Review Reports - Multi-Scenario Assessment of Ecological Network Resilience and Community Clustering in the Yellow River Delta

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers

Thank you and the reviewers for your valuable comments and constructive suggestions on this research paper (manuscript No. [land-4038760]) in your busy schedule. These opinions are precise and profound, and play a vital role in improving the academic quality and preciseness of the paper. We have carefully read and responded to all comments on the manuscript one by one, and have comprehensively revised and improved the paper. The revised part is marked in red font in the paper for easy review.

The specific modification instructions and responses are reported as follows.

Several sentences are excessively long. For instance, in lines 332-334, the sentencestarting "To conclude, the EN's resilience evaluation framework integrates.. presents an overly complex object for the verb "integrates," incorporating two main indicators and their decline under attack scenarios with a lengthy conditional clause.

Please rephrase to separate the core elements being integrated from the conditions under which this integration is considered. This will improve clarity by breaking down the complex idea into more digestible parts.

Reply: thank the reviewers for their suggestions on this paragraph. I have fully adopted it and re split the sentence structure to make the paragraph easier to understand. See lines 353-356 in the returned draft for details.

The manuscript contains minor typographical errors and imprecise expressions. Forexample, "Date Sources" should be corrected to "Data Sources." A thorough proof read of the entire manuscript is recommended to identify and rectify all such errors.

Reply: thank the experts for their careful review. This typographical error was indeed caused by my carelessness. I feel very ashamed for this. I have carefully revised the manuscript in the revision, and reviewed the full text to try to avoid such low-level errors.

3.Table 1: Data Source Clarity: Table 1 includes descriptive text such as "Calculated from land use date" instead of providing specific data source names or citations. Please provide precise information about the data sources used. The "Resistance factor weight' is currently placed in Table 1. This element is more appropriately presented in

conjunction with the methodology or results related to resistance modeling, and it is suggested to be moved to Table 4.

4.There is inconsistency in the use of professional terminology. The terms "ecological cluster," "habitat cluster," "community," and "cluster" are used interchangeably to refer to the same concept. Recommendation: Please select a single, consistent term for this concept and apply it uniformly throughout the manuscript.

Reply: This is really a very good suggestion and very professional. I have adopted the opinions of experts and unified the professional terms of the full text. All are unified as "cluster".

Discussion of Limitations: The discussion or conclusion sections would benefit from afrank acknowledgment of the study's limitations. Consider including a discussion on aspects such as the inherent subjectivity in assigning weights to ecological resistance surfaces and the underlying assumptions of the simulated scenarios.

Reply: Thank you for your comments on the discussion part. Although the parameters of this study, such as the weight of ecological resistance surface and the setting of multi scenario simulation, are based on relevant research and policies as much as possible, as well as the expert scoring method, it is inevitable that there are limitations such as subjectivity in the parameter setting of the model. I have added relevant explanations in the discussion part, and please review them again. See lines 652-677 of the returned manuscript for details.

Limitations Regarding Extreme Climate Events: The PLUS model, as applied in this study, does not account for the impact of extreme climate events on land use. While effective for simulating gradual changes driven by socioeconomic and natural processes, the PLUS and Markov chain models are not designed to capture the abrupt shifts that can result from low-probability, high-impact events (e.g., major floods,tsunamis, sudden policy changes).This limitation should be explicitly stated and discussed in the manuscript, ideally within the limitations section.

Reply: thanks for the experts' opinions. I have fully adopted them and added relevant discussions in the returned manuscript, including but not limited to that plus did not consider the impact of extreme events on land use. For specific modifications, please see lines 652-677 of the returned manuscript.

7.The content and phrasing in the abstract and conclusion sections exhibit significantoverlap, diminishing the distinct summary and forward -looking value expected of a

Please refine and deepen the conclusion section by removing redundant information,.strengthening the interpretation of the results, and clearly articulating the study's broader implications and future outlook.

Reply: I think this opinion of the peer reviewer is very valuable, and it has pointed out the problem of the article. I did find that the conclusion is too repetitive with the abstract by re examining the article. It is necessary to refine the conclusion again. I have optimized the content of the conclusion in the return draft, deleted the information that is duplicate with the abstract, strengthened the interpretation of the research results, and highlighted the significance of the research. See lines 679-724 in the revision draft for details.

On line 265, relying on a single reference [13] is insufficient to fully support theweight assignment methodology employed in this paper. The assignment of weights is influenced by various factors, including research objectives, specific study content, and the unique natural and socioeconomic context of the study area. Please provide a more comprehensive justification for the weight assignment, potentially by referencing additional literature and elaborating on how these factors were considered in deter mining the weights.

Reply: thank the experts for their comments. The resistance weight here really needs more literature to support its rationality. This article does have the problem of thin literature quotation. The experts' opinions have been fully adopted, the references have been added, and the explanation of the resistance assignment method has been added. In the discussion part, the limitations of resistance assignment and resistance weight acquisition have also been added. Experts are also invited to see lines 271-286 of the returned manuscript and lines 652-677 of the discussion section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript focuses on the Yellow River Delta High-Efficiency Eco-Economic Zone, integrating multi-scenario land use simulation, ecological network construction, resilience assessment, and community detection, aiming to provide a scientific basis for the regional ecological security pattern. This work demonstrates a high degree of comprehensiveness and innovative potential.Overall, the research topic is important, the design framework is forward-looking, and the conclusions are enlightening for spatial planning. However, the manuscript still has considerable room for improvement in methodological rigor, the depth of results discussion, and the details of presentation.

The following comments and suggestions aim to further improve the paper and bring it up to publication standards.

1. Major Strengths

This research integrates "future scenario prediction (PLUS model) — ecological network construction (MSPA, Linkage Mapper) — network resilience assessment (complex network theory) — ecological cluster identification (community detection)" into a single research framework. This is an innovative point of this paper, breaking through the limitation of most studies that only focus on static patterns.

The study's conclusion that "ecological networks may exhibit greater resilience under urban development scenarios (UDS)" challenges conventional wisdom, suggesting that policymakers should prioritize optimizing ecological network structure in addition to protecting ecological land area.

The identification of different levels of ecological clusters and key nodes through community monitoring provides direct and visual spatial guidance for tiered and zoned ecological protection and restoration strategies, which has practical significance.

2.Recommendations for Revision

1. Methodology: Significantly enhanced transparency and reproducibility are needed (revision required)

The manuscript's methodological description lacks key information, affecting the reproducibility and scientific rigor of the study.

1.1 Basis for Key Parameters and Thresholds:

Problem: When identifying ecological source areas, the set minimum patch area of "1 km²" and distance threshold of "12 km" are core parameters, but the text does not explain the basis for their determination (e.g., are they based on the dispersal capacity of the target species? Or derived through sensitivity analysis?).

Recommendation: The ecological rationale for setting these key parameters or supporting references need to be clearly explained.

1.2 Weighting of Resistance Surfaces:

Problem: Table 4 lists the weights of various resistance factors (such as MSPA, land type, DEM, etc.), but does not describe the process of determining the weights.

Suggestion: Please explain in detail how the weights are generated. Was it based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), entropy weight method, or a combination of expert scoring? Please supplement the specific steps of this method or cite relevant literature.

1.3 Resilience Assessment Indicators:

Problem: The ecological meaning of the connectivity resilience (Rc) calculation formula in formula (3) (why is the denominator 3|Vi|-6?) is not explained.

Suggestion: Supplement the definition of this indicator, its application background in ecological network research, and discuss its advantages, disadvantages, and applicability compared to other connectivity indicators (such as probabilistic connectivity PC).

1.4 Cluster Importance Assessment Model:

Problem: The "comprehensive evaluation" model on which cluster classification relies is vaguely described. Recommendation: Clearly explain the formula for calculating the overall score, including whether each indicator (number of nodes, etc.) has been standardized, and whether a simple average or a weighted average is used for aggregation.

2. Results and Discussion Section: The explanation of core findings needs to be deepened (suggested revisions)

2.1 Explanation of the Mechanism of “UDS's Strongest Resilience”:

Problem: The explanation for this counterintuitive finding (“simplified network structure”) is somewhat weak.

Suggestion: Conduct a more in-depth analysis combining network topology indicators (such as changes in average path length and clustering coefficients). Simultaneously, explore whether this reflects a trade-off between efficiency and redundancy; i.e., does the UDS network sacrifice redundancy (robustness) for higher efficiency? This would deepen the discussion.

2.2 Specificity of Policy Recommendations:

Problem: The policy implications section could be more specific and actionable.

Suggestion: For the identified Level-1 cluster (Yellow River Estuary), more specific protection measures should be proposed (such as delineating core protection zones and restricting development activities). For “cross-cluster corridors” connecting different clusters, it should be explicitly recommended that they be designated as priority areas for ecological corridor construction, and specific engineering suggestions such as constructing ecological bridges and culverts could be proposed to reduce the obstructive effects of the transportation network.

3. Language and Format: Requires comprehensive polishing and proofreading (revision recommended)

The current English expression is clear but can be further optimized for greater conciseness. Professional polishing services are recommended, focusing on the accuracy of vocabulary collocation and the fluency of sentence structure.

4. Other Suggestions

Introduction: Adding background information on research related to "ecological network resilience" and "community detection" would make the literature review more balanced and further highlight the research's innovative points.

Data Availability Statement: Providing specific sources or DOI links for the main datasets, rather than just general statements like "publicly available."

5. Conclusion

The paper is cleverly conceived and has significant research value. Its strengths lie in its integrated analytical framework and insightful findings. However, the current version has major deficiencies in methodological rigor and room for improvement in the depth of the results discussion.

Suggestion: Major Revision

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English quality of the paper is good, possessing readability and comprehensibility. Grammar and syntax are generally correct, effectively conveying the core content, methods, and conclusions of the research. The use of technical terminology is generally accurate and appropriate.

However, to further enhance the paper's professionalism, fluency, and academic impact, a thorough polishing of the English is recommended. The current manuscript still has room for improvement in areas such as the precision of vocabulary selection and the optimization of sentence structure.

1. Precision in Vocabulary Selection

Some vocabulary choices could be more precise and formal to conform to the writing standards of high-level academic papers.

Example 1 (Original): "These findings will provide good guidance for managing landscape fragmentation..."

Comment and Suggestion: "good guidance" sounds slightly colloquial. In academic writing, it could be revised to "valuable insights" or "practical guidelines" to improve the quality of the text.

2. Standard Use of Articles and Singular/Plural Forms

There are a few instances of missing articles (a, an, the) or inconsistent use of singular and plural forms.

Example 2 (Original): "Results indicated a consistent decline in agricultural land and expansion of urban land..."

Suggestion: Add an article before "expansion" to make the sentence structure more parallel and consistent with English usage: "The results indicated a consistent decline in agricultural land and an expansion of urban land..."

3. Sentence Structure and Fluency

Some sentence structures can be optimized. For sentences containing too much information, they can be broken down into shorter sentences to make them more concise and improve readability.

Example 5 (Original): "The construction of ENs can help mitigate the conflict between environmental protection and economic growth, promote a balance among ecological integrity, human well-being, and production safety, and offer critical spatial guidance for optimizing the ecological conservation red line[10]."

Suggested revision: "The construction of ENs helps mitigate the conflict between environmental protection and economic growth. Furthermore, it promotes a balance among ecological integrity, human well-being, and production safety. It also offers critical spatial guidance for optimizing the ecological conservation red line[10]."

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers

The specific modification instructions and responses are reported as follows.

1.1 Basis for Key Parameters and Thresholds:

Reply: thank the experts for their comments. The problems involved really exposed the opacity of this research method. The purpose of setting the 1km2 area threshold is to exclude small ecological patches, as well as the 12km distance threshold parameter. The acquisition method refers to relevant research and literature. I have supplemented the relevant literature support in the revised manuscript. In addition, I also checked the research method part of the full text, supplemented the reference basis for some core parameter settings that are not provided with a basis, and also supplemented the limitations of relevant parameter acquisition in the discussion part. For the detailed revision of this opinion, the reviewers are also invited to see lines 246-250 of the revised draft and lines 652-677 of the discussion part.

1.2 Weighting of Resistance Surfaces:

Problem: Table 4 lists the weights of various resistance factors (such as MSPA, land type, DEM, etc.), but does not describe the process of determining the weights.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. The weight of the resistance factor in this study was obtained by the expert scoring method on the basis of referring to existing studies. The original manuscript did not explain this problem clearly. I have modified and supplemented it in the revision draft and added relevant references. Experts are also invited to review it again. See lines 256-286 of the revised manuscript for detailed amendments to this proposal.

1.3 Resilience Assessment Indicators:

Problem: The ecological meaning of the connectivity resilience (Rc) calculation formula in formula (3) (why is the denominator 3|Vi|-6?) is not explained.

Reply: thanks for the expert's opinion. The original manuscript does not fully describe formula 3. The expert's opinion is also very specific. I have fully adopted the opinions of experts, and added the explanation of the index in the formula, as well as the application background of this method, and compared with other connectivity indexes (such as probability connectivity index PC), to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of this index and its scope of application. See lines 324-344 in the revised manuscript for specific modifications.

1.4 Cluster Importance Assessment Model:

Reply: Thank you for your comments. I have added the calculation method for the comprehensive score in the returned manuscript, including the data processing method and average method. Please see lines 382-395 of the returned manuscript.

Results and Discussion Section: The explanation of core findings needs to be deepened (suggested revisions)

2.1 Explanation of the Mechanism of “UDS's Strongest Resilience”:

Problem: The explanation for this counterintuitive finding (“simplified network structure”) is somewhat weak.

Reply: Thank you for your opinion. I have fully adopted the expert's opinion. For this counterintuitive result, the trade-off between ecological network efficiency and redundancy has been added in the discussion part, and the reason for this phenomenon has been explained Bi directionally by comparing the EPS results, so as to enrich the discussion depth of the research results. Please also see the discussion part of the return draft: lines 580-627

2.2 Specificity of Policy Recommendations:

Problem: The policy implications section could be more specific and actionable.

Reply: Thank you for the expert's suggestion. In the discussion part of the original text, the policy planning suggestions for the results of this study were put forward, but they were indeed relatively macro suggestions and lacked pertinence. I have improved this part and put forward targeted policy guidance as much as possible. See line 628-651 for details. But in the final analysis, the key work of this study is to identify the ecological network and classify the important elements, which is the characteristic of this study. At present, there are many relevant research literatures on the specific implementation of the ecological network after identification, so this study does not focus on this.

Language and Format: Requires comprehensive polishing and proofreading (revision recommended)

Reply: thanks for the experts' opinions. This revision has again conducted the language inspection of the full text and the school team, hoping to improve the overall language and format.

Other Suggestions

Reply: Thank you for your comments. I have added a review of the research on "ecological network resilience" and "community recognition" in the introduction. Please see the introduction in the return draft.

Data Availability Statement: Providing specific sources or DOI links for the main datasets, rather than just general statements like "publicly available."

Reply: thanks for the experts' opinions. I have checked the full text for this problem, avoided the words "publicly available", and improved the data citation of the full text according to the format required by the journal. When the data is available, it has been re described this time, and please review it again.

Conclusion

Suggestion: Major Revision

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Precision in Vocabulary Selection

Some vocabulary choices could be more precise and formal to conform to the writing standards of high-level academic papers.

Example 1 (Original): "These findings will provide good guidance for managing landscape fragmentation..."

Comment and Suggestion: "good guidance" sounds slightly colloquial. In academic writing, it could be revised to "valuable insights" or "practical guidelines" to improve the quality of the text.

Standard Use of Articles and Singular/Plural Forms

There are a few instances of missing articles (a, an, the) or inconsistent use of singular and plural forms.

Example 2 (Original): "Results indicated a consistent decline in agricultural land and expansion of urban land..."

Sentence Structure and Fluency

Some sentence structures can be optimized. For sentences containing too much information, they can be broken down into shorter sentences to make them more concise and improve readability.

Reply: the experts have given a lot of specific comments on the language issue, which is enough to show that the experts' attitude towards reviewing the manuscript is very serious. Once again, I would like to express my gratitude to the reviewers. In addition, I have fully adopted the opinions of experts and improved and polished the language issues you mentioned. In addition, this time, I also conducted a comprehensive language inspection and school team on the full text, and invited experts to review and revise the manuscript again.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic and was read with genuine interest. The study is well structured and methodologically ambitious; however, several aspects of the assumptions and interpretation would benefit from further clarification. I hope the following comments will be helpful in strengthening the manuscript.

Lines 203–218.
It is not entirely clear on what basis the fixed modifications of conversion probabilities by 30% and 50% were adopted in the EPS and UDS scenarios. As currently presented, the methodology does not indicate whether these values are supported by empirical evidence, planning documents, or expert judgment, or whether they should be interpreted as purely hypothetical assumptions. Moreover, the cited literature does not appear to provide a direct rationale for these specific magnitudes. Clarifying the nature of these assumptions would improve transparency; alternatively, the authors could explicitly frame these scenarios as exploratory.

Lines 243–245.
The choice of a 12 km distance threshold in the Conefor analysis is described as being based on “iterative tests”; however, no information is provided regarding which species or ecological groups this distance is intended to represent, nor how it relates to the regional ecological context. As a reader, this makes it difficult to assess the ecological meaning of the threshold. Please consider clarifying the rationale (e.g., by referring to a representative group of organisms), or explicitly stating that this parameter is intended to describe structural rather than functional connectivity.

Lines 407–408.
The manuscript indicates a minimum ecological source area of 1 km², but no ecological or literature-based justification for this threshold is provided in the methodology, and the information appears only descriptively in the results section. It would be helpful to clarify whether this threshold is based on ecological reasoning, methodological constraints of the MSPA approach, or a pragmatic decision to exclude very small patches.

Lines 260–275.
The assignment of weights to resistance factors is described as being based on literature and expert judgment, which is a common and acceptable practice in ecological network studies. However, the manuscript does not explain how the specific weight values were derived or selected. A brief explanation of their origin, or an explicit acknowledgment that no sensitivity analysis was conducted (and that this represents a limitation), would improve methodological transparency.

Lines 298–335.
The network resilience analysis relies exclusively on graph topology (unweighted nodes and edges, centrality measures, and a targeted attack scenario), without incorporating habitat quality, corridor weights, or spatial resistance. While this is not a methodological flaw, it would be helpful to state more explicitly that the analysis assesses structural network resilience, rather than ecological resilience sensu stricto.

Lines 471–475; 610–611.
The results indicate higher structural–topological resilience of the network under the UDS scenario; however, the conclusions at times suggest that UDS is the “best” scenario in a broader sense. To avoid potential overinterpretation, the terminology could be refined (e.g., “structurally most resilient”), or it could be explicitly stated that this assessment does not directly address ecological resilience.

Lines 554–560.
The finding that the EPS scenario preserves a larger ecological area while exhibiting lower network resilience is particularly interesting, as it highlights a trade-off between habitat area and connectivity. This point is only briefly mentioned and could be further developed in the discussion. A deeper reflection on this “area versus connectivity” trade-off could represent one of the most valuable interpretative contributions of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains several minor typographical and language inconsistencies (e.g., “Date sources” instead of “Data sources”, line 154).

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers

The specific modification instructions and responses are reported as follows.

Lines 203–218.
It is not entirely clear on what basis the fixed modifications of conversion probabilities by 30% and 50% were adopted in the EPS and UDS scenarios. As currently presented, the methodology does not indicate whether these values are supported by empirical evidence, planning documents, or expert judgment, or whether they should be interpreted as purely hypothetical assumptions. Moreover, the cited literature does not appear to provide a direct rationale for these specific magnitudes. Clarifying the nature of these assumptions would improve transparency; alternatively, the authors could explicitly frame these scenarios as exploratory.

Reply: thanks for the experts' opinions. For the parameters of multi scenario simulation, this study refers to the relevant research literature, and combines the expert scoring method to obtain the specific parameter settings. The references in the original text are indeed insufficient, and I have supplemented the relevant references. Of course, based on the nature of plus simulation itself, there are exploratory assumptions for the future multi scenario simulation itself. In addition, in the discussion part of the article, I have enriched the discussion on the limitations of the model simulation, including the acquisition of its parameters. Although this is not a problem of research methods, it is inevitable that some parameter acquisition is subjective in the expert scoring process and the quantification of local land development policies. Please also see 652-677 of the returned manuscript for the reviewers.

Lines 243–245.
The choice of a 12 km distance threshold in the Conefor analysis is described as being based on “iterative tests”; however, no information is provided regarding which species or ecological groups this distance is intended to represent, nor how it relates to the regional ecological context. As a reader, this makes it difficult to assess the ecological meaning of the threshold. Please consider clarifying the rationale (e.g., by referring to a representative group of organisms), or explicitly stating that this parameter is intended to describe structural rather than functional connectivity.
Lines 407–408.
The manuscript indicates a minimum ecological source area of 1 km², but no ecological or literature-based justification for this threshold is provided in the methodology, and the information appears only descriptively in the results section. It would be helpful to clarify whether this threshold is based on ecological reasoning, methodological constraints of the MSPA approach, or a pragmatic decision to exclude very small patches.

Reply: thank the experts for their comments. I replied to the third and fourth suggestion again. The problems involved really exposed the opacity of this research method. The area threshold of 1km² was set to exclude small ecological patches and the distance threshold parameter of 12km. The acquisition method referred to relevant research and literature. I have supplemented relevant literature support in the revised manuscript. In addition, I also checked the research method part of the full text, supplemented the reference basis for some core parameter settings that are not provided with a basis, and also supplemented the limitations of relevant parameter acquisition in the discussion part. For the detailed revision of this opinion, the reviewers are also invited to see lines 246-250 of the revised draft and lines 652-677 of the discussion part.

Lines 260–275.
The assignment of weights to resistance factors is described as being based on literature and expert judgment, which is a common and acceptable practice in ecological network studies. However, the manuscript does not explain how the specific weight values were derived or selected. A brief explanation of their origin, or an explicit acknowledgment that no sensitivity analysis was conducted (and that this represents a limitation), would improve methodological transparency.

Lines 298–335.
The network resilience analysis relies exclusively on graph topology (unweighted nodes and edges, centrality measures, and a targeted attack scenario), without incorporating habitat quality, corridor weights, or spatial resistance. While this is not a methodological flaw, it would be helpful to state more explicitly that the analysis assesses structuralnetwork resilience, rather than ecological resilience sensu stricto.
Lines 471–475; 610–611.
The results indicate higher structural–topological resilience of the network under the UDS scenario; however, the conclusions at times suggest that UDS is the “best” scenario in a broader sense. To avoid potential overinterpretation, the terminology could be refined (e.g., “structurally most resilient”), or it could be explicitly stated that this assessment does not directly address ecological resilience.

Reply: thank the experts for their comments. With regard to Article 5 and Article 6, I hereby reply together. I have fully absorbed and adopted, standardized the wording of the full text, highlighted the structural toughness in the result analysis, and re emphasized the significance of the research results in the discussion, focusing on the analysis of the structure of graph theory. Experts are also invited to see the results and discussion in the revised draft for details.

7.Lines 554–560.
The finding that the EPS scenario preserves a larger ecological area while exhibiting lower network resilience is particularly interesting, as it highlights a trade-off between habitat area and connectivity. This point is only briefly mentioned and could be further developed in the discussion. A deeper reflection on this “area versus connectivity” trade-off could represent one of the most valuable interpretative contributions of the study.

Reply: thank the experts for their suggestions. I think this is a very helpful suggestion to improve the significance of the results of this study. I have fully absorbed the opinions of experts. In the discussion part of the revised draft, I added in detail the in-depth explanation of the "area connectivity trade-off relationship". By comparing the results of UDS and EPS, I deeply analyzed the internal principles of these two counterintuitive results, and its causes were also beneficial to enhance the significance of the research results. Experts are also invited to see lines 551-578 of the discussion section of the revised manuscript.

In addition, I checked the composition of the article and some low-level writing errors. Once again, I thank the experts for their careful review and comments on this article. I hope the revised version can meet the publication requirements of the journal. Thank you.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The importance of this research is given by the increased interest of regional and local decision-makers in any community to make the most accurate decisions regarding local and regional development, respectively land management. The authors' efforts have resulted in the establishment of the sources, corridors, and nodes that make up the studied ecological network. Also noteworthy is the selection and quantification of indicators such as ecological sensitivity and importance, ecological services used in the comprehensive calculation of ecological value for the factors studied in the multi-scenario analysis.
The choice of the three scenarios for analysis, Natural Development Scenario (NDS), Ecological Protection Scenario (EPS), and Urban Development Scenario (UDS), is logical and relevant to the purpose of the research.
Some methodological clarifications regarding the sampling of the factors studied and the homogeneity of the processed data are necessary to be presented by the authors for the scientific quality of the results, the reproducibility of the research, and its importance for practice.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate you and the reviewers for your careful review and valuable comments on our manuscript (Manuscript ID: [land-4038760]). These insights have been crucial for improving the paper’s rigor, especially the transparency of research methods. We have thoroughly addressed each comment, made targeted revisions, and marked all modifications with red font in the revised manuscript for easy reference.

Below is a detailed response, with a focus on revisions to enhance research method transparency:

Core Revisions on Research Method Transparency

Comment 1 (Opacity of parameter settings)

Reply: Thank you for pointing out the opacity of the research method. The 1 km² area threshold (to exclude small ecological patches) and 12 km distance threshold were determined by referencing relevant studies. We have supplemented literature support for these parameters in the revised manuscript. Additionally, we reviewed the entire research method section, added reference bases for core parameters lacking prior justification, and discussed the limitations of parameter acquisition in the discussion section. Please refer to lines 246-250 of the revised draft and lines 652-677 of the discussion section.

Comment 2 (Weight of resistance factors)

Reply: Thank you for the suggestion. The resistance factor weights were obtained via the expert scoring method based on existing studies. We have clarified this process in the revised draft and added relevant references. Detailed amendments are available in lines 256-286 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 3 (Description of Formula 3)

Reply: Thank you for the specific comment. We have supplemented explanations of the indexes in Formula 3, its application background, and a comparison with other connectivity indexes (e.g., probability connectivity index PC) to clarify its advantages, disadvantages, and scope of application. See lines 324-344 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 4 (Calculation of comprehensive score)

Reply: Thank you for the comment. We have added the calculation method for the comprehensive score, including data processing and averaging methods, in lines 382-395 of the revised manuscript.

Other Key Revisions

Comment 5 (Discussion of counterintuitive results)

Reply: We have adopted your suggestion and added a discussion on the trade-off between ecological network efficiency and redundancy in the discussion section. By comparing EPS results, we bidirectionally explained the causes of this counterintuitive phenomenon to deepen the research discussion. See lines 580-627 of the discussion section.

Comment 6 (Policy planning suggestions)

Reply: Thank you for the suggestion. We have refined the macro policy suggestions in the original discussion to make them more targeted. Detailed revisions are in lines 628-651. Note that the core focus of this study is identifying ecological networks and classifying key elements—its distinctive feature. Given the abundance of existing literature on the specific implementation of identified ecological networks, this study does not emphasize this aspect.

Comment 7 (Introduction supplements)

Reply: We have added a review of research on "ecological network resilience" and "community recognition" in the introduction. Please refer to the revised introduction section.

Comment 8 (Data citation and language revisions)

Reply: We have removed the term "publicly available" throughout the manuscript, standardized data citations per the journal’s format, and rephrased data availability descriptions. Additionally, we have fully addressed the language issues raised, conducted a comprehensive language check and proofreading of the entire text, and polished the wording to improve readability and format consistency.

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their rigorous and meticulous review. We hope the revised manuscript meets the journal’s publication requirements. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript according to the comments and explain their responses in detail. I have no further comments.