Response of Ground Beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) Communities to Effect of Urbanization in Southern Osaka: An Analytical Approach Using GIS
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The editor likes the topic, and believes it is important, but the urban ecology and complex sustainability aspects of the article are not strong enough. Authors focus mainly on the species and habitats studied, lacking urban environmental questions, such as spatial structures, development linkages of green space. (To be honest, results from some populations are difficult to incorporate into land use planning or regulation.) Although the study has important land use implications, overall I would still suggest publishing it in another type of MDPI journal (in the first place in "Insects").
Author Response
We enhanced the manuscript with several revisions according to your opinion and two other reviewers' recommendation. We tried to clarify the connection between sustainability and urban ecology, revising Material and Methods, and Results sections.
We would love to have the manuscript accepted by Sustainability since our research showed the importance of remnant forests and connectivity in urban area, which suggests that the urban green space network will be essential for biodiversity conservation in an urban ecosystem.
Sincerely,
Cheol Min Lee
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper used GIS and statistics to study the impact of urbanization on the ground beetle community. It is an original empirical analysis by using GIS techniques and statistics methods.
The study design, assumptions, and results were well organized and clearly presented. It is recommended for publication with language polish.
Author Response
The manuscript has been checked by a native English-speaker. However, we would like to receive English Editing Service of MDPI if needed.
Sincerely,
Cheol Min Lee
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments:
The submitted paper is an interesting approach to the study of response of beetle communities to the effect of urbanization. The methodology design is appropriate, the statistical analysis is well grounded, and the results are significant. Nevertheless, I consider that the results presented are too local and the paper has critical deficiencies that should be amended in future versions.
The structure of the manuscript is polished and well presented. However, there are some lacks in the manuscript, which would need extra amendments.
Structure of the manuscript
Title
The title is very proper for the presented study.
Abstract
I found the abstract adequate and concise.
Introduction
This section needs to improve with the inclusion of more scientific background related to the research topic.
Lines 34-35: This sentence has no connection to the previous and the following sentences.
Line 43-44: This sentence will sound much better if you remove “using GIS”.
Lines 45-57: This paragraph should be better located in the material and methods section.
I suggest stating clearly which is the scientific gap of the study.
Figures 1: Please, include scale bar and EPSG.
Material and Methods
I find that there is too much information about the study area, moreover it uses too many local names that are not known by the international audience. In addition, this section should be improved, including much more information regarding the methodology of the study, providing a chart of the methodology, that will help the readers to understand the different phases of this study and their relation.
Line 93: Why did you select exactly these 9 sites? Why exactly 9 and not more or less? This selection needs a justification.
Lines 147-148: There is only one study that justifies your selection. Please, try to justify the selection of this 500 m radius.
Results
This section is too hard to read. Try to improve the writing style. There is too little text in comparison with the huge information that you are including in the tables and figures.
Discussion
Congratulations on the presentation of this section. I liked it very much. Following the essence of this discussion section, try to improve the introduction section too, which is the most problematic one of this manuscript.
Author Response
Introduction
Lines 34-35: The sentence was removed.
Line 43-44: ‘using GIS’ was removed.
Line 45-57: The paragraph was moved in the material and methods section.
Figure 1: Scale bar and the source of the map were included.
The third paragraph starts with the scientific gap.
Material and Methods
For the better understanding of readers, a new table with information such as coordinates, year, area, main plants, location, facility, and remark was added.
Line93: Field survey usually needs a lot of time and cost. We want to clarify the responses of ground beetle communities according to 3 different area (small, medium, and large area) and land use. The survey was carried out biweekly from April to December using pitfall traps. Practically we could not conduct the survey for more than 9 sites. In the case of less than 9 sites, we could not statistically analyze the data to accomplish the purpose of research.
Line 147: Justification was added.
Results
A new figure was added for the better understanding of reader and text reduced.
Discussion
We tried to improve introduction and discussion and solve the problems as much as we can. In discussion, we tried to follow the essence of discussion based on the results. In conclusion, this research showed the importance of remnant forests and connectivity in urban area. We suggested that the urban green space network will be essential for biodiversity conservation in an urban ecosystem.
Sincerely,
Cheol Min Lee
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewer will accept corrections and additions. The new references are good and the new details are convincing and refers to urban sustainability. The reviewer support the study for publishing.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors addressed the main concerns of the previous version.
