Spatiotemporal Evolution and Mechanisms of Habitat Quality in Nature Reserve Land: A Case Study of 18 Nature Reserves in Hubei Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Introduction: The study provides a comprehensive analysis of habitat quality within nature reserves in Hubei Province, China, which is crucial given the increasing human impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The research context is well-established, highlighting the importance of understanding land use changes and their effects on habitat quality. However, the manuscript could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the specific challenges faced by the nature reserves in Hubei Province, such as the unique ecological pressures and conservation efforts in the region.

2. Literature Review: The literature review synthesizes previous research to frame the current study. However, it could be improved by including more recent studies that directly relate to the Hubei Province context, as well as a critical analysis of the limitations of existing research that the current study aims to address.

3. Methods: The methodology is robust, utilizing a combination of land use transition matrices, the InVEST model, and Geodetector software to analyze habitat quality and its influencing factors. However, it could provide more detail on the validation of the InVEST model's habitat quality assessments, as the accuracy of the model's predictions is critical to the study's conclusions.

4. Results & Discussion: The discussion effectively interprets the results in the context of the study's objectives and relates them to broader ecological and conservation implications. It also identifies the potential for policy implications. However, the discussion could be improved by addressing the potential biases introduced by the study's methodology, such as the reliance on remote sensing data and the assumptions made in the InVEST model.

5. Conclusion: The conclusion could be strengthened by providing more specific recommendations for policy and management, such as targeted conservation strategies or land use planning adjustments.

Overall, this research could be improved by addressing the points mentioned above, particularly in terms of methodological validation, critical analysis of the literature, and the presentation of results and conclusions.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank you for all your insightful comments and suggestions on the manuscript. As for our responses, please kindly see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work they developed is important and necessary to understand the dynamics of land use change in national reserves. However, there are several issues that need to be taken into account. Comments are presented below:

Introduction

Integrate the hypotheses of the research work.

Line 154 to 156: Explain why or which standards the excluded nature reserves did not meet.

Results and analysis 

Line 321: "significant regional differences" present the p-value demonstrating the significance of regional differences.

Line 399 to 400: Revise the wording, this seems to correspond to the methods section.

Line 403: "significant internal differentiation is apparent", submit p-value showing significant differentiation.

Lines 432 to 441: Revise. This does not appear to be results, it corresponds to methods.

Lines 496 to 498: Revise. The wording appears to be introduction.

Lines 498 to 502: Revise. The wording corresponds to the methods section.

*In general, the discussion in this section should be improved, and the discussion should be supported by references.

* Include a section dealing with "practical applications" of the results obtained.

Conclusion

Lines 631 to 646: No conclusions are presented here, this looks like a summary of the introduction and methods.

Lines 647 to 697: What is presented here corresponds to a summary version of the results.

Lines 709 to 722: What is presented are limitations of the research, which do not correspond to conclusions, these can be integrated into the discussion. 

*Redraft the conclusions of the research. These should be elaborated in relation to the objectives, research hypotheses (not presented) and the results of the study.

References

There are many and they are not cited in the text. Review and cite only the most relevant ones.

Only minor language revision is required.        .

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank you for all your insightful comments and suggestions on the manuscript. As for our responses, please kindly see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A few questions and remarks on the article by Lin et al. “Spatiotemporal evolution and mechanism of habitat quality 1 in nature reserves land: a case study of 18 nature reserves in Hubei Province”.

The objective of creating reserves is to protect and preserve distinct areas, unique plant and animal species, and biodiversity. Any form of economic activity is forbidden by law in nature reserves. Perhaps these are national peculiarities of Chinese legislation, and economic activity is permitted in reserves, as is a change in land use. Please, could you clarify this?

Indigenous activity factors and tourism service factor. Which units and how were these factors measured?

Was only one factor taken as a policy regulatory factor? Factor “the policy of returning farmland to forest”? How was this factor assessed?

Abstract. The area of forest land has increased slightly, the area of cultivated and construction lands has minor increased, while the area of grassland and water bodies has decreased significantly. The land area that has greatly increased (due to the loss of water bodies and grassland) is unclear. Please explain.

The manuscript does not provide adequate information regarding the natural reserves that were the focus of the research. Could you provide some basic information on these natural reserves, such as the area they cover, when they were established, and why they were created (i.e., what is the aim of protection)? This will enable us to comprehend the results of your investigation more fully.

The manuscript does not contain any discussion. Add a Discussion section to the article.

Add research limitations to the Discussion section.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank you for all your insightful comments and suggestions on the manuscript. As for our responses, please kindly see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The study addresses the critical issue of habitat quality within nature reserves, which is essential for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem health. It is particularly relevant given the increasing human activities and rapid urbanization that threaten natural ecosystems. The case study of 18 nature reserves in Hubei Province, China, provides a microcosm for understanding the broader implications of land use changes on habitat quality.

1. The research topic is highly relevant and timely, focusing on the critical issue of habitat quality in nature reserves. However, the manuscript could benefit from a more explicit statement of the research's originality and how it contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

2. The background provides a good overview of the importance of biodiversity and the challenges faced by nature reserves, it lacks a detailed discussion on the specific ecological and socio-economic context of Hubei Province. A more nuanced understanding of the region's unique characteristics would strengthen the study's foundation.

3. The methodology is comprehensive, utilizing a combination of established models and tools. However, there is a lack of transparency in the selection and application of these methods. The manuscript would benefit from a clearer explanation of the rationale behind the chosen methods and how they were adapted to the study's specific needs.

4. The use of GlobeLand30 data and other datasets is commendable, but the manuscript does not provide sufficient information on the data's quality, resolution, and temporal coverage.

5. The literature review is extensive, but it lacks a critical analysis of the cited works. The manuscript would be improved by discussing the limitations of previous studies and how the current research addresses these gaps.

6. The results section presents a clear analysis of the spatiotemporal changes in habitat quality. However, the manuscript could be more critical in interpreting these findings, considering potential confounding factors and alternative explanations for the observed trends.

7. The discussion attempts to link the results to broader ecological and conservation issues. However, it falls short in providing concrete recommendations for management and policy. The manuscript would benefit from a more in-depth discussion on how the findings can be applied in practice, including potential challenges and limitations.

Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the dynamics of habitat quality in nature reserves. However, the manuscript would be strengthened by addressing the aforementioned shortcomings, particularly in terms of methodological transparency, data quality, critical analysis of the literature, and practical applications of the results.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank you for all your insightful comments and suggestions on the manuscript. As for our responses, please kindly see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The corrections are adequate; However, the following is suggested:

- Delete lines 727 to 743, this does not correspond to the conclusions section.

- Lines 752 to 782 do not correspond to conclusions, this corresponds to discussion. Move to discussion and complement with references.

Check style.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank you for all your insightful comments and suggestions on the manuscript. As for our responses, please kindly see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

All questions and comments from the previous round of reviews have been addressed. The manuscript has been carefully revised.

Author Response

Your comments have given us great encouragement and motivation to continue to engage in relevant research. We sincerely thank you for your support. We wish you all the best.