Conservation Biodiversity in Arid Areas: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As a reviewer, I read the article "Conservation biodiversity in arid areas" with great interest.: A review.", written by a team of authors — Voichita Timis-Gansac, Lucian Dinca, Cristinel Constandache, Gabriel Murariu, Cristian Onet.

The idea put forward by the authors in writing the review is very interesting and relevant, but in my opinion requires further development. 

There are the following comments to the text of the manuscript of the scientific article.

1. The geographical map shown in Figure 5 must have a scale, legend, north arrow, and (at least) geographical features (oceans, names of some major countries, etc.).

2. The names of countries shown in Figure 6 must be written with capital letters or abbreviations (USA)

3 Lines 66-67. If you are talking about all reputable journals, then why does it indicate only the WoS database in lines 71?

4. Line 134. What is the clustering technique? Specify this in the methodology.

5. Line 88. "articles with unclear origins". What does this mean? 

6. Lines 92-97. How was the grouping carried out? 

7. In Figure 1, you have 938 articles, and in line 105 – 852 articles. So how many articles have you analyzed? 

8. In Figure 1, English is indicated in the criteria, and in the description of the results, in line 153-154, there is a description of the work in other languages. Please explain this further.

9. I recommend that the authors formulate the goals and objectives of the study more clearly. It is unclear from the introduction and methodology how the results presented in Section 3 turned out.

10. Indicate the limitations of the study. 

11. In general, I believe that setting the authors to research only articles from the WoS database has significantly reduced the value of the work. I would recommend that the authors compare the databases WoS, Scopus, as well as the open databases Google Scholar, to obtain a more complete and objective scientific picture.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Conservation biodiversity in arid areas: A review.

 

Dear Editor.

            The article titled “Conservation biodiversity in arid areas: A review” have a bibliometric analysis as method, using many tools (include classical review). The text is showed correctly. The results are clear. The results are clear. Under my review, minor corrections and suggestions were appointed. Congratulations for authors

 

 

Materials and Methods

Line 93-97 “Findings were organized into five main result categories: Plants related to biodiversity conservation in arid areas, Animals related to biodiversity conservation in arid areas, Causes of biodiversity decline in arid regions, Effects of biodiversity loss in arid regions, Restoration methods for improving biodiversity conservation in arid areas.”

            In this track “arid areas” appears repeatedly. Maybe “Findings of biodiversity in arid areas were organized...” became the text less repetitive.

 

Line 100: “Figure 1. Used methodology”

 

            Maybe extent this description. More details employed bring more scientific sound. 

 

Results

 

Line 159-160: “Amongst the 120 publishers who have published articles on this subject, the most 159 representative are: Elsevier (199 articles), Wiley (181 articles) and Springer Nature.”

 

            Springer Nature published how many articles?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The authors provide an overview of existing research into conservation biodiversity in arid areas, summarising the overall trend in publication frequency, location and topics. Whilst the theme of the review itself is useful and worth investigating, the overall approach used within the review has a number of flaws. I would highly recommend that the authors review existing standards and guidance on conducting and reporting systematic reviews to either improve the methods they’ve used in this paper, or at least improve how it has been reported. The methods for inclusion/exclusion of papers and for identifying groupings of papers into topics/themes and how they are linked together are currently unclear. Additionally, one of my main concerns is that the second section of the review, in which the authors do not appear to extract specific data from the papers nor summarise the information in a quantitative way, feels out of place and at odds with the first section. It is a bit confusing/unclear why these two different approaches were taken and there is currently no clear justification for this. The discussion and conclusion both generally just repeat what has already been said in the results, rather than fully contextualising the results and I think need to better explain what the results mean and why they are important. Finally, there are a few grammatical and language issues that also need to be addressed.

 

Introduction

Line 49-58 – I’m not sure this paragraph about the use/context of bibliometric analysis is needed. It would instead be better to explain why a review paper such as this is needed now.

Line 67 – ‘reputable journals’ – how do the authors know they are reputable/what are the authors defining as reputable?

Methods

Line 70-71 – ‘on invasive plants in meadow areas from 1980 to 2023’ – this doesn’t fit with the aim of the paper or the title. I thought the paper was reviewing the literature on biodiversity in arid areas, not invasive plants in meadows?

Line 71-74 – Again, I don’t think readers need the background info of what Web of Science is. It’s a very commonly used database.

Line 74-77 – So is this in addition to the review of invasive plants in meadow areas? Why are the dates of the literature different (2001 to 2021 instead of 1980 to 2023)? Also, ‘the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning’ doesn’t fit the title of the paper or the aims of the study either – there is no mention of arid environments.

Line 80 – the authors state here that 4508 relevant papers were found but then later on (line 105 and in Figure 1), they state that 947 papers were used in the bibliometric analysis. There needs to be a clearer outline of why the rest of the 4508 papers were excluded, ideally with a list of those papers in the supplementary material and reasons for exclusion for each paper. Were these excluded at the title and abstract stage? Or were some excluded after reading the full-text? I would advise the authors to review guidance from CEEDER (https://environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors/) or the ROSES reporting standards for systematic reviews (https://environmentalevidence.org/roses/).

Line 85-91 – the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the review need to be much clearer, and pre-established before screening takes place.

Line 85-91 – how many people screened each paper? Was agreement between screeners tested in anyway?

Line 92-97 – why was a different non-systematic approach used for the second part of the study?

Figure 1 – this should show the number of papers included/excluded at each stage

 

Results

Line 111-113 – how were these research areas decided i.e. what determined whether an article was classified as ‘environmental sciences ecology’ instead of ‘biodiversity conservation’?

Figure 3 – Make sure axes labels are not cut off e.g. ‘Environmental sciences…’ and ‘Science technology other…’

Line 117 – what do the authors mean by a ‘prestigious scientific journal’? This is vague and also slightly subjective

Line 119 – ‘increased significantly’ – so is there a p-value associated with this? Avoid saying things are ‘significant’ unless it has been tested statistically

Line 119 – ‘average of 70-90 articles per year’ – what type of average? Mean? And an average should be a single number, not a range.

Figure 5 – it would be better if the scale in the left-hand bottom corner didn’t overlap with South America, but this is just a minor point.

Line 134-137 – ‘countries can be grouped into six clusters’ – how? The authors haven’t explained what is connecting the countries in Figure 6 or how they are being grouped. Is it by co-authorship?

Line 146 – ‘urmat de Spanish’ – what does this mean? Maybe just a translation issue?

Line 148-152 – It’s better to capitalize each word within the name of a journal e.g. instead of ‘Journal of arid environments’, it should be ‘Journal of Arid Environments’

Line 150-152 – what is ‘total link strength’? This hasn’t yet been defined in the methods or results. I think it would be good to say what this represents/means

Table 1 – what does ‘Crt. No.’ stand for? Cluster number?

Table 1 – Should the column name ‘Review’ actually be ‘Journal’?

Table 1 – same comment as above – other than linking words, the journal names should be in capital letters e.g. ‘Biological Conservation’

Figure 7 – what is linking the clusters together? It’s unclear what the links mean. The clusters clearly represent the number of articles published on the topic within each journal but the authors haven’t described anywhere what the links mean.

Table 2 – what does total link strength mean in this context?

Table 3 – I think some of the words have not been translated in to English e.g. see the column headers and the country names in the column (e.g. ‘pe glob’)

Table 4 – same again as Table 3, some words are not in English in the column headers

Line 202-203 – ‘as land-use land-cover change’ – should this be ‘as land-use and land-cover change’?

Section 3.2.3 to Section 3.2.5 – I don’t think these sections add much value to the paper in their current form. I think they would be better explored in a similar way as the previous section i.e. quantifying them in some way and summarising them graphically or in tables.

Line 231-233 – Species names should be italicised

 

Discussion

General - It might be worth splitting the discussion into distinctive sections e.g. one section on what existing literature into the topic looks like, a second section on the causes of biodiversity loss and its consequences, and a third section on restoration/potential solutions to this problem. I think it would also be good to have a section discussing the limitations of the methods used within the literature search, and touching on the limitations within the existing research e.g. where are the current research gaps? What has been missed?

Line 263-313 – This first section of the discussion is very repetitive of the results, without really placing the results in broader context. Given the results are fairly descriptive anyway, these first few paragraphs just feel like reporting of the results again.

 

Conclusion

Similarly to the discussion, the conclusion is highly repetitive of the results and discussion sections. For instance, stating again which research areas are most prominent, the number of articles published each year, countries and journals in which they are published etc. The conclusion should ideally not just be summarising the results again, it should be providing the overall key messages and novel outcomes of the paper, and the overall significance of the paper for this field of research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally the Quality of English Language is good but there are a few instances (which I have outlined in the review) where some words have not been translated into English, particularly in some of the tables. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review paper addresses an important topic—biodiversity conservation in arid areas—through a combination of bibliometric analysis and classical review. The study provides a broad overview of publication trends, key contributors, and conservation strategies, supported by data from 947 publications. However, the manuscript suffers from several limitations, including a lack of comprehensive quantitative analysis, insufficient depth in interpreting results, and unclear selection criteria for species discussed. Addressing these issues would significantly enhance the manuscript's quality and scientific rigor.

 

Major Comments

1.     In INTRODUCTRION, the authors state that the aim of the article is to "compile data on biodiversity conservation in arid areas by analyzing all articles published in reputable journals and evaluating their relevance and implications for research in this field" yet the review primarily relies on qualitative descriptions. The manuscript would benefit from more robust quantitative analysis, such as statistical trends in publication outputs, citation networks, or thematic clustering over time.

2.     The figures (e.g., Fig. 2–Fig. 9) and tables (e.g., Table 1–Table 4) are inadequately described and interpreted. The current descriptions are overly simplistic and fail to capture the key insights from the data. Merge related figures into multi-panel figures (e.g., Fig. 2–Fig. 4 could be combined into a single figure with panels showing publication types, research areas, and yearly trends). Please add detailed descriptions and authors' interpretations to each figure and table.

3.     The selection of plant and animal species in Tables 3 and 4 lacks justification. It is unclear whether these species were chosen based on their frequency in the literature, their ecological significance, or their conservation status. Suggest adding 1-2 columns to Tables 3 and 4 to explain the ecological or conservation significance of each species (e.g., keystone species, endangered status, role in ecosystem services). Provide a clear rationale for including these species, such as their representation of broader taxonomic groups or their ecological importance in arid ecosystems.

4.     While the manuscript mentions various restoration methods (e.g., agroforestry, afforestation, grazing management), the discussion lacks depth and critical analysis. For instance, the potential ecological risks of large-scale afforestation (e.g., invasive species, water-table depletion) are not adequately addressed. The authors could further discuss and compare different nature-based solutions and engineered approaches, and evaluate their scalability and socioecological impacts.

 

Minor Comments

1.     Figure 2 change “Articles” to “Research articles” for clarity

2.     Figures 5 suffer from low resolution and lacks a north arrow and a scale bar. To improve readability, use vector graphics or adjust the layout accordingly.

3.     Table 1: Clarify what "total link strength" measures (e.g., co-citation links, keyword co-occurrence).

4.     L680 Ref 132 is in the wrong format (only providing a URL). Align it with the journal's citation guidelines.

5.     Correct grammatical errors throughout the manuscript (e.g., "urmat de Spanish" should be "followed by Spanish"; "pe glob" in Table 3 likely means "globally").

 

Considering the above review comments, I recommend that the authors make the suggested revisions for a major revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need to be proved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

There were no comments here, thank you !

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a good effort to address the comments and have made some improvements in the manuscript. Despite this, I think there should still be some additional information added about the screening process – for instance, the authors have stated the number of relevant papers included in the review but do not mention how many were returned in the original search before the papers were screened to decide if they were relevant. Similarly, there is no specific list of the final papers included in the study and no list of excluded papers with reasons why each paper was excluded. These are standard measures for good literature reviews but are currently missing. Additionally, I don’t think that the review has been conducted in the most thorough way e.g. only one author screened each paper and there was no measure of the levels of agreement between authors, even on just a subset of the papers. The inclusion criteria are also vague, rather than relating to specific PECO elements of the question.

The authors have written on lines 137-139: ‘The second part of the study applied a classic review approach, involving an in-depth examination of numerous published articles. Additionally, Google Scholar was used to conduct a detailed analysis of the articles in this section.’ – what does this mean? How many published articles were involved in the ‘in-depth examination’ because ‘numerous’ is not specific enough? How was Google Scholar utilized for this purpose?

In Response 10 in the authors’ responses, they state that ‘The research areas were decided by the program and not by us: when we performed the search for data analysis on Web of Science, these automatic allocations appeared (probably based on the content of the articles).’ – it is not particularly reassuring that the authors do not know for certain how these allocations occur and are only speculating.

Line 174-176 – ‘the number of articles has increased significantly, reaching 70-90 articles per year (Figure 2.c)’ – if the number of articles has increased significantly, there should be an associated p-value/statistical test reported here. If this has not been statistically tested then the word ‘significantly’ should not be used

Some of the text throughout the new version looks like it is mistakenly formatted in bold

It is good to see a limitations section added to the discussion but it does not actually discuss any of the limitations of the review design (some of which I have outlined above), and instead just points out the gaps in the existing research.

Author Response

Coments 1

The authors have made a good effort to address the comments and have made some improvements in the manuscript. Despite this, I think there should still be some additional information added about the screening process – for instance, the authors have stated the number of relevant papers included in the review but do not mention how many were returned in the original search before the papers were screened to decide if they were relevant.

Response 1

In the first query using the terms "conservation biodiversity in arid areas", we obtained a database with 955 articles (Sheet 1 - Non-published Material). In the second query using the terms "conservation biodiversity in drylands", we obtained a database with 211 articles (Sheet 2-Non-published Material). By merging these two databases and removing duplicates, articles without an abstract, or those unrelated to the analyzed topic, a total of 852 articles remained (Sheet 3-Non-published Material). Among these, 90 articles (highlighted in green in Sheet 3) were analyzed in detail in Chapter 3.2.

We have now mentioned in the Methods section the number of articles found through the two queries.

Comments 2

Similarly, there is no specific list of the final papers included in the study and no list of excluded papers with reasons why each paper was excluded.

Response 2

We have attached the table with the articles related to this topic (Non-published Material). Articles excluded from the analysis, along with the explanation for their exclusion, are marked in red (Sheet 3), while articles included in the analysis in Chapter 3.2, A Classical Review, are marked in green.

Comments 3

These are standard measures for good literature reviews but are currently missing. Additionally, I don’t think that the review has been conducted in the most thorough way e.g. only one author screened each paper and there was no measure of the levels of agreement between authors, even on just a subset of the papers. The inclusion criteria are also vague, rather than relating to specific PECO elements of the question.

Response 3

We consulted with the entire team to determine the key terms to include in our search. We adjusted this phrase based on the number of articles found, ensuring that there was a sufficiently large number to allow for a proper interpretation of the data. As specific PECO elements of the question, we used the terms: conservation (the action), biodiversity (the subject), and arid areas or drylands (the general location).

We preferred that only one author select the representative articles to ensure consistency in the process (when multiple authors are involved, differences in interpretation may arise—after all, it is about selecting certain articles from a broader list). However, the analysis and interpretation of these articles were carried out by multiple authors, and the final verification of the article was done by all authors.

Thank you for your valuable suggestions—we have learned a lot from them, especially regarding the organization of work in a review-type article. We assure you that in our future articles, we will take these aspects into account, as we were previously unaware of them.

Comments 4

The authors have written on lines 137-139: ‘The second part of the study applied a classic review approach, involving an in-depth examination of numerous published articles. Additionally, Google Scholar was used to conduct a detailed analysis of the articles in this section.’ – what does this mean? How many published articles were involved in the ‘in-depth examination’ because ‘numerous’ is not specific enough? How was Google Scholar utilized for this purpose?

Response 4

We have selected a total of 90 articles (see attached Excel table) for a detailed analysis. Google Scholar was used both to review these articles and to identify additional ones relevant to the discussions (including those not strictly related to the chosen keywords). We have revised the paragraph to indicate the number of selected articles and the use of Google Scholar.

Comments 5

In Response 10 in the authors’ responses, they state that ‘The research areas were decided by the program and not by us: when we performed the search for data analysis on Web of Science, these automatic allocations appeared (probably based on the content of the articles).’ – it is not particularly reassuring that the authors do not know for certain how these allocations occur and are only speculating.

Response 5

We searched the internet, and in the end, we got the answer from AI. We asked:

When asking a list of published articles on Web of Science how were decided the research areas?

In Web of Science, the research areas for published articles are determined based on journal classification and indexing policies rather than being assigned by authors or individual articles. Here’s how it works:

1. Journal Categories: Each journal indexed in Web of Science is assigned to one or more Web of Science Categories based on its scope, editorial policies, and the research topics it covers.
2. Database Classification: Web of Science databases (e.g., Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index) classify journals into predefined subject categories.
3. Algorithmic and Curatorial Methods: Articles inherit the research area(s) based on the classification of the journal in which they are published. In some cases, additional classification is applied based on keywords, citations, and content analysis.
4. Multidisciplinary Assignments: If a journal spans multiple research fields, its articles may be associated with multiple research areas.

If you're retrieving a list of articles from Web of Science and seeing specific research areas, these were primarily assigned based on the journal's classification in the database rather than a manual selection per article.

Comments 6

Line 174-176 – ‘the number of articles has increased significantly, reaching 70-90 articles per year (Figure 2.c)’ – if the number of articles has increased significantly, there should be an associated p-value/statistical test reported here. If this has not been statistically tested then the word ‘significantly’ should not be used

Response 6

I removed the word "significantly"

Comments 6

Some of the text throughout the new version looks like it is mistakenly formatted in bold

Response 6

The text in the new version has been formatted accordingly

 

Comments 7

It is good to see a limitations section added to the discussion but it does not actually discuss any of the limitations of the review design (some of which I have outlined above), and instead just points out the gaps in the existing research.

Response 7

Response 7 - I added to Chapter 4.3. considerations regarding the limitations of the review design.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript demonstrates significant improvement and now approaches the standards suitable for publication in Sustainability. While the authors have adequately addressed most previous concerns, I would like to propose three final refinements to enhance scientific rigor:

1. The regression analysis in Figure 2c requires explicit reporting of the exact p-value
2. The spatial representation in Figure 2d should include essential map elements (north arrow and scale bar or latitude/longitude gridlines with coordinate labels) to meet geographic visualization standards:
3. While the current table format is technically acceptable, I strongly recommend adopting the conventional three-line table format (with horizontal rules only at the header, mid-section, and bottom) to align with prevalent scientific presentation standards

Author Response

The revised manuscript demonstrates significant improvement and now approaches the standards suitable for publication in Sustainability. While the authors have adequately addressed most previous concerns, I would like to propose three final refinements to enhance scientific rigor:

Comments 1

The regression analysis in Figure 2c requires explicit reporting of the exact p-value

Response 1

We added this value in the picture

Comments 2

The spatial representation in Figure 2d should include essential map elements (north arrow and scale bar or latitude/longitude gridlines with coordinate labels) to meet geographic visualization standards:

Response 2

Figure 2d has been completed to meet geographic visualization standards

 

 

Comments 3

While the current table format is technically acceptable, I strongly recommend adopting the conventional three-line table format (with horizontal rules only at the header, mid-section, and bottom) to align with prevalent scientific presentation standards

Response 3

The format of the tables has been changed according to the recommendation

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

NA