Construction and Optimization of an Ecological Network in Funiu Mountain Area Based on MSPA and MCR Models, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is not a hypothesis driven study, but an evaluation of ecological landscape stability as suggested by a multi-model evaluation. The results are one of many possible outcomes based on the limitations put on the modeling data. Therefore, the appropriateness of the outcome is based on those initial decisions, or decisions made during the modeling procedure.

 

Line 37-38:  Delete “Through the continuous exploration of many countries,”

 

Line 39: Delete “from”

 

Introduction: Provides a sufficient justification for the study.

 

The English is excellent.

 

It is not clear what is the difference between forest and woodland categories. Can this be clarified?

 

Understanding that this is a multi-model generated evaluation of landscape connectivity, a number of questions arise. However, the authors do a good job of addressing any questions I had in the Discussion.

 

I recommend publication after very minor additions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper needs to be improved in the following aspects：

1.Authors should further enrich the content of the introduction, especially noting that research questions should be raised in the first or last paragraph of the introduction.

2. The authors' research is normative, but there are too many similar studies, and they need to clarify their innovative points in this study.

3. Please ensure that each letter in the formula has a unique explanation.

4. The countermeasures and suggestions proposed by the authors are not targeted. I suggest that authors should come up with more creative suggestions.

5. The authors need to propose future research directions based on the limitations of this study. The author's innovation regarding this study is key to the publication of this study in the Land journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Congratulations for your research manuscript. I don't have many suggestions, since your study is accurate and well written.

In my opinion, with some small adjustments, the article can be published, i.e.:

1. You need to check again and improve "Research methods". For example, you have Equation 1 (row 178), then Equations 7-10 (rows 204-207). Where are the other equations (2-6)? Also, you need to pay attention to their format and terms explanation.

2.  Tables are too small, plese use the entire page format.

3. Format issues, like:

- you usually don't use superscript and subscript - please correct;

- row 111 - "as follows:"

- rows 173-203 - you used alignment Left, instead of Justify.

4. REFERENCES!!!!!! The titles seem to be a collection of papers collected from different places. Use the same structure, italic for the journal's name, bold for the publication year and so on.

I hope my suggestions are helpful for you and i wish you good luck!

Best wishes,

Good quality English, no remarks here.

Pay attention to spaces, sometimes they are missing, especially between figures and measurements units.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I considered this article could be accepted in the present form.