Landscape Pattern and Succession of Chinese Fir Plantations in Jiangle County, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This interesting article addresses the topic of ecological fragmentation in Chinese spruce forests, in a case study located in Jiangle County, China, and illustrates a method fairly well known in the literature for its quantification. The topic of this manuscript falls within the objectives of the journal. The topic is well presented and the style and English grammar are good, as the text is easy to follow. However, further efforts are needed to make better use of the work. The authors are advised to do the following.
Discussion
In order to further test the proposed method, it would be helpful to better explain the various indices used, as a variation of them may affect the landscape?
Another clarification is needed for mature or near-mature forests, in the conclusion an increase in fragmentation is indicated for this type of landscape, in table 3 a reduction in the number of patches is reported, usually fragmentation causes an increase in the number of patches and greater isolation between them. Describe further the type of anthropogenic disturbance, is its variation over time quantifiable?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1) In my opinion, section "1. Introduction ”, it is necessary to emphasize the research gap and the aim of the work, which should result from the literature review.
2) A good practice is a synthetic presentation of the work structure, which is most often included in section “1. Introduction ". In my opinion, the work should be supplemented with the presentation of the work structure.
3) Section "2.2 Data source" is very short. It's just one paragraph. I propose to combine it with section "2.3 Data processing", for example: "2.2 Data source and Data processing" or 2.2 Data source and processing.
4) What software was used to work with the data?
5) In my opinion, the article presents the results of the monitoring. Much attention in the work is devoted to the results which have the character of an "assessment of the existing state" (current analysis). A certain scientific element is simulations and forecasts. My main questions are:
a) What is the main conclusion of these studies? What are the practical implications? What are the practical recommendations?
b) What is the relationship between research and the subject of social ecology and sustainable development? What does this research show for local communities? What does this research show for natural ecosystems?
6) There is no chapter (section) "Practical implications" or "Recommendations" in the paper. Perhaps it should be distinguished from the content in section “5 Conclusions”. I suggest supplementing the article with the "Practical Implications" section.
7) On line 535 there is a section “6. Patents, but it's empty. Will this section be supplemented at a later date? Or maybe this section is redundant?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has been improved as indicated. I recommend publication of the article sustainability-1896514 in the scientific journal Sustainability.
Summary of the first review:
Note to authors: 1) In my opinion, section “1. Introduction ”, it is necessary to emphasize the research gap and the aim of the work, which should result from the literature review.
Checked: The authors have made improvements. The research gap was better shown.
-----------------
Note to authors: 2) A good practice is a synthetic presentation of the work structure, which is most often included in section “1. Introduction “. In my opinion, the work should be supplemented with the presentation of the work structure.
Checked: The authors have made improvements. The introduction was supplemented by a concise presentation of the structure of the work.
-----------------
Note to authors: 3) Section “2.2 Data source” is very short. It's just one paragraph. I propose to combine it with section "2.3 Data processing", for example: "2.2 Data source and Data processing" or 2.2 Data source and processing.
Checked: Now is Data sources and processing.
-----------------
Note to authors: 4) What software was used to work with the data?
Checked: “By using ArcGIS 10.8 software”.
-----------------
Note to authors: 5) In my opinion, the article presents the results of the monitoring. Much attention in the work is devoted to the results which have the character of an "assessment of the existing state" (current analysis). A certain scientific element is simulations and forecasts. My main questions are:
a) What is the main conclusion of these studies? What are the practical implications? What are the practical recommendations?
b) What is the relationship between research and the subject of social ecology and sustainable development? What does this research show for local communities? What does this research show for natural ecosystems?
Checked
-----------------
Note to authors: 6) There is no chapter (section) “Practical implications” or “Recommendations” in the paper. Perhaps it should be distinguished from the content in section “5 Conclusions”. I suggest supplementing the article with the “Practical Implications” section.
Checked: New section added: practical implications.
-----------------
Note to authors: 7) On line 535 there is a section “6. Patents, but it's empty. Will this section be supplemented at a later date? Or maybe this section is redundant?
Checked
