Threats and Opportunities for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in the Buffer Zones of National Parks in the Brazilian Cerrado

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abstract: The content is overly concise and fails to adequately summarize the key findings, conclusions, and significance of the study, which may impair readers' initial assessment of the paper's overall value.

2. Introduction: (1) There is insufficient analysis of current academic research. It is recommended to incorporate a literature review on recent studies related to "biodiversity conservation" and "national parks". (2) The rationale for selecting "The buffer zones of national parks in the Brazilian Cerrado" as the research subject should be clarified, emphasizing its distinctive characteristics compared to other "national parks". (3) A supplementary discussion on relevant policy measures adopted by the Brazilian government for biodiversity conservation in "national parks in the Brazilian Cerrado" is advised.

3. Materials and Methods: The justification for the chosen research methods is inadequately explained, potentially hindering readers' full understanding of their selection criteria and advantages.

4. Results: (1) The interpretation of critical data lacks depth, with insufficient exploration of underlying socioeconomic factors, which may limit readers' comprehensive grasp of the data's implications. (2) The importance-level classification of biodiversity conservation actions in buffer zones requires further support from authoritative literature. (3) Some figures and tables are not presented intuitively and need refinement.

5. Discussion: (1) The discussion on differentiated conservation strategies for varying priority regions is superficial, lacking detailed implementation plans and evaluations of expected outcomes. (2) It is recommended to address the limitations of this study to guide future research.

6. References: The references are outdated; inclusion of recent authoritative journal publications from the past five years is strongly suggested.

Author Response

1. Abstract: The content is overly concise and fails to adequately summarize the key findings, conclusions, and significance of the study, which may impair readers' initial assessment of the paper's overall value.

Response: We acknowledge this important comment. We have revised and expanded the Abstract, highlighting the key findings obtained in this study.

 

2. Introduction: (1) There is insufficient analysis of current academic research. It is recommended to incorporate a literature review on recent studies related to "biodiversity conservation" and "national parks". (2) The rationale for selecting "The buffer zones of national parks in the Brazilian Cerrado" as the research subject should be clarified, emphasizing its distinctive characteristics compared to other "national parks". (3) A supplementary discussion on relevant policy measures adopted by the Brazilian government for biodiversity conservation in "national parks in the Brazilian Cerrado" is advised.

Response: Thanks for this valuable suggestion. We have expanded the Introduction to include updated citations related to biodiversity conservation and buffer zones of national parks located in the Cerrado biome. This includes studies on the role of protected areas in maintaining ecosystem services and species richness (e.g., Sidorov et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2023), as well as recent applications of connectivity and multicriteria analysis in conservation planning (e.g., Schwaida et al., 2023; Morandi et al., 2020).

Regarding the comment # 2, we added the following sentence in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript:

“In the Cerrado, the main purpose of these protected areas is the biodiversity conservation. This contrasts with protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon, which are designed not only to preserve biodiversity but also to serve as a green barrier against the expansion of the agricultural frontier from south to north (Soares-Filho et al., 2023)”.

 

3. Materials and Methods: The justification for the chosen research methods is inadequately explained, potentially hindering readers' full understanding of their selection criteria and advantages.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have expanded the Materials and Methods section to provide a more detailed justification for each major methodological choice. Specifically, we have addressed the rationale of selecting the following methods:

1. a) Integral Index of Connectivity (IIC) and its components were chosen because of their demonstrated sensitivity to landscape changes and their ability in quantifying both structural and functional connectivity in fragmented landscapes, as demonstrated in prior studies (e.g., Pascual-Hortal and Saura, 2006; Manes et al., 2025);
2. b) Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was selected because it allows the integration of multiple, diverse criteria (land use, connectivity, drainage density, and protected area coverage, among others) in a structured, transparent, and replicable manner. This method has been widely considered in ecological prioritization and decision-making contexts (e.g., Saaty, 1980; Morandi et al., 2020);
3. c) The 10 km buffer zone was selected based on the standard established in CONAMA Resolution No. 13 (1990), ensuring methodological consistency across all national parks and compliance with Brazilian environmental regulations; and
4. e) We selected the 1-km diffusion distance as our reference value based on empirical data, aiming to represent a conservative estimate of landscape connectivity. However, we recognize that the use of a single diffusion distance can limit the generalizability of our results to species with either smaller or larger dispersal capacities. Therefore, we suggest that future studies explore a range of diffusion distances to better capture the variability in species movement and enhance the robustness of connectivity assessments.

 

4. Results: (1) The interpretation of critical data lacks depth, with insufficient exploration of underlying socioeconomic factors, which may limit readers' comprehensive grasp of the data's implications. (2) The importance-level classification of biodiversity conservation actions in buffer zones requires further support from authoritative literature. (3) Some figures and tables are not presented intuitively and need refinement.

Response:  We sincerely thank the reviewer for this thoughtful feedback. Below, we address the points raised:

1. We agree that integrating socioeconomic factors is essential to fully contextualize the ecological results. This may involve data analysis regarding land tenure (private vs. state-owned lands), population density, Human Development Index, socioeconomic profiles of local communities, and main local economic drivers (e.g., agriculture, logging, mining, tourism), among others. Because of the difficulty of gathering these data consistently, we opted to not include them in our analysis. Instead, we included this important issue as suggestion for future studies.
2. Regarding the comment about the necessity of support from literature, we added several updated citations in the Discussion section.
3. We have reviewed all figures and tables to improve their clarity, intuitiveness, and visual presentation. Specifically, we tried to improve legends, labels, and captions to enhance readability.

 

5. Discussion: (1) The discussion on differentiated conservation strategies for varying priority regions is superficial, lacking detailed implementation plans and evaluations of expected outcomes. (2) It is recommended to address the limitations of this study to guide future research.

Response: We have thoroughly revised the Discussion section to include several concrete examples of both command-and-control measures and actions aimed at promoting development opportunities with minimal impact on biodiversity. Command-and-control strategies are recommended for the northern portion of the Cerrado, where large patches of natural vegetation still remain and stricter conservation efforts are feasible. In contrast, in the southern portion of the Cerrado, where diverse land use practices already dominate the landscape, we recommend the implementation of sustainable land use practices in collaboration with local communities.

In the revised version of the manuscript, we highlight three major limitations of our study. First, there is a need to incorporate additional datasets, such as threatened species data from the IUCN, to better discuss conservation prioritization. Second, the use of 30-meter resolution Landsat imagery may limit the detection of small, fragmented patches of natural vegetation and fine-scale land use types, particularly in heterogeneous landscapes. Third, the use of a fixed 1-kilometer diffusion distance in connectivity analyses may constrain the generalizability of our results to species with different dispersal capacities, as already stated in Comment # 3.

 

6. References: The references are outdated; the inclusion of recent authoritative journal publications from the past five years is strongly suggested.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. Following a thorough literature review, we have incorporated a substantial number of updated references in the revised version of the manuscript to strengthen the contextual foundation and support our findings.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed ideas and analysis in the manuscript provide a comprehensive assessment of the state of the buffer area of national parks. Particular attention should be paid to the retrospective of the research data from 2000 to 2020, which reflects the dynamics of the processes of the buffer areas. Particular attention is paid to the management of buffer areas, including the transition to organic farming, the introduction of composting practices and monitoring studies. The study is relevant and will be of interest in the development of real measures to preserve biodiversity, in contrast to local measures that do not provide an overall picture of habitat loss.

 

General comments:

«Introduction»

I recommend increasing the relevance of the study, taking into account previously published works, taking into account:

1) Inclusion of the parameter "Drainage density, denoted as Dd, is a measure of the total length of channels (streams and rivers) within a catchment area, divided by the area of this basin." It should be noted that there are a number of studies where the parameter was not taken into account or was already integrated into other assessments (Sidorov et al., 2021, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/818/1/012050)

2) Analysis of the connectivity of landscape elements, also the most important indicator, taking into account the use of territory zoning parameters (Zamaletdinov et al., 2016), assessment of ecological corridors and isolation factors associated with habitat transformation.

 

 

Special remarks:

 

3) Lines 169-172 «This distance was selected based on the movement capacity of a generic species through a matrix. It is suitable for species capable of dispersing at least 1 km, as is the case of the giant armadillo (Priodontes maximus), maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), and jaguar (Panthera onca), among other wild animals with varying dispersal distances [26‒29].» Particular attention can be paid to the presence of registered habitats of rare and endemic plant and animal species, and special attention should be paid to animals with migratory activity. In particular, the following species are mentioned that have a conservation status: 1. giant armadillo (Priodontes maximus), «VU» Vulnerable (IUCN 3.1), 2. maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), «NT» Near Threatened (IUCN 3.1), but a higher conservation status in Brazil. 3. giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), «VU» Vulnerable (IUCN 3.1), 4. jaguar (Panthera onca) «NT» Near Threatened (IUCN 3.1). Most of these species are vulnerable to forest fragmentation and deforestation.

 

4) Lines 425-431: «The prioritization process highlighted the need for differentiated mitigation strategies. Buffer zones identified as very high priority are highly anthropized, posing a threat to biodiversity persistence in both the short and long term. On the other hand, the buffer zones are ranked as high and moderate priority still maintain continuous natural vegetation cover, offering great conservation opportunities based on their LULC classes. However, these areas are located in the northern portion of the biome, a region experiencing rapid agricultural expansion in the Cerrado, which presents a considerable risk to their long-term preservation.» It seems to me that this region requires more detailed information on the presence of protected (IUCN 3.1) and endemic species, as well as discussions of measures to maintain and preserve ecological corridors. On the other hand, measures are needed to optimize and intensify agriculture, introduce new innovative approaches to increase yields and productivity, restore degraded lands, introduce aquaculture and aquaponics facilities, recycle organic waste, and develop ecological, thematic, and agrotourism. For example, such measures are shown in the work “Strategies for coordinated development between local communities and the Northeast China Tiger and Leopard National Park: case study of the Hunchun Area” (Zhou et al., 2025, doi: 10.3390/d17050336).

 

Lines «487-497», «As part of regulatory actions for the conservation of the buffer zones around the national parks of the Cerrado, the following measures are suggested; Creation of an updated regulation for the buffer zones, considering the different socioeconomic contexts, land use patterns, and the objectives of the conservation units; Official delimitation of the buffer zones of national parks with management plan proposals; Strengthening of monitoring efforts of the buffer zones; Expansion of the UC network around the national parks, focusing on the creation of more strictly protected areas in regions facing significant anthropogenic pressure;” In general, local measures are needed to prevent the death of animals on roads and biotechnical measures to conserve animals and plants with high conservation status and habitats vulnerable to fragmentation.

 

References:

Sidorov A.A., Kudinova G.E., Kostina N.V. Accessibility of protected natural areas of regional significance: a case study from Samara oblast, Russia. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 818: Bristol, 2021. 818. 12050.

Zamaletdinov R.I., Mingaliev R.R., Kiseleva A.A. The terrestrial vertebrate fauna of valuable natural areas in Kazan. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences. 2016. 7, 6. 2850-2855.

Zhou, R.; Du, Y.; Gao, Y.; Xie, Y. Strategies for Coordinated Development Between Local Communities and the Northeast China Tiger and Leopard National Park: Case Study of the Hunchun Area. Diversity 2025, 17, 336.

Author Response

The proposed ideas and analysis in the manuscript provide a comprehensive assessment of the state of the buffer area of national parks. Particular attention should be paid to the retrospective of the research data from 2000 to 2020, which reflects the dynamics of the processes of the buffer areas. Particular attention is paid to the management of buffer areas, including the transition to organic farming, the introduction of composting practices and monitoring studies. The study is relevant and will be of interest in the development of real measures to preserve biodiversity, in contrast to local measures that do not provide an overall picture of habitat loss.

 General comments:

«Introduction»

I recommend increasing the relevance of the study, taking into account previously published works, taking into account:

1) Inclusion of the parameter "Drainage density, denoted as Dd, is a measure of the total length of channels (streams and rivers) within a catchment area, divided by the area of this basin."

It should be noted that there are a number of studies where the parameter was not taken into account or was already integrated into other assessments (Sidorov et al., 2021, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/818/1/012050)

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation and the reference to Sidorov et al. (2021). We have revised the relevant literature, including the study cited by the reviewer, and tried to clarify how our approach differs from or complements previous works. Specifically, we selected drainage density data, along with data on the extent of natural vegetation patches, functional connectivity and presence or absence of conservation units in the buffer zones, as input parameters for the multicriteria analysis. These datasets were selected because they are readily available at the biome scale in Brazil, making them appropriate for regional assessments. Additionally, in the revised manuscript, we recommend that future studies incorporate other data layers, such as the information on IUCN-listed endangered species and socioeconomic variables to enhance analytical framework.

 

2) Analysis of the connectivity of landscape elements, also the most important indicator, taking into account the use of territory zoning parameters (Zamaletdinov et al., 2016), assessment of ecological corridors and isolation factors associated with habitat transformation.

Response: We thank again the reviewer for highlighting the relevance of territory zoning parameters, ecological corridor assessments, and isolation factors associated with urban habitat transformation, as discussed in Zamaletdinov et al. (2016). We have revised the manuscript to expand our discussion on landscape connectivity affected by urbanization, as pointed out by these authors.

 

Special remarks:

 3) Lines 169-172 «This distance was selected based on the movement capacity of a generic species through a matrix. It is suitable for species capable of dispersing at least 1 km, as is the case of the giant armadillo (Priodontes maximus), maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), and jaguar (Panthera onca), among other wild animals with varying dispersal distances [26‒29].» Particular attention can be paid to the presence of registered habitats of rare and endemic plant and animal species, and special attention should be paid to animals with migratory activity. In particular, the following species are mentioned that have a conservation status: 1. giant armadillo (Priodontes maximus), «VU» Vulnerable (IUCN 3.1), 2. maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), «NT» Near Threatened (IUCN 3.1), but a higher conservation status in Brazil. 3. giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), «VU» Vulnerable (IUCN 3.1), 4. jaguar (Panthera onca) «NT» Near Threatened (IUCN 3.1). Most of these species are vulnerable to forest fragmentation and deforestation.

Response: In response to this important comment, we have revised the manuscript to more explicitly acknowledge the IUCN Red List classifications and national conservation statuses of the focal species (giant armadillo, maned wolf, giant anteater, and jaguar). These species are indeed known to be highly sensitive to habitat fragmentation and anthropogenic disturbances due to their large home ranges, low population densities, and specialized habitat requirements.

 

4) Lines 425-431: «The prioritization process highlighted the need for differentiated mitigation strategies. Buffer zones identified as very high priority are highly anthropized, posing a threat to biodiversity persistence in both the short and long term. On the other hand, the buffer zones are ranked as high and moderate priority still maintain continuous natural vegetation cover, offering great conservation opportunities based on their LULC classes. However, these areas are located in the northern portion of the biome, a region experiencing rapid agricultural expansion in the Cerrado, which presents a considerable risk to their long-term preservation.»

It seems to me that this region requires more detailed information on the presence of protected (IUCN 3.1) and endemic species, as well as discussions of measures to maintain and preserve ecological corridors. On the other hand, measures are needed to optimize and intensify agriculture, introduce new innovative approaches to increase yields and productivity, restore degraded lands, introduce aquaculture and aquaponics facilities, recycle organic waste, and develop ecological, thematic, and agrotourism. For example, such measures are shown in the work “Strategies for coordinated development between local communities and the Northeast China Tiger and Leopard National Park: case study of the Hunchun Area” (Zhou et al., 2025, doi: 10.3390/d17050336).

Response: The northern portion of the Cerrado biome, despite its current ecological significance and the relative continuity of native vegetation, is increasingly threatened by rapid and unsustainable agricultural expansion. Thus, we have suggested the implementation of more effective command-and-control measures, such as enhanced environmental law enforcement procedures, which have traditionally been more focused on the Brazilian Amazon. In addition, we also proposed promoting the adoption of environmentally sustainable agriculture practice in this region, especially the crop-livestock integration systems and the intensification of agriculture on already degraded pastures.

In response to the reviewer´s suggestion, we have also revised the manuscript to include a more comprehensive discussion on the importance of safeguarding biodiversity in areas with high conservation potential. This includes incorporating data on IUCN-listed endemic and protected species into the multicriteria analysis. Furthermore, the revised version of the manuscript now cites Zhou et al. (2025) as a relevant example of how conservation objectives can be aligned with the needs of local community through coordinated development strategies.

 

Lines «487-497», «As part of regulatory actions for the conservation of the buffer zones around the national parks of the Cerrado, the following measures are suggested; Creation of an updated regulation for the buffer zones, considering the different socioeconomic contexts, land use patterns, and the objectives of the conservation units; Official delimitation of the buffer zones of national parks with management plan proposals; Strengthening of monitoring efforts of the buffer zones; Expansion of the UC network around the national parks, focusing on the creation of more strictly protected areas in regions facing significant anthropogenic pressure;”

In general, local measures are needed to prevent the death of animals on roads and biotechnical measures to conserve animals and plants with high conservation status and habitats vulnerable to fragmentation.

Response: Thanks for this important complementary information. We added the following sentence in the revised version of the manuscript:

“Furthermore, local measures are essential to reduce wildlife mortality on highways and roads, along with biotechnical strategies aimed at protecting species with high conservation status and habitats vulnerable to fragmentation. Examples of biotechnical strategies include restoration of landscape connectivity such as the Jaguar Corridor Initiative (Ceballos et al., 2021), assisted natural regeneration of degraded habitats with native species, and riparian and wetland restoration to increase ecological corridors”.

 

References:

Sidorov A.A., Kudinova G.E., Kostina N.V. Accessibility of protected natural areas of regional significance: a case study from Samara oblast, Russia. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 818: Bristol, 2021. 818. 12050.

Zamaletdinov R.I., Mingaliev R.R., Kiseleva A.A. The terrestrial vertebrate fauna of valuable natural areas in Kazan. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences. 2016. 7, 6. 2850-2855.

Zhou, R.; Du, Y.; Gao, Y.; Xie, Y. Strategies for Coordinated Development Between Local Communities and the Northeast China Tiger and Leopard National Park: Case Study of the Hunchun Area. Diversity 2025, 17, 336.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is a study that assesses the threats and opportunities faced by biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization in the buffer zone of Cerrado National Park in Brazil. It mainly adopts multi-criteria decision analysis methods (AHP and WLC) to classify the threat levels in the 10-kilometer buffer zones of 15 national parks. And the priority areas for protection and the promotion areas for sustainable utilization were identified. The following are the deficiencies that I think exist in the current version:

 

1 In the introduction section, the connotation of "quantifying artificial pressure" can be elaborated more specifically. Is it merely a change in land use? Or is it a comprehensive assessment that includes multiple factors such as connectivity loss and water resource pressure? In the introduction, it can be more clearly defined in which dimensions the "quantitative" gap that this study attempts to fill is specifically reflected. Meanwhile, the introduction mentions "Connectivity analyses are widely applied..." Another important tool is the multicriteria analysis...  The drainage density...  is another important aspect to consider...” However, these tools have not been clearly and closely linked to the two core research gaps previously proposed, namely "lack of strategic planning" and "failure to quantify artificial pressure". Why? Why can choosing these specific combinations of methods and indicators effectively address the proposed research gaps? Furthermore, the current literature review is more like an introduction to relevant concepts and tools, lacking a systematic review and critical evaluation of existing research results (especially in the management of buffer zones in Cerado or similar tropical savanna ecosystems).

 

2 In the "Materials and methods" section, a diffusion distance of 1km was selected for the connectivity analysis, and some large mammals were listed as references. However, the representativeness of 1km varies greatly for species of different body sizes and ecological habits. Will the choice of this single diffusion distance affect the universality of the connectivity assessment results? Has sensitivity analysis for species with different diffusion capabilities been considered? Although MapBiomas is a widely used dataset, its 30-meter resolution may have limitations in identifying small areas of natural vegetation patches or certain specific land use types. What kind of impact might this have on the overall connectivity assessment and threat level classification? Could we have a brief discussion?

 

3 In the "results" section, for the labels of the 15 national parks in Figure B of Figure 1, it can be considered to directly list the numbers corresponding to the park names in the legend. Figure 4: This is a key result graph, but it is not cited in the main text. In addition, the transitions and connections among the various parts can be stronger. For example, after presenting the changes in LULC and the loss of connectivity, how can these findings be linked to the subsequent selection of AHP standards and the assignment of weights?

 

4 In the discussion section, the title of the article emphasizes "Threats and opportunities", but in the discussion section, the discussion is not in-depth or specific enough on which major threats the buffers of different threat levels are specifically facing, as well as what "opportunities" exist in high and medium-priority areas. Meanwhile, the underlying driving mechanisms (such as regional economic development models, land policies, law enforcement intensity, and the degree of community dependence, etc.) have not been explored in depth enough. It is suggested that they be further strengthened.

Author Response

This manuscript is a study that assesses the threats and opportunities faced by biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization in the buffer zone of Cerrado National Park in Brazil. It mainly adopts multi-criteria decision analysis methods (AHP and WLC) to classify the threat levels in the 10-kilometer buffer zones of 15 national parks. And the priority areas for protection and the promotion areas for sustainable utilization were identified. The following are the deficiencies that I think exist in the current version:

 1 In the introduction section, the connotation of "quantifying artificial pressure" can be elaborated more specifically. Is it merely a change in land use? Or is it a comprehensive assessment that includes multiple factors such as connectivity loss and water resource pressure? In the introduction, it can be more clearly defined in which dimensions the "quantitative" gap that this study attempts to fill is specifically reflected. Meanwhile, the introduction mentions "Connectivity analyses are widely applied..." Another important tool is the multicriteria analysis...  The drainage density...  is another important aspect to consider...” However, these tools have not been clearly and closely linked to the two core research gaps previously proposed, namely "lack of strategic planning" and "failure to quantify artificial pressure". Why? Why can choosing these specific combinations of methods and indicators effectively address the proposed research gaps? Furthermore, the current literature review is more like an introduction to relevant concepts and tools, lacking a systematic review and critical evaluation of existing research results (especially in the management of buffer zones in Cerado or similar tropical savanna ecosystems).

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for their helpful comments. The term “quantifying artificial pressure” was indeed intended to mean “quantifying anthropogenic pressure” or “land use pressure” and this has been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

The statement “no studies have yet quantified the extent of anthropic pressure around the Cerrado´s UCs” (changed as “no studies have quantified the extent of anthropogenic pressure in areas surrounding Cerrado conservation units” in the revised version of the manuscript) indicates the lack of studies specifically addressing the intensity of land use pressure around national parks in the Cerrado biome. This statement was rewritten to become clearer in the manuscript.

For the multicriteria analysis, we selected natural vegetation patches and functional connectivity data derived from the MapBiomas land use and land cover maps, along with additional variables regarding the presence/absence of conservation units and drainage density in the buffer zones, as input parameters for the multicriteria analysis because they are readily available at the biome scale and thus suitable for regional analysis. As a recommendation for future work, we suggest incorporating additional data layers, such as the distribution of IUCN-listed endangered species and relevant socioeconomic variables to improve the analytical depth of future studies.

 

2 In the "Materials and methods" section, a diffusion distance of 1km was selected for the connectivity analysis, and some large mammals were listed as references. However, the representativeness of 1km varies greatly for species of different body sizes and ecological habits. Will the choice of this single diffusion distance affect the universality of the connectivity assessment results? Has sensitivity analysis for species with different diffusion capabilities been considered? Although MapBiomas is a widely used dataset, its 30-meter resolution may have limitations in identifying small areas of natural vegetation patches or certain specific land use types. What kind of impact might this have on the overall connectivity assessment and threat level classification? Could we have a brief discussion?

Response: We thank again the reviewer for these important comments. We understand that dispersal ability varies significantly among species due to, for example, differences in body size and behavior. We selected the 1-km diffusion distance as our reference value based on empirical data and represents a conservative estimate of landscape connectivity. We recognize that the use of a single diffusion distance can limit the generalizability of our results to species with either smaller or larger dispersal capacities. In this context, the use of a range of diffusion distances (e.g., 500 m, 1 km, 2 km, and 5 km) to explore how connectivity metrics, such as dIIC, dIICconnector, and dIICintra, vary with diffusion distance was added as suggestion for future research.

We also agree that the 30-meter resolution of Landsat dataset, while appropriate for regional- and national-scale assessments, may limit the detection of small, fragmented patches of natural vegetation and fine-grained land use types, especially in heterogeneous landscapes or highly fragmented regions. This limitation may lead to an underestimation of habitat availability and connectivity, especially for species that rely on small habitat patches or on linear features such as riparian corridors or narrow forest strips for movement. We acknowledge this limitation in the revised manuscript, and emphasize that our findings should be interpreted considering the spatial resolution of the input data. In addition, we recommend considering the use of higher-resolution satellite datasets (e.g., PlanetScope and Sentinel-2 satellite data) in selected priority areas for biodiversity conservation in future research.

 

3 In the "results" section, for the labels of the 15 national parks in Figure B of Figure 1, it can be considered to directly list the numbers corresponding to the park names in the legend. Figure 4: This is a key result graph, but it is not cited in the main text. In addition, the transitions and connections among the various parts can be stronger. For example, after presenting the changes in LULC and the loss of connectivity, how can these findings be linked to the subsequent selection of AHP standards and the assignment of weights?

Response: We have revised Figure 4 by replacing the numerical identifiers with the names of the 15 national parks, as recommended. This figure is now properly cited in the revised version of the manuscript. Additionally, the two tables displaying the weights used in the multicriteria analysis have been relocated to the beginning of the Results section to enhance clarity and improve the logical flow of the presentation.

 

4 In the discussion section, the title of the article emphasizes "Threats and opportunities", but in the discussion section, the discussion is not in-depth or specific enough on which major threats the buffers of different threat levels are specifically facing, as well as what "opportunities" exist in high and medium-priority areas. Meanwhile, the underlying driving mechanisms (such as regional economic development models, land policies, law enforcement intensity, and the degree of community dependence, etc.) have not been explored in depth enough. It is suggested that they be further strengthened.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. In response, we have thoroughly revised and expanded the Discussion section in the updated version of the manuscript. The phrase “threats and opportunities” in the title reflects the dual approach we propose for biodiversity conservation in the Cerrado biome.

In the northern portion of the Cerrado, where extensive patches of native vegetation remain, we emphasize the need for command-and-control strategies, including stronger law enforcement and regulatory measures to prevent further habitat loss. In contrast, the southern region of the biome is more heavily altered by various land uses. Here, we identify opportunities to promote environmentally sustainable activities, such as ecotourism, recreational land use, and economic diversification aligned with conservation goals.

With respect to the underlying driving mechanisms threatening biodiversity, we highlight the need to scale up the adoption of sustainable technologies for food and energy production. Specifically, we recommend expanding practices such as crop-livestock integration systems and agricultural intensification on degraded pastures, which are prevalent across the Cerrado. Additionally, we stress the importance of enhancing law enforcement efforts in the biome, which currently receives less institutional focus compared to the Amazon region.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The article layout could be improved for better visual presentation, particularly the nearly one-page blank space between Table 2 and Table 3.

2. The "Discussion" section lacks logical coherence. It is recommended to organize the content with subheadings for clearer presentation of corresponding points.

3. The "Conclusions" section appears overly simplistic and lacks readability, giving readers an impression of limited research value. We suggest enriching the content with more detailed explanations.

Author Response

1. The article layout could be improved for better visual presentation, particularly the nearly one-page blank space between Table 2 and Table 3.

Thanks a lot for this comment. We have removed the blank space in the revised version of the manuscript.

2. The "Discussion" section lacks logical coherence. It is recommended to organize the content with subheadings for clearer presentation of corresponding points.

We acknowledge this important comment. We have added the following paragraph at the beginning of the Results section:

“To comprehensively assess and rank the threat levels of each buffer zone, we an-alyzed several key pressure and status indicators, including land use change (Section 3.2), landscape connectivity (Section 3.3), the existence of protected areas (Section 3.4), and hydrological characteristics (Section 3.5). The results of these analyses not only revealed the specific challenges faced by each buffer zone but also provided an empir-ical basis for the determination of standards and the assignment of weights in the sub-sequent multi-criteria analysis (Section 3.6)”.

3. The "Conclusions" section appears overly simplistic and lacks readability, giving readers an impression of limited research value. We suggest enriching the content with more detailed explanations.

We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback regarding the “Conclusions” section. We have revised this section, and we believe that it now synthesizes our key findings and highlights methodological innovations. Below, the new paragraphs:

This study applied an integrated approach combining bi-temporal land cover data, landscape connectivity metrics, hydrological data, and multicriteria decision analysis to evaluate conservation and sustainable use priorities in the buffer zones of 15 NPs in the Brazilian Cerrado biome. Our findings showed that all buffer zones were classified as moderate to very high priority, highlighting the urgent need for targeted conservation interventions across all parks. Four parks, Serra da Bodoquena, Emas, Serra da Canastra, and Brasília, were identified as having very high conservation priority due to severe anthropogenic pressures, loss of natural vegetation, and reduced functional connectivity.

The application of the IIC and its components enabled the identification of landscape elements critical for maintaining ecological flows, which are essential for guiding ecological corridor planning and habitat fragmentation mitigation. The use of the AHP also provided an expert-oriented prioritization framework that can be replicated in other tropical conservation contexts.

This study also showed the need of regionally oriented strategies. In the northern Cerrado, where natural vegetation cover remains relatively high but is under increasing threat from agricultural expansion, conservation should focus on prevention, ecological monitoring, and enforcement of environmental regulations. In the more fragmented southern region, conservation should prioritize ecological restoration, sustainable land-use practices, and the creation of cultural ecosystem service opportunities that align with local socioeconomic realities.

Overall, this study offers a replicable model for integrating spatially based ecological data with decision-support tools to assist biodiversity conservation policies. It contributes to filling a critical gap in conservation planning over buffer zones, which are often overlooked despite their importance in maintaining the integrity of protected areas.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made changes. The manuscript has been significantly revised, tables have been added. The reviewer's comments have been taken into account.

Author Response

The authors have made changes. The manuscript has been significantly revised, tables have been added. The reviewer's comments have been taken into account.

We acknowledge taking your time in reviewing our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After this round of revision, the quality of the manuscript has significantly improved and is very close to the publishable level. However, there are still some issues that were raised in the previous round of review or newly emerged that have not been optimally resolved:

1 In the introduction section, after presenting two core research gaps - "lack of strategic planning" and "no studies have quantified the extent of anthropogenic pressure" (lines 93-104), the logical bridge between these two parts remains weak. The article fails to clearly demonstrate "why this specific combination of methods is the most effective way to fill the aforementioned research gaps?"

2 It is suggested that a transitional paragraph be added at the beginning of the Results section or before Section 3.1, clearly stating: "To comprehensively rank the threat levels of each buffer zone, we first analyzed several key pressure and status indicators, including land use change (Section 3.2), landscape connectivity (Section 3.3), the existence of protected areas (Section 3.4), and hydrological characteristics (Section 3.5). The results of these analyses not only revealed the specific challenges faced by each buffer zone but also provided an empirical basis for the determination of standards and the assignment of weights in the subsequent multi-criteria analysis." Such a statement can connect the results of each part, making the article's logic more coherent.

Author Response

After this round of revision, the quality of the manuscript has significantly improved and is very close to the publishable level. However, there are still some issues that were raised in the previous round of review or newly emerged that have not been optimally resolved:

1 In the introduction section, after presenting two core research gaps - "lack of strategic planning" and "no studies have quantified the extent of anthropogenic pressure" (lines 93-104), the logical bridge between these two parts remains weak. The article fails to clearly demonstrate "why this specific combination of methods is the most effective way to fill the aforementioned research gaps?"

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this weakness in the manuscript. The following paragraph was added in the Introduction section:

The above-mentioned gap in identifying and prioritizing actions for the conser-vation units of the Cerrado, aimed at preserving biodiversity, can be addressed through studies focused on evaluating landscape connectivity and quantifying habitat loss and fragmentation based on land use and land cover (LULC) data, such as the annual LULC maps of Brazil that have been produced by the MapBiomas Project, with a 30-meter pixel resolution. Additional important metrics include the effectiveness of policy and governance actions as well as the identification of successful conservation interventions within and surrounding these units. However, analyzing these latter metrics is more difficult because of the limited availability of regional-scale datasets in the Cerrado and the lack of standardized methodologies consistently applied over time.

 

2 It is suggested that a transitional paragraph be added at the beginning of the Results section or before Section 3.1, clearly stating: "To comprehensively rank the threat levels of each buffer zone, we first analyzed several key pressure and status indicators, including land use change (Section 3.2), landscape connectivity (Section 3.3), the existence of protected areas (Section 3.4), and hydrological characteristics (Section 3.5). The results of these analyses not only revealed the specific challenges faced by each buffer zone but also provided an empirical basis for the determination of standards and the assignment of weights in the subsequent multi-criteria analysis." Such a statement can connect the results of each part, making the article's logic more coherent.

Thanks a lot for this important comment. We have added the suggestions at the beginning of the Results section.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript still requires significant refinement, as several substantive issues remain unresolved despite two rounds of revisions. A particular concern is the Discussion section, where the authors have yet to incorporate the recommended subheadings - a critical revision needed to improve the section's logical organization. Consequently, the current version demonstrates insufficient logical coherence.

Author Response

The manuscript still requires significant refinement, as several substantive issues remain unresolved despite two rounds of revisions. A particular concern is the Discussion section, where the authors have yet to incorporate the recommended subheadings - a critical revision needed to improve the section's logical organization. Consequently, the current version demonstrates insufficient logical coherence.

We acknowledge this important comment again. The following subheadings were added in the Discussion section:

4.1. Key Findings

4.2. Recommended Strategies for High-Priority Buffer Zones

4.3. Sustainable Land Use Opportunities in Highly Modified Areas

4.4. Limitations and Future Directions