Habitat Quality Assessment and Driving Factors Analysis of Guangdong Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments
Habitat quality refers to the ability of ecosystem to provide suitable living conditions for maintaining species, which can reflect regional species diversity and ecological service level to a certain extent. Based on land use data from 2000 to 2020, combined with natural and socio-economic data, the InVEST model was applied to evaluate habitat quality in Guangdong Province. Multi-scale geographical weighted regression (MGWR) model was used to investigate the effects of natural factors and human factors on habitat quality and their spatial scale differences.
However, there are some flaws to be amended. (1) Reasons should be given for driver’s selection. (2) Hypothesis that habitat quality was influenced by construction land has not been verified, and not been referred to in the influence drivers’ study. I propose to supplement this content to make the results convincing. (3) I suggest the authors conduct MGWR model with variables of slope, NDVI and road density, because regression coefficients of average annual precipitation, average altitude, GDP per unit area are too small to influence the regression results. (4) What is PRD region? Full name must be given at first occurrence, meanwhile, the authors should give more detailed information about this region in study area.
Particular Comments
1. Introduction
Content:
1. The expression of line 237 is incorrect, the slope should be calculated based on the elevation data.
2. In line 343, dynamic attitude of land use can reflect the rate of area change of land use type. It is suggested to add a land use transfer matrix, which can not only reflect the structural characteristics of land use change, but also represent the specific transfer quantity of land use type.
3. In line352, “2010-2010” should be corrected with “2005-2010”.
4.Line 394, the basis for the division of the habitat quality index should be given.
5. In lines 435 and 447, the p value of the regression equation be expressed as <0.01 first, and then F = 179.946, otherwise it is easy to generate ambiguity.
6. Line 430 states that when VIFmax < 10, it indicates that there is no significant linear overlap, and collinearity explanatory variables are excluded. However, the variance expansion coefficient of population density and road density in line 437 is greater than 7.5, indicating that there is a conflict in the multicollinearity expression, and it is suggested to change 7.5 to 10 (similarly to line 448).
7. Variable of average elevation (x2) in line 453 can’t be found in Table 11.
8. The statement in line 482 that the greater the MGWR bandwidth, the smaller the impact on habitat quality was ambiguous. The selection of MGWR bandwidth interval has an important impact on the performance and results of the model. Too small bandwidth will lead to overfitting of the model, and too large bandwidth will lead to underfitting of the model. Therefore, the optimal bandwidth should be selected instead of the larger the bandwidth, the smaller the impact will be.
Format:
1. North arrow is missing in Figure 1 and the scale are not uniform in Figure 1, 2, 3, 5.
Basically, the language of this manuscript is well organized, and moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The topic carried out of this paper was interesting and gave new insights related to Habitat Quality Assessment and its driving factor in the most prominent province (economic contribution-based) for China (the second largest economy in the world).
Moreover, this manuscript/paper almost meets the standards of a good scientific article. I believe this paper will enrich the global literature, especially on how to improve habitat quality in the province with the largest economy in China.
However, after reading the manuscript, I found several shortcomings that must be addressed before this manuscript can be published in your journal. Some of the shortcomings are the paper not paying attention much conciseness (especially in the Introduction section), The novelty of the paper is not clear (the author only mentions previous research without clearly synthesizing which niche (gap) this research fills), The workings of the Habitat Quality Assessment are still unclear and biased, and insufficient references in the Introduction sections.
For the shortcomings in detail, please see my comments/questions below:
1. There are abbreviations that have not been explained before, for example, PRD in the abstract. Please explain what each abbreviation stands for.
2. Readers are still confused with the concept of habitat in this paper. Is this habitat for humans or non-human living things? Because based on the results, good quality habitat is always associated with forests/woodlands, even though it could be that Construction Land (where most humans live) has good habitat quality, if there is open green space and the infrastructure is environmentally friendly, right?
3. Continuing the second question, based on the map shown, the habitat quality assessment map (Figure 3) is almost similar to the land-use map (Figure 2), where good habitat is always associated with woodland and grassland, and bad habitat is always associated with construction land. Please explain this, does Land-use really determine Habitat Quality Assessment?
4. Does construction land automatically mean poor habitat quality, even though some European cities have compact and environmentally friendly urban systems?
5. For questions number 2, 3, and 4. Please explain the determination of habitat quality in more detail.
6. Related to the previous questions, due to the scarcity of explanations related to mapping habitat quality assessment. Is the mapping (Figure 3) of habitat quality assessment based on pixel (raster data), point, or administrative boundary?
7. The use of MGWR, does this research really require multiscale analysis, or is its use only due to data limitations?
8. In the Introduction section, there is too much explanation of previous research, but it has not synthesized what the shortcomings of previous research are and elaborated on which scientific niche/gap the research is trying to fill.
9. There is an error in the writing in the abstract. In the abstract, the Author writes, GDP per unit area was significantly positively correlated, but in the Results (line 415), the Author says the opposite.
Thank you,
Best regards,
Reviewer
Moderate editing of the English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic is relevant, and the study holds the potential to contribute to the understanding of habitat conservation and management. However, there are several areas that require improvement before the manuscript can be deemed suitable for publication. The following are specific comments and suggestions for enhancement:
The introduction should be reorganized into a few paragraphs to ensure a clear indication of the research problem, the research gap, and the latest developments in methods. In the last paragraph of the introduction, it is important to maintain the placement of methods, particularly before describing the objectives. For example, the content from L180‒L186 should follow L174‒L178. Additionally, the sentence “The results of this study can be used to...” can be rephrased as “This would...” The subsequent sentence can be improved to establish a stronger connection between the intended implications of the study, ensuring a cohesive statement. To avoid redundancy, the statement in L169‒L173 should be removed since similar information is already present in the study area description.
In the materials and methods, it is important to specify the software and its version used for conducting statistical analysis. Authors should provide information on how correlation analysis and multiple linear regression analysis were performed and which software was utilized. Additionally, it is recommended to include a reference to support the statement “VIFmax < 10.”
The results are intertwined with the methods, resulting in potential complexity of information (e.g., L424‒L433). To enhance clarity, it is highly recommended to ensure that the results stand out distinctively from the methods. Therefore, it is strongly advised to move the methods to the appropriate section dedicated to methods.
L10‒L11 The sentence “Previous studies on the influencing factors of habitat quality are still insufficient” needs to be supported with a reference. However, since it is mentioned in the abstract, it is more appropriate to rephrase it in a more general manner, such as: “However, there is limited information available to broadly understand the role of natural and human factors in influencing habitat quality and the extent of their impacts.”
L17 “...2020, The land...” should be “...2020, the land...”
L25 The acronym GDP, which stands for gross domestic product, should also be mentioned.
L47‒L48 It would be better to add a reference support the statement. specifically at the end “...biodiversity.”
L332 “Results and analysis” should be “Results”
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
This manuscript meets the standards of a good scientific article; however, the Authors still do not explain in detail in the method section, especially the explanation of how to determine the weight in Table 4.
After the Authors have improved the manuscript based on the comments, I'll recommend to the Editors that the manuscript be accepted in this journal.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Minor editing of the English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
