Reconciling Urban Expansion with Biodiversity: Habitat Dynamics and Ecological Connectivity in Xiong’an New Area’s Full-Cycle Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Reconciling Urban Expansion with Biodiversity: Habitat Dy- 2 namics and Ecological Connectivity in Xiong’an New Area’s 3 Full-Cycle Development.

The article is very good and needs only a few corrections.

Title

Comment: Original and new idea

Abstract

This study conducts an in-depth analysis of the evolution of various wildlife migra- 19 tion corridors throughout the full-cycle construction of Xiong’an New Area (Xiong’an) in 20 China, revealing the impact of urbanization on these networks. This study highlights sig- 21 nificant changes in wildlife habitats in Xiong'an New Area during urbanization. Add the methodology.

Comment: italic for scientific names.

Comment: add some limits and built new perspectives.

Introduction

Very good

Only respect the form of references

Methodology

Figure 2. This flowchart outlines the methodology for constructing and analyzing an ecological net- 175 work. It encompasses a series of steps including data collection, preprocessing, feature extraction, 176 and model building, all of which are integral to creating the network and assessing its resilience to 177 stress. Results or methodology.

Results

Very clear

Discussion

Please add comparative examples

Add a section for conservation recommendations

Conclusion

Very long. Reduce it to include the most important conclusions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback and valuable suggestions regarding our manuscript titled "Reconciling Urban Expansion with Biodiversity: Habitat Dynamics and Ecological Connectivity in Xiong’an New Area’s Full-Cycle Development." We are pleased that you found the article to be very good and appreciate your constructive comments, which will help us further improve the quality of the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your commentss and describe the corresponding revisions made.

 

Title

Comment 1: Original and new idea
Response 1: We thank you for recognizing the originality and novelty of our title. We have retained it as it effectively conveys the core focus of our study—reconciling urban expansion with biodiversity conservation in the context of Xiong’an New Area's full-cycle development.

 

Abstract

Comment 2: This study conducts an in-depth analysis of the evolution of various wildlife migration corridors throughout the full-cycle construction of Xiong’an New Area (Xiong’an) in China, revealing the impact of urbanization on these networks. This study highlights significant changes in wildlife habitats in Xiong'an New Area during urbanization. Add the methodology.

Response 2: To address the first comment, we have added a brief description of the methodology used in the abstract. Specifically, we mention the application of circuit theory and network resilience assessment to analyze the dynamics of ecological connectivity.

Comment 3: Italicize scientific names.

Response 3: Regarding the second comment, we have italicized all scientific names of species mentioned in the abstract (e.g., Sus scrofa, Bufo gargarizans, and Parus minor).

Comment 4: Add some limits and build new perspectives.

Response 4: For the third comment, we have acknowledged the limitations of our study, such as reliance on simulated resistance factors and uncertainties in future planning data. Additionally, we have highlighted how our study offers new perspectives by integrating full-cycle urban development with ecological network analysis.

 

Introduction

Comment 5: Very good. Only respect the form of references.

Response 5: We appreciate your positive feedback on the introduction. We have carefully reviewed and corrected the formatting of all references to ensure compliance with the journal's guidelines.

 

Methodology

Comment 6: Figure 2. This flowchart outlines the methodology for constructing and analyzing an ecological network. It encompasses a series of steps including data collection, preprocessing, feature extraction, and model building, all of which are integral to creating the network and assessing its resilience to stress. Results or methodology?

Response 6: We have clarified the purpose of Figure 2 in the revised manuscript. The figure indeed represents the methodology of our study, not the results. We have emphasized that this flowchart illustrates the key steps involved in constructing and analyzing the ecological network, including data collection, preprocessing, feature extraction, and model building. These steps are essential for assessing the resilience of the network under stress.

 

Results

Comment 7: Very clear.

Response 7:
Thank you for acknowledging the clarity of our results section. No changes were necessary here.

 

Discussion

Comment 8: Please add comparative examples.

Response 8: For the first comment, we have included comparative examples from other cities or regions facing similar challenges in urban biodiversity conservation. For instance, we discuss the "Green Belt" initiative in Berlin, Germany, and the "Green Grid" plan in Barcelona, Spain, as successful models for establishing green corridors and enhancing urban biodiversity.

Comment 9: Add a section for conservation recommendations.

Response 9: For the second comment, we have added a dedicated section on conservation recommendations. In this section, we propose strategies such as establishing wildlife corridors, protecting key habitats, and implementing sustainable urban planning practices to enhance biodiversity in Xiong’an New Area.

 

Conclusion

Comment 10: Very long. Reduce it to include the most important conclusions.

Response 10: We have significantly shortened the conclusion to focus on the most critical findings, including the significant increase in habitat areas and migration routes for Sus scrofa, Bufo gargarizans, and Parus minor, the initial surge and subsequent decline of ecological pinch points during urbanization, and the recovery of ecosystem resilience over time.We have removed any redundant information to ensure the conclusion is concise and impactful.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Reconciling Urban Expansion with Biodiversity: Habitat Dynamics and Ecological Connectivity in Xiong’an New Area’s Full-Cycle Development No. land-3491872” displays a case study attempt by reconciling urban development and biodiversity. The study assessed the habitats, habitat areas, dispersal routes, pinchpoints, ecological connectivity index of three species from full cycles, which is good to planning and construction of Biodiversity-Friendly cities. The study is well prepared and fits the scopes of the Journal of Land. I have some comments to perfect it.

 

So many wildlife species in Xiong’an New area. Why did current study select the Sus scrofa, Bufo gargarizans, and Parus minor? Please add the reasons.

 

The image of Bird in Figure 3-5 is not the “Parus minor”.

 

How to define the patch or region that is the suitable habitats for three species? And different species have the different habitat requirements. Please add.

 

Duo to the Xiong’an New area is relatively small, using “migration routes” for these three species is not suitable. So I suggest that “migration routes” could change to be “dispersal routes”.

 

So many references citations styles in the text is inconsistent. Such as Line 116, 118, 135, 141……

 

Abstract should add the implications based on the current study. And “This study highlights significant changes in wildlife habitats in Xiong'an New Area during urbanization” (Line 21-22) could delete.

 

Conclusion is too long the wordy. Clear conclusion should display the finding of the results, and the implications based on the current study, and should not write the analysis section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful comments and suggestions. We have made the corresponding modifications in the revised manuscript. Here are our comments-by-comments responses.

Comments 1: So many wildlife species in Xiong’an New area. Why did current study select the Sus scrofa, Bufo gargarizans, and Parus minor? Please add the reasons.

Response 1: Thank you for commentsing this out. We have selected these three species—Sus scrofa, Bufo gargarizans, and Parus minor—as representative species for our study due to their diverse habitat requirements and ecological roles. Sus scrofa represents terrestrial mammals and is indicative of habitat changes in forested and grassland areas. Bufo gargarizans, an amphibian, is highly sensitive to changes in aquatic and semi-aquatic environments, making it a key indicator of wetland ecosystem health. Parus minor, a common avian species, reflects the impact of urbanization on bird habitats and aerial migration routes. These species collectively provide a comprehensive view of how urbanization affects different facets of the ecosystem. We have added this explanation in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript.

Comments 2: The image of Bird in Figure 3-5 is not the “Parus minor”.

Response 2: We appreciate your diligence. We have carefully reviewed and replaced the image with the correct representation of Parus minor in Figures 5, 6, and 7.

Comments 3: How to define the patch or region that is the suitable habitats for three species? And different species have the different habitat requirements. Please add.

Response 3: Thank you for raising this important comments. We defined suitable habitats for each species based on their specific ecological requirements and preferences, considering factors such as food availability, shelter, breeding sites, and connectivity to other habitats. For Sus scrofa, suitable habitats include forests, grasslands, and areas with sufficient vegetation cover. Bufo gargarizans habitats are defined by proximity to water bodies, wetlands, and areas with high moisture levels. Parus minor habitats encompass woodlands, parks, and gardens with adequate tree cover and nesting sites. We have included a detailed description of these habitat requirements in the ‘Determination of Species and Their Habitats’ section of the revised manuscript.

Comments 4: Due to the Xiong’an New area is relatively small, using “migration routes” for these three species is not suitable. So I suggest that “migration routes” could change to be “dispersal routes”.

Response 4: We appreciate this suggestion. Considering the scale of the Xiong’an New Area, we agree that “dispersal routes” may be more appropriate. We have replaced “migration routes” with “dispersal routes” throughout the manuscript to better reflect the local scale of species movement.

Comments 5: So many references citations styles in the text is inconsistent. Such as Line 116, 118, 135, 141……

Response 5: Thank you for commentsing out the inconsistencies in our citations. We have thoroughly reviewed and standardized all citation styles in the text to ensure consistency and adherence to the journal's guidelines.

Comments 6: Abstract should add the implications based on the current study. And “This study highlights significant changes in wildlife habitats in Xiong'an New Area during urbanization” (Line 21-22) could delete.

Response 6: We appreciate your suggestion on improving the abstract. We have removed the specified line.

Comments 7: Conclusion is too long the wordy. Clear conclusion should display the finding of the results, and the implications based on the current study, and should not write the analysis section.

Response 7: Thank you for this feedback. We have revised the conclusion to be more concise and focused, highlighting the key findings and their implications, while removing any redundant analysis.