Mapping Ecological Infrastructure in a Cross-Border Regional Context
, Nicolas Wyler 2, Benjamin Guinaudeau 1, Noé Waller 2, Loreto Urbina 3, Laurent Huber 3, Claude Fischer 3 and Anthony Lehmann 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After carefully reading the manuscript, I think the topic of this manuscript is meaningful. Following should be carefully considered:
1. Introduction
The introduction needs to be thoroughly revised. Suggested additions: (1) Research progress on IDENTIFYING GIs, results obtained, and shortcomings. Please clearly state what is the RESEARCH GAP in this research area; (2) Why is the methodology of IDENTIFY GIs improved in this paper? What is the possible CONTRIBUTION of this work? (3) Why was a cross-border regional context chosen as the research area? What are the special characteristics?
2 Method for mapping the ecological infrastructure
This section is one of the main focuses of this paper and the authors have spent a lot of ink on it. It is recommended that the authors add relevant cited literature in the section line 104-116. Why does it consist of four main columns? Although the author mentions two papers that can be referenced in the text, it is necessary to give the reader a simple introduction to the conceptual structure of the assessment framework. It would be nice to add a diagram of the structure of the assessment method.
3. Conclusion
Please streamline this section.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments, here are our responses :
1. Introduction
The introduction needs to be thoroughly revised. Suggested additions: (1) Research progress on IDENTIFYING GIs, results obtained, and shortcomings. Please clearly state what is the RESEARCH GAP in this research area; (2) Why is the methodology of IDENTIFY GIs improved in this paper? What is the possible CONTRIBUTION of this work? (3) Why was a cross-border regional context chosen as the research area? What are the special characteristics?
The introduction was revised. (1) a paragraph resuming research progress has been added as well as the main research gaps, both ideas were largely developed in a previous article that was cited. (2) A better justification on how the methodology is improved here was added, it includes the exhaustive work regarding the selection and calculation of the inputs used to identify the GI. The possible contribution is to serve as a baseline for other authors to identify their own GI. (3) The cross-border territory was chosen because of its biogeographical consistency and its characteristics are further developed in chapter 2.1.
2 Method for mapping the ecological infrastructure
This section is one of the main focuses of this paper and the authors have spent a lot of ink on it. It is recommended that the authors add relevant cited literature in the section line 104-116. Why does it consist of four main columns? Although the author mentions two papers that can be referenced in the text, it is necessary to give the reader a simple introduction to the conceptual structure of the assessment framework. It would be nice to add a diagram of the structure of the assessment method.
References were added to the paragraph and the method justified. A new figure was added representing the main workflow for more clarity.
3. Conclusion
Please streamline this section.
The conclusion was reorganised and modified.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. L 10-12- Remove this definition from the abstract and place it in the introduction, beginning the second paragraph.
2. Please check the parenthesis in intoduction. Some are given with dots.
3. Many data in figure 1 is not clear, please use a high-resolution picture.
4. Some unnecessary punctuation marks have been observed throughout the text please check and fix it (eg: L388).
5. Please paraphrase the sentence 36-38, 70-75.
6. The introductory part could have ended a little better. The sentence 95-102 seem apt for introductory part.
7. Please go thorough the entire manuscript for grammatical errors.
8. I suggest the authors to check the entire reference format and make it uniform (eg: ref no 8, 9 etc.)
9. L 184-185- Please Paraphrase
10. L 264-265- Include the common name of the species and mention why they are selected for the analysis?
11. L 287-288, 323-325- Add references.
12. L 339- Do you mean species richness?
Minor refinements required
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments, here are our responses :
- L 10-12- Remove this definition from the abstract and place it in the introduction, beginning the second paragraph.
This was corrected
- Please check the parenthesis in intoduction. Some are given with dots.
These « dots » were missing parts of the citation but we removed them for clarity
- Many data in figure 1 is not clear, please use a high-resolution picture.
The figure was improved
- Some unnecessary punctuation marks have been observed throughout the text please check and fix it (eg: L388).
These were corrected across the papers with some other small typos.
- Please paraphrase the sentence 36-38, 70-75.
These were changed to: “Biological diversity decline might ultimately alter ecosystem functions such as productivity, stabilitystability, and resilience, jeopardizing our food and water security as well as our socio-economic well-being.”
And
“This article is focusing on the prioritisation of the GI network covering 30% of the territory of a regional cross-border agglomeration between France and Switzerland named “Greater Geneva”. This region is located in the European Alps and in the area of economic influence of the city of Geneva. This particular transboundary setting generated several issues that were addressed by the research questions presented be-low.
- The introductory part could have ended a little better. The sentence 95-102 seem apt for introductory part.
This section was moved at the end of the introduction.
- Please go thorough the entire manuscript for grammatical errors.
The entire manuiscript was revised and several grammatical errors were indeed corrected.
- I suggest the authors to check the entire reference format and make it uniform (eg: ref no 8, 9 etc.)
References were unified.
- L 184-185- Please Paraphrase
We changed to : “Pollinators are highly important for crops pollination and, in consequences, for our food provision”
- L 264-265- Include the common name of the species and mention why they are selected for the analysis?
We added the common names: “Three species were selected for these analyses: Cervus elaphus L. (red deer), Capreolus capreolus L. (roe deer), and Lepus europaeus P. (European hare).”
- L 287-288, 323-325- Add references.
References were added and colleagues in charge of this part of the work were also added as co-authors. One of the article is still not published.
- Urbina, L., Fischer, C. Ray, N. and Lehmann, A., 2023. Modelling red deer functional connectivity at regional scale in a human dominated landscape. Front. Environ. Sci. - Conservation and Restoration Ecology.
- Urbina, L., Lehmann, A, Huber, L. and Fischer, C., in prep. Combining multi-species connectivity modelling with expert knowledge to inform the green infrastructure design. In preparation.
12. L 339- Do you mean species richness?
Yes, this was corrected.
