following conclusion: However, the continued diminishment of rural populations and the declining maintenance of Fukugi forests present challenges to their preservation.

Response: thank you for the insightful comment. This sentence has been deleted as suggested.

 

Summing up, the authors conducted a survey which constitutes added value and is worth exploring. However, it does not answer the research questions. I suggest reframing the work, and exploring what the survey has to add.

Response: The research questions have been revised to fit the research findings as suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title Suggestions:

• Consider revising the title to better reflect the core themes of the manuscript, such as the “distribution, growth patterns, and historical significance of Fukugi groves within the village setting,” or aligning with the focus stated in line 121, e.g., “Key Ecological and Cultural Characteristics of Homestead Windbreak Forest Landscapes in Okinawa.”

Figures and Tables:

1. Figures 1 and 2: Add scale bars to improve interpretability.
2. Figures 3 and Subsequent Figures: Correct the labeling inconsistencies (e.g., “Photo 4” in line 226 references Figure 3). Ensure sequential and accurate numbering of figures throughout the text.
3. Figure 3: Clarify what parts “a” and “b” represent and provide an explanation for “others” in the graph captions.
4. Figures 7 and 8: Explicitly refer to these figures in the text.
5. Figures 9, 10, and 11: Enhance resolution and include scale bars for better clarity.
6. Graphs and Percentages: In Figure 3, specify whether “tree number” represents frequency, and adjust the percentage summation in the figure from 99.9% to 100% for accuracy.

Quantitative Data:

1. Table 1: Address discrepancies in the data, such as the number of trees (693 recorded, 679 with DBH data, and 669 listed in the table), and the height values (text indicates 688 trees but the table lists 686).
2. Table 2: Verify the number of recorded tree species. Although the table is labeled as listing 20 species, more than 30 species are enumerated.
3. Total Counts in Hoshitate Village: Reconcile the inconsistency between the recorded 1,102 individual trees in Hoshitate and the 1,012 listed in Table 2.

Methodological Clarifications:

1. Provide detailed information on the interview process mentioned in line 215, including the number of participants and key findings from these interviews.

General Recommendations:

• Review all numerical data and cross-verify with corresponding tables and figures for consistency.
• Address all inconsistencies in figures, captions, and textual references to enhance the scientific rigor of the manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Title Suggestions:

• Consider revising the title to better reflect the core themes of the manuscript, such as the “distribution, growth patterns, and historical significance of Fukugi groves within the village setting,” or aligning with the focus stated in line 121, e.g., “Key Ecological and Cultural Characteristics of Homestead Windbreak Forest Landscapes in Okinawa.”

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The title has been revised as suggested.

 

Figures and Tables:

1. Figures 1 and 2: Add scale bars to improve interpretability.
2. Figures 3 and Subsequent Figures: Correct the labeling inconsistencies (e.g., “Photo 4” in line 226 references Figure 3). Ensure sequential and accurate numbering of figures throughout the text.
3. Figure 3: Clarify what parts “a” and “b” represent and provide an explanation for “others” in the graph captions.
4. Figures 7 and 8: Explicitly refer to these figures in the text.
5. Figures 9, 10, and 11: Enhance resolution and include scale bars for better clarity.
6. Graphs and Percentages: In Figure 3, specify whether “tree number” represents frequency, and adjust the percentage summation in the figure from 99.9% to 100% for accuracy.

Response: Figures 3 and subsequent: We corrected the figure labeling throughout the manuscript. Thank you for that suggestion.

Figure 4: We clarified what Figure 3 and 4 represent and clarified the explanation for “others” in the figure caption. Requested clarification on whether “tree number” indicates frequency (it does) and wants % roundings adjusted so that it totals to 100% not 99.9%

Figures 8-9 are explicitly referenced in the text now.

Figures 10, 11, and 12, scale bars have been added. A higher resolution of figures have been replaced.

 

Quantitative Data:

1. Table 1: Address discrepancies in the data, such as the number of trees (693 recorded, 679 with DBH data, and 669 listed in the table), and the height values (text indicates 688 trees but the table lists 686).
2. Table 2: Verify the number of recorded tree species. Although the table is labeled as listing 20 species, more than 30 species are enumerated.
3. Total Counts in Hoshitate Village: Reconcile the inconsistency between the recorded 1,102 individual trees in Hoshitate and the 1,012 listed in Table 2.

 

Response:

1. Table 1: we explain why some trees were identified but don’t have DBH measurements because of clinging vines and corrected an erroneous value in the table.
2. Table 2: we corrected the caption to reflect the true number of species observed and corrected the text to account for the 1,102 trees observed in this village.

3．We corrected to 1102.

 

Methodological Clarifications:

1. Provide detailed information on the interview process mentioned in line 215, including the number of participants and key findings from these interviews.

Response: Sampling method has been added as “Snowball sampling approach was applied to reach to the appropriate informants”.

 

General Recommendations:

• Review all numerical data and cross-verify with corresponding tables and figures for consistency.
• Address all inconsistencies in figures, captions, and textual references to enhance the scientific rigor of the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We apologize for the numbering mistakes. All figure numbers have been checked and corrected.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors followed all the comments made by the reviewer. In particular, they formatted the text better and clarified the concept of agroforestry, making the article more complete and understandable.

The article can be published in this version.

Author Response

C

The authors followed all the comments made by the reviewer. In particular, they formatted the text better and clarified the concept of agroforestry, making the article more complete and understandable.

The article can be published in this version.

Response 1: Thank you for your kind and encouraging feedback. We are delighted that the revisions, especially the improved formatting and clarification of the concept of agroforestry, have enhanced the clarity and completeness of the manuscript. Your valuable insights have been instrumental in refining the article, and we are grateful for your support throughout the review process.

ommon 1:

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a lot of work and introduced significant improvements in the text. I am satisfied with the responses provided to all my questions. I believe the paper fulfils the requirements for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors did a lot of work and introduced significant improvements in the text. I am satisfied with the responses provided to all my questions. I believe the paper fulfils the requirements for publication.

Response:Thank you for your positive feedback and for acknowledging the improvements made to the manuscript. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments and suggestions throughout the review process, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of our work. We are pleased to know that the revised manuscript meets the requirements for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Still you mentioned 

Table 1. A total of 693 Fukugi trees were recorded. Among them, DBH data for  14 trees were not recorded. 

 Height measurements for 7  trees could not be collected.

so the number under tree height in table one should be 693-7=686

and number under DBH should be 693-14 = 679

Author Response

Still you mentioned 

Comment 1:

Table 1. A total of 693 Fukugi trees were recorded. Among them, DBH data for  14 trees were not recorded. 

 Height measurements for 7  trees could not be collected.

so the number under tree height in table one should be 693-7=686

and number under DBH should be 693-14 = 679

Response: Thank you for the careful review. The numbers have been corrected as suggested.