Spatial-Temporal Evolution and Driving Force Analysis of Wetland Landscape Pattern in Northern Guangxi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting manuscript centered on the impact of natural and anthropogenic changes on wetlands in Northern Guangxi, China. The manuscript is well written, the structure is generally good and the analyses used are suitable. However, I have some concerns regarding the collection of the data used here as well as the structure of the discussion. More specifically:

• After mentioning the data sources for all parameters, the authors mention that “All data were standardised to 30m resolution and unified to Krasovsky_1940_Albers coordinate system using ArcGIS Desktop 10.8”. Land use, elevation and slope data were already available in 30m resolution, but this is not mentioned for Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, annual mean temperature, annual mean precipitation, population, gross domestic product data and National Nature Reserve inventory data. I suppose not, but in any case this should be explained in detail. Since everything in the manuscript is based on data taken from various sources and accuracy of data is very important, the way data was used/transformed is crucial for the results of the study.
• Taking into account the numerous analyses performed on wetland landscape structure (natural and artificial), landscape pattern change (Patch area analysis, Landscape level analysis), and analysis of drivers of landscape pattern evolution, the discussion section is disproportionately short. The five tables and six figures presented in the results section are not mentioned in the discussion and the authors rush into conclusions early on, rather than build their arguments through their results. Therefore, I strongly recommend a structural change of the discussion section starting from the results of the study followed by an integration of these with management and conservation actions as well as environmental policies. The rushed arguments presented here cannot be judged if not suitably explained. Even if the structure of the results is really good (and it really is), the manuscript is long and when a reader reaches the discussion, he/she cannot remember everything (and is not obliged to do so). Thus, the results and discussion sections should be connected before rushing into patterns and conservation measures and policies.

All in all, the manuscript is interesting, but I do not find it publishable in its present form, as it can and should be improved structurally, based on the aforementioned comments.         

I recommend a major revision.  

 

Notes:

L43: ecology [5]

L89: delete “Tables may have a footer.”

L106-109: you mention that all data were standardised to 30m resolution. Land use, elevation and slope data was available in 30m resolution, but you how did you do this for Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, annual mean temperature, annual mean precipitation, population, gross domestic product data and National Nature Reserve inventory data? Did you have a 30m accuracy of data? It seems unlikely. Accuracy of data is very important. You should explain in detail.

Table 1: Constructed wetlands

L146: detector [13]

L151: variation [14]

L173: shifts [14]

L194: Programme [16]

L217: conservation [17]

L218: replenishment [18]

L386: degradation[20]

L388: source [22]

L395: China [23]

L453-458: this paragraph seems fitting for the introduction, but not the discussion. The aims of the study and the importance of wetland landscape evolution have already been mentioned in the beginning of the manuscript. I suggest you omit this paragraph.

L463: trends [9]

L464: further [26]

L465: peculiarities [27]

L468: areas [22,28]

L485: inadequate [31]

L493: wetlands [32]

L495: studies [33,34]

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,  

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Spatial-Temporal Evolution and Driving Force Analysis of Wetland Landscape Pattern in Northern Guangxi” (ID: applsci-3914832). We appreciate the time and expertise dedicated to evaluating our work. These suggestions have significantly improved the quality of our paper. We have modified the manuscript accordingly and decailed corrections are lised below point by point. The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal and please note that the sentences in red are modified contents in this time. we look forward to your positive response. We would like to thank the referees’ valuable and helpful comments.

The responses to the referees’ comments to sum up is reflected in the following respects and changes made are listed as follows: (In the responses provided one by one, the text in blue represents my replies to the reviewers’ comments.)

Response to Reviewer #1:

This is an interesting manuscript centered on the impact of natural and anthropogenic changes on wetlands in Northern Guangxi, China. The manuscript is well written, the structure is generally good and the analyses used are suitable. However, I have some concerns regarding the collection of the data used here as well as the structure of the discussion. More specifically:

Comment 1:

After mentioning the data sources for all parameters, the authors mention that “All data were standardised to 30m resolution and unified to Krasovsky_1940_Albers coordinate system using ArcGIS Desktop 10.8”. Land use, elevation and slope data were already available in 30m resolution, but this is not mentioned for Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, annual mean temperature, annual mean precipitation, population, gross domestic product data and National Nature Reserve inventory data. I suppose not, but in any case this should be explained in detail. Since everything in the manuscript is based on data taken from various sources and accuracy of data is very important, the way data was used/transformed is crucial for the results of the study.

Response 1: 

Thank you very much for your meticulous review and valuable comments. The problem that you point out that the description of the data standardization process is not detailed enough is very pertinent, which is crucial to ensure the repeatability of the research and the accuracy of the results.

We completely agree with your opinion, which has been supplemented and clarified in the 2.2.Data sources section of the paper. The specific modifications are as follows:

1.Defined the original resolution: We have clearly stated in the text that the spatial resolution of land use data is 30m, and the elevation and slope data in the natural environment data are 90m. The original spatial resolutions of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index ( NDVI ), annual mean temperature, annual mean precipitation and vector boundary data of national nature reserves are 1 km, respectively. The original resolution of population and GDP data in socio-economic data is about 1 km. (Pages 3-4, lines 95-110)

2.The conversion method is described in detail: We supplement the specific method of resampling all lower resolution data to a resolution of 30 m. (Page 3, lines 103-108)

3.In addition, we have clearly listed the detailed data list and its preprocessing process in Table 1 of the revised draft, and listed the source data URL to ensure that the source, original characteristics and processing methods of the data are completely transparent. (Pages 3-4, lines 109-110)

 

Comment 2：

Taking into account the numerous analyses performed on wetland landscape structure (natural and artificial), landscape pattern change (Patch area analysis, Landscape level analysis), and analysis of drivers of landscape pattern evolution, the discussion section is disproportionately short. The five tables and six figures presented in the results section are not mentioned in the discussion and the authors rush into conclusions early on, rather than build their arguments through their results. Therefore, I strongly recommend a structural change of the discussion section starting from the results of the study followed by an integration of these with management and conservation actions as well as environmental policies. The rushed arguments presented here cannot be judged if not suitably explained. Even if the structure of the results is really good (and it really is), the manuscript is long and when a reader reaches the discussion, he/she cannot remember everything (and is not obliged to do so). Thus, the results and discussion sections should be connected before rushing into patterns and conservation measures and policies.

Response 2:

Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comments on the discussion part of this paper. We fully agree with your point of view. A clear and well-argued discussion part is very important to improve the quality of the paper.

According to your suggestions, we have thoroughly rewritten and structurally adjusted the discussion section of the paper. (Pages 17-20, lines 458-572) The main modifications are as follows:

1.To fully expand and deepen the content of the discussion

The original discussion section failed to match a large number of analyses in the result section. We have greatly expanded the discussion section to ensure that it matches the depth and breadth of the analysis in the result section.

2.Reconstruct the discussion logic and connect the results closely.

We adopted your structural suggestions on “starting from the results of the study followed by an integration of these with management and conservation actions as well as environmental policies” and reconstructed the logic of the discussion section.

3.Strengthen the connection between the results and discussions to avoid ‘hasty conclusions’.

We deeply understand that it should not be assumed that the reader can fully remember all the details of the result part. Therefore, in the revision, we pay special attention to the specific content of the result part of the discussion section in a timely and targeted manner.

4.Integrated management, protection and policy implications

Based on your proposal of ‘Integrated Management and Policy Implications’, we will incorporate the previously isolated and hasty policy recommendations into the end of the discussion.

We believe that after the above substantial changes, the discussion part of the paper has been fundamentally improved, the logic is clearer, the argument is more solid, the content is more substantial, and the research results are better connected with its broader significance. Thank you again for your time and effort to review our manuscripts and put forward these crucial opinions, which greatly improves the academic quality of this article.

 

Comment 3：

All in all, the manuscript is interesting, but I do not find it publishable in its present form, as it can and should be improved structurally, based on the aforementioned comments.

Notes:

L43: ecology [5]

L89: delete “Tables may have a footer.”

L106-109: you mention that all data were standardised to 30m resolution. Land use, elevation and slope data was available in 30m resolution, but you how did you do this for Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, annual mean temperature, annual mean precipitation, population, gross domestic product data and National Nature Reserve inventory data? Did you have a 30m accuracy of data? It seems unlikely. Accuracy of data is very important. You should explain in detail.

Table 1: Constructed wetlands

L146: detector [13]

L151: variation [14]

L173: shifts [14]

L194: Programme [16]

L217: conservation [17]

L218: replenishment [18]

L386: degradation[20]

L388: source [22]

L395: China [23]

L453-458: this paragraph seems fitting for the introduction, but not the discussion. The aims of the study and the importance of wetland landscape evolution have already been mentioned in the beginning of the manuscript. I suggest you omit this paragraph.

L463: trends [9]

L464: further [26]

L465: peculiarities [27]

L468: areas [22,28]

L485: inadequate [31]

L493: wetlands [32]

L495: studies [33,34]

Response 3:

All the specific modification points you mentioned in ‘Notes’ have also been carefully checked and revised in the text. In order to facilitate your review, these modifications are marked red in the revised version.

 

We hope that the above supplementary explanations can fully answer your questions and make the description of the method clearer and more rigorous. Thank you again for helping us improve this paper!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Thank you for the interesting manuscript. However, please look at my comments to improve the manuscript. Most of my comments are in the PDF manuscript. 

This is very important for the manuscript. Please consider the following:

• The finding that average annual temperature is the dominant natural driver requires elaboration. Explaining how temperature influences evapotranspiration, karst hydrology, or vegetation cover would make the result more convincing.

• While the study provides valuable insights into wetland evolution, it would benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment of the limitations arising from the karst geology. Karst landscapes are characterized by subsurface hydrological complexity, including sinkholes, fissures, and underground drainage systems. Did the authors consider this as a factor in declining natural wetlands.

• And anthropogenic pressures (I see the study area is mostly agricultural) exert excessive impacts on wetland systems due to the fragile nature of the karst geology. These activities can accelerate soil erosion leading to rapid wetland degradation. This may be the case in the study area.

• The lack of a detailed combination of karst hydrogeological sensitivity and intensive human land-use (paddy fields) results in the uncertainty of the study. I will advise authors to look at these concepts to improve the manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers, Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Spatial-Temporal Evolution and Driving Force Analysis of Wetland Landscape Pattern in Northern Guangxi” (ID: applsci-3914832). We appreciate the time and expertise dedicated to evaluating our work. These suggestions have significantly improved the quality of our paper. We have modified the manuscript accordingly and decailed corrections are lised below point by point. The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal and please note that the sentences in red are modified contents in this time. we look forward to your positive response. We would like to thank the referees’ valuable and helpful comments. The responses to the referees’ comments to sum up is reflected in the following respects and changes made are listed as follows: (In the responses provided one by one, the text in blue represents my replies to the reviewers’ comments.)

Response to Reviewer #2:  

Dear Authors

Thank you for the interesting manuscript. However, please look at my comments to improve the manuscript. Most of my comments are in the PDF manuscript. This is very important for the manuscript. Please consider the following:

Comment 1：

The finding that average annual temperature is the dominant natural driver requires elaboration. Explaining how temperature influences evapotranspiration, karst hydrology, or vegetation cover would make the result more convincing.

Response 1:

Thank you very much for this valuable opinion. The question you pointed out about “The finding that average annual temperature is the dominant natural driver requires elaboration. Explaining how temperature influences evapotranspiration, karst hydrology, or vegetation cover would make the result more convincing.” is very profound and critical, which can indeed make our research conclusions more convincing.

Based on your suggestions, we have supplemented this issue in the discussion section of the paper (Page 18, lines 497-512). By referring to relevant literature, we further elaborated how the average annual temperature plays a leading role in the evolution of landscape pattern by regulating the evapotranspiration process, affecting the unique hydrological dynamics of karst areas, and acting on vegetation cover changes. This supplement makes the argument of the relevant conclusions more sufficient and coherent.

Thank you again for your insightful guidance. Your opinions have significantly improved the rigor and completeness of this study.

 

While the study provides valuable insights into wetland evolution, it would benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment of the limitations arising from the karst geology. Karst landscapes are characterized by subsurface hydrological complexity, including sinkholes, fissures, and underground drainage systems. Did the authors consider this as a factor in declining natural wetlands. 

And anthropogenic pressures (I see the study area is mostly agricultural) exert excessive impacts on wetland systems due to the fragile nature of the karst geology. These activities can accelerate soil erosion leading to rapid wetland degradation. This may be the case in the study area.

 

Comment 2：

The lack of a detailed combination of karst hydrogeological sensitivity and intensive human land-use (paddy fields) results in the uncertainty of the study. I will advise authors to look at these concepts to improve the manuscript.

Response 2:

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions for this article. The in-depth combination of karst hydrogeological sensitivity and high-intensity human activities pointed out by you is indeed a key link that can be further deepened in our research. This opinion has important guiding significance for us to improve the research logic and enhance the depth of demonstration.

We fully agree with your point of view. Combining karst hydrogeological sensitivity with human land use patterns can more systematically reveal the internal mechanism of wetland landscape evolution and reduce the uncertainty of research results. Since the main content of this study focuses on the macro analysis of wetland structure, pattern and multi-dimensional driving factors in northern Guangxi from 1980 to 2020, there is no in-depth professional karst hydrogeological sensitivity modeling or fine hydrological process simulation.

In the current revision, we have made a supplementary explanation and preliminary discussion on the special hydrogeological conditions in the karst area of northern Guangxi and the potential impact of human activities on the wetland landscape pattern in the discussion section (Pages 17-20, lines 458-572). We try to strengthen the logical deduction of the interaction between these two types of factors within the existing analytical framework in response to your question of ‘insufficient combination.’

At the same time, we also recognize that it is indeed an important direction for future research to construct a more rational wetland evolution model based on the intrinsic properties of hydrogeological sensitivity and the external pressure of human land use. The research perspective you suggest, we have recorded and incorporated into one of the key contents of our follow-up research plan, and will carry out special surveys and model integration in future work.

Thank you again for your insightful suggestions. The direction you pointed out not only provides ideas for the improvement of this study, but also points out the in-depth possibilities for our long-term exploration in the field of karst wetlands. It is sincerely hoped that the current revisions and explanations will respond to your concerns to a certain extent, and you are also very welcome to provide more literature or case references on this issue.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript and I believe that it has been greatly improved. Therefore, I find it suitable for publication in this form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer :

Thank you for your hard work and valuable advice in this process.

We are particularly grateful to the reviewers for their recognition of the revised draft. This is a great encouragement to us.

Thank you again for all your guidance. It is these constructive comments that have significantly improved the quality of our papers. We look forward to the smooth publication of the paper and contribute to the research in related fields.

 

Sincerely,

Tingjiang Tan

College of Earth Science, Guilin University of Technology

1020230039@glut.edu.cn

21 October 2025

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

It seems, you did not consider my comments for the revised version or justify not doing so.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,  

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Spatial-Temporal Evolution and Driving Force Analysis of Wetland Landscape Pattern in Northern Guangxi” (ID: applsci-3914832). We appreciate the time and expertise dedicated to evaluating our work. These suggestions have significantly improved the quality of our paper. We have modified the manuscript accordingly and decailed corrections are lised below point by point. The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal and please note that the sentences in red are modified contents in this time. we look forward to your positive response. We would like to thank the referees’ valuable and helpful comments.

The responses to the referees’ comments to sum up is reflected in the following respects and changes made are listed as follows: (In the responses provided one by one, the text in blue represents my replies to the reviewers’ comments.)

 

Response to Reviewer #2:  

Dear Authors

It seems, you did not consider my comments for the revised version or justify not doing so.

Regards

 

Response:

Dear reviewer, Hello!

First of all, please allow us to apologize for the inadvertent omission of your review comments in the previous reply. This is entirely due to the negligence caused by our unfamiliarity with the operation of the MDPI submission system, and it is by no means intentionally ignoring your valuable suggestions. We value the time and effort you have put into perfecting this document and apologize for any inconvenience caused by this omission.

Thank you for reminding again. We have carefully reviewed and carefully considered all of your comments, and in the revised draft for each recommendation made the corresponding changes and instructions.

Now I will submit a reply to your opinion one by one, please review. We again apologize for the previous communication mistakes and sincerely thank you for your patience and understanding.

 

Comment 1：

Natural wetland decline

In my view, this is not executed in the study.

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that providing solid evidence is crucial for supporting this key finding. In fact, the analysis related to the declining trend of natural wetlands was presented in Section 3.1 of our manuscript. Specifically, our analysis revealed two key data points that substantiate the decline:

1.The area of natural wetlands (including coastal wetlands) in the study region decreased by 15.55 km² between 1980 and 2020. (Page 9 lines 208-213)

2.The land use transition matrix for the same period calculated a total transfer-out area of 42.94 km² for natural wetlands. (Page 10 lines 230-233)

We believe these two datasets, presented together in Section 3.1, collectively demonstrate a clear trend of natural wetland loss.

 

Comment 2：

Abstract

Very clear abstract. However, it is very important for the authors to add the perceived driving forces for the reduction of natural wetlands and expansion of artificial wetlands in the study area.

Response 2:

Thank you very much for your recognition of the abstract and put forward crucial suggestions for its further improvement. We fully agree with you that it is very important for readers to understand the core findings of the study to clarify the perceived driving forces of natural wetland reduction and artificial wetland expansion more clearly in the abstract.

According to your suggestions, we have optimized the conclusion part of the abstract. The revised text not only clarifies the composite driving mechanism of ‘climate dominance, economic pressure, and policy failure’, but also briefly reveals the specific role of each driving force: it points out that the increase of temperature is the main natural driving force for the reduction of natural wetlands, and economic growth (GDP) is the core human factor to promote the expansion of artificial wetlands. We believe that this supplement makes the discussion of the driving mechanism clearer and more substantial. (Page 1 lines 25-27)

Your valuable opinions have greatly improved the quality and amount of information of our abstracts. Thank you again for your insightful guidance.

 

Comment 3：

Fig. 1. Location map of the research area

The legend is not clear. There are no units. what is high? what is low?

I will suggest a surface geology map which will show different geological units in the study area, highlighting the karst environments.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for making this point. You are right, a clear legend is very important for readers to understand. We apologize for the possible confusion caused by the previous legend.

Firstly, We fully agree with your view that the previous annotation method is not intuitive enough and easy to cause misunderstanding. In order to completely solve this problem, we have made the following key improvements to the legend and base map of Figure 1 in the revised draft :

• The unit ‘DEM (m)’ is clearly marked for the elevation data.
• Replace the base map with white to identify the map information more clearly.

We believe that after these modifications, the presentation of elevation information has been very clear, readers can see at a glance.

 

Secondly, I sincerely thank you for this very professional and in-depth proposal. We fully understand that adding geological maps can more fully show the background information of the study area.

After careful consideration, we believe that this study mainly focuses on the temporal and spatial evolution of surface processes and their driving factors, which belongs to the category of physical geography, rather than in-depth discussion of underground geological structures or lithology itself. Therefore, adding detailed geological maps may deviate from the core line of the article.

In order to avoid the ambiguity that may be caused by the expression of ‘karst area’ and more accurately fit the theme of the article, we have revised the relevant content of the paper:

• The description focus is adjusted from ‘karst geological characteristics’ to ‘karst geomorphologic landscape’, emphasizing that it is the typical geographical background of this study, rather than the direct research object.
• In the discussion section of the revised draft, the potential impact of the geomorphological setting on hydrological processes, ecosystems and human activities is added.

We believe that this adjustment can more clearly define the scope of the study and make the main line of the article more prominent. Thank you again for prompting us to elaborate on this in more detail.

 

Comment 4：

Fig. 2. Changes of wetland area in different periods

Should be "surface area"

Including percentage changes alongside area values would enhance readability and allow for better cross-comparison.

Response 4: Thank you very much for this valuable opinion.

1.Thank you very much for correcting this inaccurate statement. Following your suggestion, we have revised the title of Figure 2 and all relevant statements in the text from ‘wetland area’ to a more accurate and professional ‘surface area’.

2.We very much agree with your important proposal. Increasing percentage changes can indeed greatly improve the clarity and comparability of data presentation. To this end, we have made the following key improvements in the modified Figure 2:

• The change rate of wetland area ( current area-1980 area ) / 1980 area * 100 % ) was added next to the actual wetland area data points corresponding to each year.
• At the same time, we explicitly add area units km²and % in the ordinate heading of the graph.

These modifications enable readers to obtain the absolute value and relative change trend of wetland area at the same time at a glance, which significantly enhances the readability and scientificity of the chart.

We thank you again for your insightful guidance, which makes our paper chart more accurate and clear. The revised Figure 2 has been resubmitted with the manuscript, please review.

 

Comment 5：

Fig. 3. Distribution of wetland landscape pattern in northern Guangxi from 1980 to 2020. (a) 1980. (b) 1990. (c) 2000. (d) 2010. (e) 2020.

The maps do not necessarily show natural wetland distribution?????? They actually show the paddy fields, rivers and some reservoirs. The reader wants to see a change/reduction of natural wetlands from 1980 to 2020 correlating with the graph in Figure 2 highlighting the drivers. I will suggest the authors highlight the wetlands in the maps. Wetlands is a key in the study, thus more focus must be on them. The maps show the paddy fields which are not even showing the expansion stated in the results. My understanding was that the study was looking at natural wetlands in relation to karst geology as the topic says. That was the reason for my suggestion to use a surface geology map in Figure 1. The abstract and introduction states that the area is a fragile karst region (1st statement in the abstract). This is misleading.

Response 5: Thank you very much for this valuable opinion.

First of all, we are very grateful to you for such a detailed review. The questions you pointed out are very pertinent, which prompted us to make a profound reflection and important improvement on the presentation of the paper.

1.On the visibility of natural wetlands in the diagram

You put forward the view that the map does not clearly show the distribution of natural wetlands, we fully understand and agree with its importance. We want to explain to you that this is mainly due to the huge difference in the area size of natural wetlands and constructed wetlands in the study area. As mentioned in the original article, the maximum area of natural wetlands is only about 1585 km², while the area of artificial wetlands is more than 20000 km². When they are merged and displayed in the total wetland area map, the small changes of natural wetlands are indeed ‘submerged’ by the huge and stable area of constructed wetlands, resulting in its evolution trend difficult to be visually distinguished in the general trend line.

This is not our negligence, but the objective reality of the wetland composition in the region, which itself also reflects the vulnerability and marginalization of natural wetlands under the influence of strong human activities. Therefore, I also prepared Table 6 in advance in the original text for readers to browse detailed data.

2.Expression of the focus of the paper and the karst background

We thank you for your reminder of topic consistency. In order to better match the focus of the paper with the core of ‘natural wetlands’, we have revised the relevant statements of the full text, and adjusted the focus of the discussion from the general ‘fragile karst area’ to ‘the response of natural wetlands to human activities and climate change in the context of karst landforms’, so as to ensure that the title is consistent and eliminate misleading.

 

Comment 6：

3.1.1 lake wetland areas expanded by 0.89 km², whilst costal wetland areas contracted by 15.55 km²

Unfortunately, this is not shown in the maps above in Figure 3. This is confusing, does Northern Guangxi has a coastal area??????

Response 6: Thank you very much for this valuable opinion.

1.You are absolutely right. We have described the subtle changes in lake and coastal wetlands in Subsection 3.1.1 and Table 6 of the text, but these changes are indeed not visually displayed on the map in Figure 3, which is an omission in our graphic selection, and we apologize for this.

The reason is that this is mainly because the absolute value of the area change of the lake beach and the coastal wetland is small. When it is displayed on the same map with other wetland types with a total area of tens of millions of square kilometers in the study area, the subtle spatial change is difficult to be noticed by the naked eye.

2.Your problem is very critical. The traditional ‘northern Guangxi region’ mainly refers to the inland area of northern Guangxi. The ‘coastal wetland’ defined in our study does not refer to the marine coastal zone, but refers to the coastal waters and tidal flat wetlands of large rivers and large reservoirs in the study area. I have defined this statement in Table 2 of the article.

 

Comment 7：

Fig. 4. Dynamic map of wetland type area transfer in northern Guangxi from 1980 to 2020.

Response 7: Thank you very much for this valuable opinion. This statement is defined in Table 2 Table of wetland landscape types in northern Guangxi.

 

Comment 8：

447-479 Concurrently, wetland landscape patterns exhibit an evolutionary trend characterised by ‘increasing fragmentation and structural complexity’, with natural wetlands be coming more fragmented while connectivity between dominant patches in artificial wetlands has strengthened.

Unfortunately, this is not executed well here, readers will want to see that.

Response 8: Thank you very much for pointing out the shortcomings of the discussion section. We fully agree with you that the paper should not only state the conclusion of ‘increasing fragmentation and structural complexity’, but should provide more specific evidence and analysis so that readers can ‘see’ this evolutionary trend.

Based on your suggestion, we’ve reinforced this when we rewrote the discussion section.

 

Comment 9：

507: This study provides an empirical foundation for elucidating the distinctive patterns of wetland evolution in karst regions.

Karst region wasnever discussed in relation to wetlands in the area.

Response 9: Thank you very much for this valuable opinion. You pointed out that ‘the relationship between the characteristics of karst area and the evolution of wetland is not discussed in this paper’ is very important, we fully agree with you. This is indeed an important omission in the first draft, which fails to fully reflect the characteristics and depth of the research.

In the revised draft, we have rewritten and deepened the discussion part, focusing on the discussion of how the particularity of karst environment shapes the wetland evolution pattern in this study area.

Thank you again for your rigorous and profound review ! Your comments have substantially improved the quality of our papers. I hope the modified content can get your approval.

 

Sincerely,  

Tingjiang Tan

College of Earth Science, Guilin University of Technology

1020230039@glut.edu.cn

21 October 2025

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I will accept the consideration of my comments.