Landscape Ecological Integrity Assessment to Improve Protected Area Management of Forest Ecosystem

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Landscape ecological integrity assessment for forest ecosystem to improve protected area management practices" is an interesting study focused on evaluating the main indicators of ecological integrity within a relatively newly established protected area in China. The topic is relevant both for society and for science, and the authors approach it through a descriptive method, using existing databases and cartographic resources.

Although the study appears promising, I believe the to enhance its scientific impact and clarity, several aspects related to the presentation of results and their interpretation would benefit from improvement. Furthermore, the Introduction is cumbersome and contains numerous language errors, and the formulation of the objectives is not aligned with the activities carried out or the results obtained in the study.

Results – the descriptive component dominates, without the use of figures or graphs to highlight the differences between various ecological community types or indices.
Even though the discussions are generally pertinent, I was unable to identify any comparison with data from existing literature or from other studies conducted in the investigated area. The authors also fail to address the limitations of the study or explain how these were managed or mitigated. Additionally, I believe that the recommendations made between lines 273–276 cannot be considered as directly resulting from the study’s findings.

Likewise, I would note that the title of the paper does not convincingly reflect the claim that assessing ecological integrity directly leads to improved management practices—assessment alone is not sufficient for such an outcome.

To improve the clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript, I suggest the following observations:

Line 10: "construction?" – unclear term, please clarify.

Lines 33–35: The sentence is unclear; I do not understand what the authors intend to say.

Lines 48–50: Although I can guess the authors’ message, the sentence is poorly constructed – the term "ecological integrity" is used at least three times.

Line 51: Should this be "including" or "includes"?

Lines 53–54: Who transforms the indicators into indices?

Lines 54–56: This sentence is grammatically incorrect and hard to understand.

Lines 60–65: The authors introduce a new term – "landscape ecological integrity" – without clarifying whether it differs from the previously defined "ecological integrity" (lines 42–45).

Lines 65–67: Grammatically incorrect.

Line 73: Should it be "objects" or "objectives"?

Lines 74–75: Scientific names should be written in italics.

Lines 79–82: The structure of the entire paragraph (starting with "As the aim...") is incorrect. Additionally, the formulation of objectives 1 and 3 lacks clarity, scientific precision, and coherence. In my opinion, such objectives cannot be critically analyzed in their current form; I recommend reformulating them.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 1

[General comment] The manuscript entitled "Landscape ecological integrity assessment for forest ecosystem to improve protected area management practices" is an interesting study focused on evaluating the main indicators of ecological integrity within a relatively newly established protected area in China. The topic is relevant both for society and for science, and the authors approach it through a descriptive method, using existing databases and cartographic resources.

Although the study appears promising, I believe the to enhance its scientific impact and clarity, several aspects related to the presentation of results and their interpretation would benefit from improvement. Furthermore, the Introduction is cumbersome and contains numerous language errors, and the formulation of the objectives is not aligned with the activities carried out or the results obtained in the study.

Results – the descriptive component dominates, without the use of figures or graphs to highlight the differences between various ecological community types or indices. Additionally, I believe that the recommendations made between lines 273–276 cannot be considered as directly resulting from the study’s findings.

Even though the discussions are generally pertinent, I was unable to identify any comparison with data from existing literature or from other studies conducted in the investigated area. The authors also fail to address the limitations of the study or explain how these were managed or mitigated.

[Response] We appreciate the positive feedback and constructive suggestions from the reviewer, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We have re-written the Introduction, Result and Discussion section to clarify and generalize the meaningful conclusions. Please find the following point-by-point responses to reviewer’s concerns. All the amendments are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. Especially, the language errors and structure of Introduction have revised carefully, more other language issues will ask for a MDPI author services as English editing.

[Comment 1] Likewise, I would note that the title of the paper does not convincingly reflect the claim that assessing ecological integrity directly leads to improved management practices—assessment alone is not sufficient for such an outcome.

[Response 1] Thanks for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the title to “Landscape ecological integrity assessment to improve protected area management of forest ecosystem”.

[Comment 2] Line 10: "construction?" – unclear term, please clarify.

[Response 2] We feel sorry for the inappropriate wording. We have changed “construction” into “management” (page 1, line 10-11).

[Comment 3] Lines 33–35: The sentence is unclear; I do not understand what the authors intend to say.

[Response 3] We feel sorry for the confusing sentences. We have changed it to “Nature reserves act as a key member for the natural protected areas system, and the most effective measures of biodiversity conservation in China”, as emphasizing the importance of nature reserves in biodiversity conservation.

[Comment 4] Lines 48–50: Although I can guess the authors’ message, the sentence is poorly constructed – the term "ecological integrity" is used at least three times.

[Response 4] We feel sorry for the confusing sentences. We have changed the sentence structure to let its meaning clearer (page 2, line47-50).

[Comment 5] Line 51: Should this be "including" or "includes"?

[Response 5] We feel sorry for the inappropriate wording. We have changed “including” into “includes” (page 2, line 51).

[Comment 6] Lines 53–54: Who transforms the indicators into indices?

[Response 6] We feel sorry, we have deleted this confusing sentence to make the paragraph more coherent.

[Comment 7] Lines 54–56: This sentence is grammatically incorrect and hard to understand.

[Response 7] We feel sorry for the grammatical mistake of the sentence. We have revised and made the meaning of the sentence clarify (page 2, line53-55).

[Comment 8] Lines 60–65: The authors introduce a new term – "landscape ecological integrity" – without clarifying whether it differs from the previously defined "ecological integrity" (lines 42–45).

[Response 8] Thank you for the suggestion. Landscape ecological integrity means ecological integrity on landscape level and with landscape index. For the coherence of the context before and after, we have revised this sentence to “Landscape ecology provides an effective method to analyze the integrity and originality of forest ecosystem by quantitatively analyzing the spatial distribution characteristics and revealing the links between spatial patterns and ecological processes of land-scape components” (page 2, line55-58).

[Comment 9] Lines 65–67: Grammatically incorrect.

[Response 9] We feel sorry for the grammatical mistake of the sentence. We have revised and made the meaning of the sentence clarify (page 2, line61-63).

[Comment 10] Line 73: Should it be "objects" or "objectives"?

[Response 10] Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised “objects” to “targets” (page3, line70).

[Comment 11] Lines 74–75: Scientific names should be written in italics.

[Response 11] Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised all scientific names into italics form.

[Comment 12] Lines 79–82: The structure of the entire paragraph (starting with "As the aim...") is incorrect. Additionally, the formulation of objectives 1 and 3 lacks clarity, scientific precision, and coherence. In my opinion, such objectives cannot be critically analyzed in their current form; I recommend reformulating them.

[Response12] Thank you for the suggestion very much. We have rewritten the part to clarify the study aims, hypothesis and practical value. Please see below: “Based on the 7th national forest inventory datasets, we explored the landscape structure of each functional zone, analyzed the ecological integrity of the nature reserve. The objects of the study are to (1) investigate the landscape composition and diversity in every functional zone; (2) identify the dominant landscape types in each functional zone; (3) analysis the ecological integrity of this nature reserve based on the landscape characteristic. Our hypothesis posits that there are discernible differences in ecological integrity among the functional zones. We anticipate that the naturalness and pattern of landscape are pivotal factors influence the ecosystem integrity. The study will pro-vide valuable scientific insights for the nature reserve managements for the protected area network in the Wuyi Mountain Range and Nanling Range.” (page2 line71-81).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is very good. Due to time limitation, I only provide comments on the abstract:

Higher than what? Please be specific.

Less than what? Please be specific.

More severe than what? Please be specific again.

More than what again?

The authors should be diligent and solve similar issues in the main body of the text. Thanks.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

If possible, the authors should reduce the number of acronyms used in the manuscript. Too many acronyms, such as XPNR, EBLF, MEDBLF, DBLF, GL, SL, makes it almost impossible to read. I don’t think a normal person could understand these acronyms only used in this manuscript, not in daily life as all.

 

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 2

[General comment] This manuscript is very good. Due to time limitation, I only provide comments on the abstract:

Higher than what? Please be specific.

Less than what? Please be specific.

More severe than what? Please be specific again.

More than what again?

The authors should be diligent and solve similar issues in the main body of the text. Thanks.

[Response] Thank you for the suggestion very much. We appreciate the positive feedback and constructive suggestions from the reviewer, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Especially, we have rewritten these sentences to let the meanings clearer in Abstract. In addition, we have reduced the use of acronyms for these terms’ abbreviation were not in commonly used. All the amendments are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current title needs improvement. Try "Landscape Ecological Integrity Assessment to Improve Protected Area Management of Forest Ecosystems"

The abstract need to be revised for clarity and flow, as it is too dense. Sentences are long and often lack clear structure.

Introduction.

Start with a more concise sentence.

Try to increase the novelty by answering to the following questions:

Why is Xiangjiangyuan Provincial Nature Reserve a good case? What is missing from the literature?

Material and methods: Ensure definitions and units are explained for all metrics.

Which softwares were used? some classification criteria might be useful

Results: Separate results from interpretation — leave discussion for later. Try to use clear subheadings titles

Discussions: Discuss limitations and uncertainties more explicitly. Consider how generalizable the results are to other nature reserves or other studies and compare them. Go a little bit in depth with the fragmentation trends, naturalness implications, zone effectiveness.

References: 33 references might be not enough, but it is the editor decision.

L155. The table title needs to be arranged

L186-188: Unclear, needs to be rewritten

L10, 33. check the grammar

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The english has to be improved

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 3

[Comment 1] The current title needs improvement. Try "Landscape Ecological Integrity Assessment to Improve Protected Area Management of Forest Ecosystems".

The abstract need to be revised for clarity and flow, as it is too dense. Sentences are long and often lack clear structure.

[Response 1] Thank you for the suggestion very much. We have revised the title to “Landscape ecological integrity assessment to improve protected area management of forest ecosystem”.

[Comment 2] The abstract need to be revised for clarity and flow, as it is too dense. Sentences are long and often lack clear structure.

[Response 2] Thank you for your suggestion. We have rewritten these sentences to let the meanings clearer in the Abstract.

[Comment 3] Introduction. Start with a more concise sentence. Try to increase the novelty by answering to the following questions: Why is Xiangjiangyuan Provincial Nature Reserve a good case? What is missing from the literature?

[Response 3] Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have re-written the Introduction to make the meanings clarify. The Xiangjiangyuan Provincial Nature Reserve is located in the intersection of Wuyi Mountain Range and Nanling Range as the key node of nature reserve network in the Eastern China mountain. We think it is a good case for the general understand for the mountain nature reserve in Eastern China.

[Comment 4] Material and methods: Ensure definitions and units are explained for all metrics. Which software were used? some classification criteria might be useful.

[Response 4] We feel sorry for the confusing. We have revised in the manuscripts. We mainly used Fragstats software and had provided in the article. We identified through dominant plants of the vegetation, which can be distinguished in 12 landscape types.

[Comment 5] Results: Separate results from interpretation — leave discussion for later. Try to use clear subheadings titles.

[Response 5] We feel sorry for the confusing and thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the sub-titles.

[Comment 6] Discussions: Discuss limitations and uncertainties more explicitly. Consider how generalizable the results are to other nature reserves or other studies and compare them. Go a little bit in depth with the fragmentation trends, naturalness implications, zone effectiveness.

[Response 6] We feel sorry for the confusing and thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the Discussions to extrapolate results to general conclusions.

[Comment 7] References: 33 references might be not enough, but it is the editor decision.

[Response 7] Thank you for the suggestion. We have increased the references to 38.

[Comment 8] L155. The table title needs to be arranged

[Response 8] We feel sorry for the confusing and thank you for the suggestion. We have revised it.

[Comment 9] L186-188: Unclear, needs to be rewritten

[Response 9] We feel sorry for the confusing and thank you for the suggestion. We have revised it.

[Comment 10] L10, 33. check the grammar

[Response 10] We feel sorry for the confusing and thank you for the suggestion. We have revised it.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

The study presents an ecological integrity framework developed for this research, which includes a series of indices to monitor and evaluate the status and condition of the Xiangjiangyuan Provincial Nature Reserve (XPNR) in China.

In general, I recommend improvements to the language, as some sentences are currently unclear or lack precise meaning. For example, the second sentence of the Introduction (lines 33–35) is difficult to interpret. Additionally, careful attention should be paid to the use of appropriate terminology. For instance, the phrase "construction of nature reserves" may be misleading — are the authors referring to the formal designation of nature reserves or to actual physical construction? Ambiguities like this can lead to misunderstanding.

Regarding the Introduction, the overall flow could be improved. The section currently includes multiple definitions of ecological integrity; I suggest selecting one clear definition and avoiding repetition. Some key concepts are introduced without sufficient explanation. For example, what distinguishes “extremely important areas” from “important areas” for biodiversity? What specifically does “ecological spatial quality” refer to? It would also be helpful to include a clear definition of “nature reserve,” particularly in the Chinese context, where reserves may have distinct classifications and management regimes. Furthermore, definitions of the different functional zones and their respective management regimes should be included in the Introduction. This would support the reader in understanding the relationships between land use types (referred to as “landscape types” in the paper) and their distribution across the reserve and its zones. Could the authors also elaborate on how assessing ecological integrity supports zoning decisions in protected areas? This seems to be a key claim of the study.

In the methodological section, the location of the study area is unclear in Figure 1. XPNR appears to be indicated by a red dot, but the surrounding boundary is not accurately labeled — does it represent a city, a county, or the country? This should be clarified in both the map legend and the figure caption. In Figure 2, the colors used to distinguish functional zones are too similar (red and pink), making it hard to differentiate them. I recommend using more distinct colors and ensuring consistency with the colors used in Figure 3.

In the Results section, some statements are not fully supported by the data. For example: “The area of MEDBLF was 1860.89 ha, and the MCBLF was 1622.89 h, these two types of landscape were mainly distributed in the core zone.” However, based on the figures provided, there does not appear to be a significant difference in the distribution of MCBLF between the core and experimental zones. The final sentence in Section 3.2 is also overly general and conclusive.

It would be helpful if Sections 2 (Methods) and 3 (Results) were structured in a more parallel way to make it easier for the reader to follow. For example, the landscape typology and landscape patch grouping are presented in the "Data Collection" part of the Methods, suggesting these are input variables for the integrity index — yet in the Results section, they are treated as separate analyses (landscape composition and naturalness assessment). This may create confusion about how these components relate to the integrity framework.

In the Discussion, I expected that the various indices would be integrated into a composite measure of landscape ecological integrity. However, each index appears to be assessed independently. Are all indices considered equally important? Or do they carry different weights? If so, how were these weights determined?

In line 213, the term "authenticity" is introduced — is this being used synonymously with "originality"? I recommend choosing one term and using it consistently throughout the manuscript. Additionally, what are the reference thresholds for determining good integrity or authenticity? Metrics or rating scales for evaluating ecological integrity would be helpful here.

The sentence starting in line 219 and ending in line 221 would be more appropriate in the Introduction, not the Discussion.

Overall, the results are not particularly surprising — it is expected that core zones of protected areas will demonstrate higher ecological integrity than zones with less strict management regimes. This raises the question: what was the main hypothesis of the study?

Regarding the Conclusions, the authors state that the framework was effective — but how was this effectiveness evaluated? The final two sentences are also overly general. The authors refer to "effective management measures" without specifying what these are or where they should be applied. Additionally, it is unclear how the study supports the conclusion that improving the ecological quality of the reserve is a long-term task.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As I've wrote in my report (provided in the Comments and Suggestions for Authors) the manuscript should be proof read before being published, at the moment some sentences do not have any meaning, and some words are not well applied. 

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 4

[General comment] The study presents an ecological integrity framework developed for this research, which includes a series of indices to monitor and evaluate the status and condition of the Xiangjiangyuan Provincial Nature Reserve (XPNR) in China.

In general, I recommend improvements to the language, as some sentences are currently unclear or lack precise meaning. For example, the second sentence of the Introduction (lines 33–35) is difficult to interpret. Additionally, careful attention should be paid to the use of appropriate terminology. For instance, the phrase "construction of nature reserves" may be misleading — are the authors referring to the formal designation of nature reserves or to actual physical construction? Ambiguities like this can lead to misunderstanding.

[Response] We appreciate the positive feedback and constructive suggestions from the reviewer, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find the following point-by-point responses to reviewer’s concerns. All the amendments are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. Especially, the language errors and structure of Introduction have revised carefully, more other language issues will ask for a MDPI author services as English editing.

[Comment 1] Regarding the Introduction, the overall flow could be improved. The section currently includes multiple definitions of ecological integrity; I suggest selecting one clear definition and avoiding repetition. Some key concepts are introduced without sufficient explanation. For example, what distinguishes “extremely important areas” from “important areas” for biodiversity? What specifically does “ecological spatial quality” refer to? It would also be helpful to include a clear definition of “nature reserve,” particularly in the Chinese context, where reserves may have distinct classifications and management regimes. Furthermore, definitions of the different functional zones and their respective management regimes should be included in the Introduction. This would support the reader in understanding the relationships between land use types (referred to as “landscape types” in the paper) and their distribution across the reserve and its zones. Could the authors also elaborate on how assessing ecological integrity supports zoning decisions in protected areas? This seems to be a key claim of the study.

[Response 1] Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have re-written the INTRODUCTION carefully. The “extremely important areas” and “important areas” are the key concepts in biodiversity conservation planning for the identifying ecologically valuable and sensitive areas in national level. Please see Wang et al (2017). To avoid the confusing, we have revised the sentence (line36-37). The “ecological spatial quality” refers to ecosystem quality, we have revised it. The different functional zones and their respective management regimes were based on the IUCN criterion used in China government. According to the functional zoning results, we assessed the suitability of the results with ecological integrity under landscape analysis method.

Cited: Wang Y, Gao J, Zou C, et al. Identifying ecologically valuable and sensitive areas: A case study analysis from China[J]. Journal for Nature Conservation, 2017, 40: 49-63.

[Comment 2] In the methodological section, the location of the study area is unclear in Figure 1. XPNR appears to be indicated by a red dot, but the surrounding boundary is not accurately labeled — does it represent a city, a county, or the country? This should be clarified in both the map legend and the figure caption. In Figure 2, the colors used to distinguish functional zones are too similar (red and pink), making it hard to differentiate them. I recommend using more distinct colors and ensuring consistency with the colors used in Figure 3.

[Response 2] Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the maps includes the accurately location and colors in figure 2.

[Comment 3] In the Results section, some statements are not fully supported by the data. For example: “The area of MEDBLF was 1860.89 ha, and the MCBLF was 1622.89 h, these two types of landscape were mainly distributed in the core zone.” However, based on the figures provided, there does not appear to be a significant difference in the distribution of MCBLF between the core and experimental zones. The final sentence in Section 3.2 is also overly general and conclusive.

It would be helpful if Sections 2 (Methods) and 3 (Results) were structured in a more parallel way to make it easier for the reader to follow. For example, the landscape typology and landscape patch grouping are presented in the "Data Collection" part of the Methods, suggesting these are input variables for the integrity index — yet in the Results section, they are treated as separate analyses (landscape composition and naturalness assessment). This may create confusion about how these components relate to the integrity framework.

[Response 3] Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the Methods section, mainly as following: The landscape type of patch was identified through dominant plants included in the database. A total of 12 landscapes types were distinguished (Figure 2), such as ev-ergreen broad-leaved forest, mixed evergreen deciduous broad-leaved forest, decidu-ous broad-leaved forest, natural coniferous forest, mixed coniferous broad-leaved for-est, bamboo forest, planted coniferous forest, shrublands, grasslands, navel orange plantations, oil-seed camellia plantations, and tea plantations. Landscape patches were grouped according to Põldveer et al. (2023) grouping methodology into following naturalness classes (table 1), a total of 492 patches were grouped under study.

• Table 1 The simple classification with three categories of landscape naturalness

Naturalness level	Description
Natural patch	Not disturbed by humans or their animals.
Recovering patch	The vegetation may have been established by human activities, or naturally regenerated and have signs of past management.
Managed patch	Artificial systems such as planted land; the vegetation has been deliberately determined by humans, with loss of the previous habitat.

As the meanwhile, we have revised the Results section, included the sub-titles, the sentences.

[Comment 4] In the Discussion, I expected that the various indices would be integrated into a composite measure of landscape ecological integrity. However, each index appears to be assessed independently. Are all indices considered equally important? Or do they carry different weights? If so, how were these weights determined?

In line 213, the term "authenticity" is introduced — is this being used synonymously with "originality"? I recommend choosing one term and using it consistently throughout the manuscript. Additionally, what are the reference thresholds for determining good integrity or authenticity? Metrics or rating scales for evaluating ecological integrity would be helpful here.

The sentence starting in line 219 and ending in line 221 would be more appropriate in the Introduction, not the Discussion.

Overall, the results are not particularly surprising — it is expected that core zones of protected areas will demonstrate higher ecological integrity than zones with less strict management regimes. This raises the question: what was the main hypothesis of the study?

[Response 4] Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We assessed the suitability of the three functional zone with ecological integrity under landscape analysis method. And we evaluated the ecological integrity with multi-index from landscape indices and naturalness assessment results. Hence we have re-written the study objects and hypothesis in Introduction as follow: Based on the 7th national forest inventory datasets, we explored the landscape struc-ture of each functional zone, analyzed the ecological integrity of the nature reserve. The objects of the study are to (1) investigate the landscape composition and diversity in every functional zone; (2) identify the dominant landscape types in each functional zone; (3) analysis the ecological integrity of this nature reserve based on the landscape characteristic. Our hypothesis posits that there are discernible differences in ecological integrity among the functional zones. We anticipate that the naturalness and pattern of landscape are pivotal factors influence the ecosystem integrity. The study will pro-vide valuable scientific insights for the nature reserve managements for the protected area network in the Wuyi Mountain Range and Nanling Range.

As your suggestion, the “authenticity” is the synonymously with "originality", we have revised this problem in the entire manuscript to change the “authenticity” to "originality".

 

[Comment 5] Regarding the Conclusions, the authors state that the framework was effective — but how was this effectiveness evaluated? The final two sentences are also overly general. The authors refer to "effective management measures" without specifying what these are or where they should be applied. Additionally, it is unclear how the study supports the conclusion that improving the ecological quality of the reserve is a long-term task.

[Response 5] Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the conclusion section as follow: We developed an effective framework of landscape ecological integrity assess-ment, and used to evaluation for a mountain nature reserve in mid-subtropical region. As the evaluation result, the nature reserve maintained good integrity in general, and the naturalness class of the nature reserve was in recovering level. The degree of land-scape fragmentation in each functional zone as follows: core zone <buffer zone<experimental zone, and the degree of human interference was as follows: core zone<buffer zone<experimental zone. Based on the current status of ecological integ-rity of the nature reserve, we suggested that some more effectively management measures would be performed for the goal of improving ecosystem integrity. Our findings highlight that continuous maintenance high landscape ecological quality of the mountain nature reserve is a long-term and difficult task.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors. I am satisfied with how they handled my suggestions.

Author Response

General Comment: Congratulations to the authors. I am satisfied with how they handled my suggestions.

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback and encourage.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors making changes to the manuscript. If the authors could make figure 2 and figure 3 consistent, it is even better. Currently, figure 2 shows buffer zone and core zone in dashed lines, but in figure 3, they are in solid lines. There are no such issues in the original version of the manuscript. They are all solid lines. Additionally, the authors could also make the line color in agreement with each other in the two figures as well. Thanks.

Author Response

General Comment: Thanks to the authors making changes to the manuscript. If the authors could make figure 2 and figure 3 consistent, it is even better. Currently, figure 2 shows buffer zone and core zone in dashed lines, but in figure 3, they are in solid lines. There are no such issues in the original version of the manuscript. They are all solid lines. Additionally, the authors could also make the line color in agreement with each other in the two figures as well. Thanks.

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback and encourage. The Figure 3 had revised.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript have been improved overall. Beside the number of references, i think the revised version is appropiate

Author Response

General comment: The manuscript have been improved overall. Beside the number of references, i think the revised version is appropiate.

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback and encourage.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I appreciate your effort to improve the paper. The current version is better, still some amendments should be done.

• The colors of the functional zones in Figures 2 and 3 are still different, I recommend to have the same colors in both figures since they refer to the same zones.
• I've added some comments directly to the paper with suggestions for improvement/correction. The highlighted words should be corrected/proofread.
• I might be mistaken but it seems to me that there is still no reference to the levels of ecological quality, what is considered a good level, relatively good level?

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language should be checked once more, I've highlighted where some improvements should be done. I suggest a proofread by a native speaker.

Author Response

Comment: I appreciate your effort to improve the paper. The current version is better, still some amendments should be done.

• The colors of the functional zones in Figures 2 and 3 are still different, I recommend to have the same colors in both figures since they refer to the same zones.
• I've added some comments directly to the paper with suggestions for improvement/correction. The highlighted words should be corrected/proofread.
• I might be mistaken but it seems to me that there is still no reference to the levels of ecological quality, what is considered a good level, relatively good level?

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback and valuable suggestions. As your suggestions, we had revised as following:

(1) We had revised the figure 3 with same colors in dashed, which refer to the figure 2 to keep the figure 2 and 3 with the same lines and colors for different functional zone.

(2) Thank you for your comments for the language issues, we had revised the issues in the MS and highlighted in blue, more other language issues had been asking for a MDPI author services as English editing.

(3) As the assessment framework we brought out, we assessed the landscape pattern and naturalness class for whole nature reserve and each functional zone, and comprehensive assessment ecological integrity based on the results of landscape characteristics and naturalness. We also wanted to try to synthesize these results into an aggregative index, but we couldn't determine the weights of each indicator.

All revised had highlighted in blue in the MS. Thanks again.