Restoration of Ecological Connectivity in Zhaotong City Under the Interference of Human Activities
Lei Wang
Ivo Machar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of “Restoration of ecological connectivity in plateau ecologically vulnerability areas under the interference of human activities”.
The authors investigated the structure, connectivity, and responses of ecological networks (ENs) to construction land in plateau ecological vulnerability areas using circuit theory, the Minimum Cumulative Resistance (MCR) model, and complex network analysis. Additionally, the Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) model was applied to examine the relationship between construction land and ecological pinch points. Results revealed an increase in the number of ecological corridors but a 15.25% reduction in total corridor length. The proportion of high-level ecological pinch points declined, indicating enhanced overall connectivity, although local connectivity decreased in certain northern and central regions. Regional economic development policies and ecological restoration measures showed varying impacts on ENs, leading to the designation of six ecological conservation areas and seven restoration areas. This study provides a framework for optimizing ENs and offers practical insights for enhancing ecological sustainability in vulnerable plateau regions. However, revisions are required to address some issues in the current manuscript.
1. The conclusions in the abstract need to be further clarified, particularly the logical connection between the data and the findings. Please provide specific figures for the increase in the number of ecological corridors and the reduction in total length. Additionally, specify the exact reduction in the proportion of the highest-level ecological pinch points to better illustrate how changes in ecological pinch points contribute to the enhancement of ecological connectivity. This will help improve the scientific rigor and persuasiveness of the abstract.
2. In the introduction, the authors provide a detailed discussion of the research background, which offers valuable context for the paper. However, there are some points that the descriptions could be more specific. For example, in the first paragraph, the authors mention, "Recently, the dual pressures of climate change and human activities have intensified the environmental issues facing the ecologically fragile and sensitive areas of the plateau ecological vulnerability areas." This statement could be strengthened by providing specific examples of the typical impacts of climate change and human activities, such as temperature changes, alterations in precipitation patterns, and land use changes, to make the argument more concrete and persuasive.
3. In the second paragraph of the introduction, the first sentence states, "It has been proven that good ecological connectivity benefits the stability of regional ecosystems." This sentence could be strengthened by providing specific examples, such as citing existing research findings or typical case studies, to demonstrate the actual impact of good ecological connectivity on regional ecosystem stability, thereby enhancing the credibility of the sentence. Of course, the main issue with the introduction is that it does not summarize the current research gaps and put forward the corresponding scientific questions.
4. In the discussion section, the content in sections 4.3 and 4.4 regarding ecological connectivity restoration and ENs optimization is overly lengthy. It is recommended to directly state the key points and support them with specific research cases. Additionally, the discussion does not address the limitations of the study or provide prospects for future research. It is suggested to add a discussion on the uncertainties of the research in the revision and to streamline the content in sections 4.3 and 4.4.
5. Line 128-129: Please merge.
6. The article includes many well-crafted figures. However, the small size of key symbols, legends, and labels in the figures may hinder readers from easily interpreting the information. It is recommended to appropriately adjust the size of the symbols, legends, and labels to enhance the readability and effectiveness of the visual presentation.
Author Response
Q1: The conclusions in the abstract need to be further clarified, particularly the logical connection between the data and the findings. Please provide specific figures for the increase in the number of ecological corridors and the reduction in total length. Additionally, specify the exact reduction in the proportion of the highest-level ecological pinch points to better illustrate how changes in ecological pinch points contribute to the enhancement of ecological connectivity. This will help improve the scientific rigor and persuasiveness of the abstract.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added specific figures for the increase in the number of ecological corridors and the decrease in their overall length. In addition, the exact reduction of the proportion of the highest ecological pinch points is specified.
The related contents have been revised in lines 21-23 and highlighted in red.
Q2: In the introduction, the authors provide a detailed discussion of the research background, which offers valuable context for the paper. However, there are some points that the descriptions could be more specific. For example, in the first paragraph, the authors mention, "Recently, the dual pressures of climate change and human activities have intensified the environmental issues facing the ecologically fragile and sensitive areas of the plateau ecological vulnerability areas." This statement could be strengthened by providing specific examples of the typical impacts of climate change and human activities, such as temperature changes, alterations in precipitation patterns, and land use changes, to make the argument more concrete and persuasive.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have described the introduction in detail and added concrete examples.
The related contents have been revised in lines 45-48 and highlighted in red.
Q3: In the second paragraph of the introduction, the first sentence states, "It has been proven that good ecological connectivity benefits the stability of regional ecosystems." This sentence could be strengthened by providing specific examples, such as citing existing research findings or typical case studies, to demonstrate the actual impact of good ecological connectivity on regional ecosystem stability, thereby enhancing the credibility of the sentence. Of course, the main issue with the introduction is that it does not summarize the current research gaps and put forward the corresponding scientific questions.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have described the Introduction in detail and added concrete examples. In addition, the current research gaps are summarized and the corresponding scientific questions are put forward.
The related contents have been revised in lines 58-63 and 39-128 and highlighted in red.
Q4: In the discussion section, the content in sections 4.3 and 4.4 regarding ecological connectivity restoration and ENs optimization is overly lengthy. It is recommended to directly state the key points and support them with specific research cases. Additionally, the discussion does not address the limitations of the study or provide prospects for future research. It is suggested to add a discussion on the uncertainties of the research in the revision and to streamline the content in sections 4.3 and 4.4.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have streamlined the expression of sections 4.3 and 4.4, added practical cases, and increased the discussion of research uncertainties.
The related contents have been revised in lines 403-464 and highlighted in red.
Q5: Line 128-129: Please merge.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. Lines 128-129 have been merged. The related contents have been revised in lines 145-146 and highlighted in red.
Q6: The article includes many well-crafted figures. However, the small size of key symbols, legends, and labels in the figures may hinder readers from easily interpreting the information. It is recommended to appropriately adjust the size of the symbols, legends, and labels to enhance the readability and effectiveness of the visual presentation.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. The symbols, legends, and labels of the pictures in the manuscript have been resized.
The related contents have been revised in lines 328 and 330 and highlighted in red.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript seems to be well structured, and, in my opinion, the topic of the study relatively well fits the scope of the journal. Main shortcoming of the study is missing any innovative idea in the study. Methodology of the study is obviously based on using free software tools such as well-known InVEST model (line 281). Also, applying NDVI as ecological indicators is today “a standard” in many students’ doctoral theses. So, Authors should better explain what novelty in the field includes this presented study. This my opinion is in relation to a bit poor quality of the section Introduction. Section Introduction must present very seriously world-wide scientific background of the topic of study; from this part the current up-to-date knowledge in the field must be obvious (including relevant references from Web of Science, without self-citations of Authors). Then Authors should present all current knowledge-gaps in the topic of the study with emphasise to knowledge-gap which is addressed in the manuscript. So, the section Introduction should be corrected following my comments.
Other major comments to the manuscript:
Firstly, I feel the key term “plateau” should be better explain in the context of the study topic (Authors use this term in the first sentence of the manuscript). What regions Authors means? It is unclear for international readers.
Secondly, definition of aims of the study (lines 99-102) need to be improved. In the presented form, Authors clearly indicated the study has only regional importance without clear portability in international scale. But, in international journal, the aims of the study should better fit any clearly presented knowledge-gaps in the field. I think, Authors add here any scientific hypotheses in tested (e.g. about resilience of ecological network in study area etc.) and add relevant methods in order to test the hypotheses.
Authors should remove too long general presentation of well-known methods. Description of study area is too long an redundant,
Section Results: Results presented in this study are too detailed. Authors should better present main important findings, which clearly fit any current knowledge gaps in the field. Only description of local/regional changes in landscape structure (land cover changes) are not interesting for international readers. I recommend to Authors considered if some tables should be presented as Appendix. Too long tables are not interesting for readers and can be redundant.
Section Conclusion is too general by my opinion. Authors must avoid using any general statements in this section. Authors must here very briefly and clearly present main scientific findings of the study, which are novelty in the international scale and explain why results would be interesting/important for international readers of the journal. Also, Authors must clearly explain here, how and why original results are interesting in the field (based on previous detailed discussion).
Minor other comments:
Title should not include unclear/general terms such as “plateau”.
Abstract should not include abbreviations.
Some used abbreviations should be checked (Ens vs Ens – line 177 etc).
Although I am not a native English speaker, I feel the English language in the manuscript is not in high quality. Some sentences in the text are too long and thus difficult to understand. I recommend to Authors to do a language corrections in order to shorten some statements to more individual sentences
Author Response
Q1: Firstly, I feel the key term “plateau” should be better explain in the context of the study topic (Authors use this term in the first sentence of the manuscript). What regions Authors means? It is unclear for international readers.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. “Plateau” and referred regions have been explained in the context of the study topic.
The related contents have been revised in lines 39-41 and 111-113 and highlighted in red.
Q2: Secondly, definition of aims of the study (lines 99-102) need to be improved. In the presented form, Authors clearly indicated the study has only regional importance without clear portability in international scale. But, in international journal, the aims of the study should better fit any clearly presented knowledge-gaps in the field. I think, Authors add here any scientific hypotheses in tested (e.g. about resilience of ecological network in study area etc.) and add relevant methods in order to test the hypotheses.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the aims of the study to better reflect not only the regional importance of the research but also its broader international applicability. We have added a scientific hypothesis, such as "This study hypothesizes that land use expansion significantly impacts the resilience of ecological networks," and clarified the methods used to test this hypothesis, including Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) analysis.
The related contents have been revised in lines 119-128 and highlighted in red.
Q3: Authors should remove too long general presentation of well-known methods. Description of study area is too long an redundant.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have removed overly detailed descriptions of well-known methods and greatly shortened descriptions of research areas to avoid redundancy.
The related contents have been revised in lines 130-136, 194-204, and 245-258 and highlighted in red.
Q4: Section Results: Results presented in this study are too detailed. Authors should better present main important findings, which clearly fit any current knowledge gaps in the field. Only description of local/regional changes in landscape structure (land cover changes) are not interesting for international readers. I recommend to Authors considered if some tables should be presented as Appendix. Too long tables are not interesting for readers and can be redundant.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. The results have been streamlined, the main findings are presented and the table is attached as an appendix.
The related contents have been revised in lines 260-359 and highlighted in red.
Q5: Section Conclusion is too general by my opinion. Authors must avoid using any general statements in this section. Authors must here very briefly and clearly present main scientific findings of the study, which are novelty in the international scale and explain why results would be interesting/important for international readers of the journal. Also, Authors must clearly explain here, how and why original results are interesting in the field (based on previous detailed discussion).
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have presented the main scientific findings of the study, which are novel on an international scale, and explained why the results are important for international readers of the journal.
The related contents have been revised in lines 477-489 and highlighted in red.
Q6: Title should not include unclear/general terms such as “plateau”.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the expression of the title. The “plateau” was transformed into “Zhaotong City”.
The related contents have been revised in lines 2-3 and highlighted in red.
Q7: Abstract should not include abbreviations.
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have fixed the problem of abbreviations in the Abstract.
The related contents have been revised in lines 27-31 and highlighted in red.
Q8: Some used abbreviations should be checked (Ens vs Ens – line 177 etc).
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. The related contents have been revised in line 208 and highlighted in red.
Q9: Although I am not a native English speaker, I feel the English language in the manuscript is not in high quality. Some sentences in the text are too long and thus difficult to understand. I recommend to Authors to do a language corrections in order to shorten some statements to more individual sentences
Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We have polished the expression of the sentence in the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has effectively addressed the issues, and I recommend accepting it.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, thank you for your responses to my comments. I see you hava made a serious effort in improvement the former version of manuscript. I think the corrected manuscript is now fully acceptable for publishing.
