Multitemporal Incidence of Landscape Fragmentation in a Protected Area of Central Andean Ecuador
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Multitemporal incidence of landscape fragmentation in a protected area of central Andean Ecuador.
The aim of this study is to estimate, in a National Park, spatiotemporal changes in the landscape and the level of fragmentation, using remote sensing
The article is interesting, but some aspects are confused and not so well described in the methodology. Specially the selection of only 3 years and the “ground observations”. Could be useful to reread the section in order to clarify and order some aspects
Although English is not my first language, I suggest reviewing some grammatical and language aspects.
Abstract: OK.
Abstract is clear and concise with all the essentials included.
Introduction:
Line 34: “ [8].substantially that impact the landscape over space and time [2].” check for grammar.
Lines 36 to 39: Not all agricultural expansions cause negative impacts. Good management of agriculture in non-natural areas would probably contribute to improving the capacity of degraded soils to store carbon.
Lin 68: “sequestration [15]. [20] classify ecosystem” check for grammar.
Line 75-77 is repeated in line 83-85.
Line 85 “more updated maps [31] Perfect for” check for grammar.
Line 88: “foothill forests, According” check for grammar.
Materials and Methods
Line 122: Only three images used? Why is that? Please explain.
it is also not clear why the authors selected those years. I guess 1991 was selected to have some years before the protected area declaration (I recommend putting this in the text) but why 2016?
Line 123: what is “minimal cloud cover possible”
? % of cover? Explain.
2.3. Supervised classification. “training phase for supervised classification consisted of selecting pixels that represent known patterns based on knowledge of the study area”. Please, explain better. Generally, for this type of methodologies, recent known uses are used to ensure the correct training. How many pixels were used? From which year? Were they homogenous between classes?
2.4. Post classification. Ground truth are those “known pixels”, are they? Please explain better this item too.
2.5. Landscape metrics and indices. As I understand from the reading, some indices were redundant base on Kankam et al. 2022. If that is so, why you calculated them in the first place?
Please clarify why the selected indices were selected.
Results
In general, check for some paragraphs that are not results and must be in Conclusion or discussion section (lines 341-354 for example).
Line 216: is already explain in the Material and Methods section.
Line 229: “do not change significantly”. Do you have metrics of this?
Table 2. Kappa (k) coefficient and overall accuracy of the supervised classification: Those values are not presented in the table.
Line 255-257: values are not shown
If you choose to display the data by graph, please put the actual data as an attachment at least.
Line 313: Change Table 1 for Table 3. Table 1 is line 188. Please explain that RC in the table is rate of change. Tables and figures must be self-explained. Check the table carefully: RC are in %? LEI: if areas are small, put them in m2 instead of km2.
Line 357: correct the table number. Some comments as in the previous table.
Line 366: correct the table number. Some comments as in the previous table.
Line 384: correct the figure number
Line 401: correct the figure number
Discussion
Line 423: check for format
Line 425 “the most "abrupt" changes within the three watersheds occur in most cases outside of the protected area boundaries.” It was not clear to me that analysis were made inside and outside the protected are. If that is so, please explain it better in methodology and results.
When they refer to the basin, it is not clear if the authors refer to the total area of the basin or de protected area. Please specify that.
Conclusions
Line 527: check for format
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
As authors of the manuscript “Multitemporal incidence of landscape fragmentation in a protected area of central Andean Ecuador.”, we appreciated a lot your suggestions and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. Below, we will detail the changes made and you will be able to find them all exposed and answered since the responses to each suggestion and comment are given in cursive while your comments appear in bold style. We also confirm that the writing in English has been thoroughly reviewed and accordingly improved, where needed.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please improve the resolution of the figures.
Author Response
As authors of the manuscript “Multitemporal incidence of landscape fragmentation in a protected area of central Andean Ecuador.”. We confirm that the writing in English has been thoroughly reviewed and accordingly improved, and the quality of the figures..
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It’s my pleasure to review this manuscript. I recommend accepting this manuscript after moderate revisions to address the following general and specific comments.
General comments:
1. English writing: The English writing of this manuscript should be improved thoroughly. The issues include the choice of words, grammar issues, and the structure of sentences. I suggest the authors ask some native English speakers to edit the language or use some English editing software (e.g., Grammarly).
2. I am very eager to read the latest papers in this field, so I found some papers (be sure I am not one of the authors of the following papers), that authors can use to enrich the introduction and discussion sections about the protected area and land use and land cover change. For example:
** https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710956 (LULC changes in a semiarid Protected Area over 30 years)
** https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010006 (Habitat integrity in Protected Areas threatened by LULC changes and fragmentation).
Specific comments:
Abstract:
L 16: Be specific; which kind of satellite was used?
L 17-19: "From the land covers, several metrics and landscape indices were calculated using Patch Analyst and IndiFrag software to evaluate fragmentation in three watersheds associated with the PNL". I prefer to delete this part.
L 23-24: "Therefore, with these results it has been concluded that the biodiversity and landscape conservation processes in the PNL are effective" To be specific, which kinds of conservation processes are used in PNL?
Introduction:
L 65: Add more citations.
L 66-68: "Thus, the conservation of ecosystems is vital, as they provide several services such as the regulation of water sources and regional climate patterns, and carbon sequestration". Its redundant with first paragraph; revise or remove it.
L 81-85: The application of Remote sensing in a protected area for LULC should be highlighted more. Also, add some citations here, as a literature review.
Materials and Methods:
L 143: What is the reason for using Supervised classification? Also, add more citations for this.
Results:
This part is clear and well-organized.
Discussion:
Overall this part needs more citations to compare with other findings.
Conclusion:
This part is too long. Try to focus on your key findings, implications, and future direction. Do not talk about general statement.
Author Response
As authors of the manuscript “Multitemporal incidence of landscape fragmentation in a protected area of central Andean Ecuador.”, we appreciated a lot your suggestions and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. Below, we will detail the changes made and you will be able to find them all exposed and answered since the responses to each suggestion and comments are given in cursive while your comments appear in bold style. We also confirm that the writing in English has been thoroughly reviewed and accordingly improved, where needed.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I consider the contribution to be a seriously processed time-space analysis of the land cover of a large protected area using new methods of remote sensing, GIS and then statistical methods. Despite the detected minimal or zero changes in the landscape cover, it would be appropriate to mention the possible effects of natural threats on the landscape. In areas with a relatively exposed relief, the occurrence of morphodynamic events that can change the nature of the landscape cover on a large scale is assumed.
Author Response
As authors of the manuscript “Multitemporal incidence of landscape fragmentation in a protected area of central Andean Ecuador.”, we appreciated a lot your suggestions and comments on the document, as we are certain and convinced, that they have been useful to enrich the fluency and clarity of the entire article. Below, we will detail the changes made and you will be able to find them all exposed and answered since the responses to each suggestion and comments are given in cursive while your comments appear in bold style. We also confirm that the writing in English has been thoroughly reviewed and accordingly improved, where needed.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Congra!
