Missing Landscapes: A Geohistory of Parkland Landscapes in Northwestern Morocco

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Excellent work, beautifully adapted to its sources of information. In this regard, it should be noted that the documentary possibilities are not exhausted, since we can undoubtedly continue in this direction to include other sources (mythology, religiosity, oral tradition...).
The only minor mistake found is about a spanish name, Compañia gricola del Lucus, cited in line 144. Should be Compañía Agrícola del Lucus. There are also something missing in line 98 (R’mel  gricol). Definitely, it was a pleasure to read this paper
About the figures, although the map is highly professional, black and white is not strictly neccesary. Since there are colour figures, colour maps should be used. A second map should show the location of the numerous toponyms mentioned (Tingitana peninsula, Rif mountains, Gharb region, Basra, Fez, Marrakech, Ksar-Kebir), and the references to archaeological sites (Tchemich, the cromlech of M'zorah); even some biogeographical references could be included (Larache cork oak forest massif, rare and endangered species, relict floristic associations...).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is a reshaping of the historical landscape of northwestern Morocco, which is of great significance for understanding regional environmental processes. However, the conceptual formulation and innovation need to be improved. The comments are as follows:

1. Line 25: What are the definitions of the park as part of the Anthropocene? In my opinion, the Anthropocene is more considered to be the ability of humans to modify the earth's surface on a large scale, such as the explosion of an atomic bomb. Authors should add citations to these terms that are conceptual, not yet specific, or have diverse definitions. If it is a concept proposed by the author, please explain it in detail. Please check the full manuscript.

2. Lines 49-68: Please elaborate on the methodology used in these studies and how they differ from those used in this manuscript.

3. The author's research is more focused on social science research, so please give a conceptual diagram of the research process in Chapter 2 of the manuscript to help readers better understand the content of the research and reproduce it.

4. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? Please add to the discussion section of the manuscript.

5. Lines 533-572: There should be no references in the conclusion section, but a re-emphasis on the content of the innovation, including an overview of the research process and a distillation of key findings. Please update the content.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, the Author focuses on the Geohistory of Parkland Landscapes, in Northwestern Morocco (Africa). Although the manuscript may be of interest to scholars, it shows serious pitfalls that the Author should resolve. See the detailed report below. In my opinion, the manuscript (research article) is not ready for publication in Land.

Section “1. Introduction”

This section lacks bibliographic references that highlight what is already known internationally about Parkland Landscapes, while it is unclear what research gap(s) the Author would like to fill. The Author writes: “The main question addressed here is: How the ancient relationships between societies and their environment can produce “working landscapes” [1] with heritage values, to be recognized and preserved”. However, it is unclear where the scientific need to address this issue comes from. The Author should develop a detailed literature review to highlight what is already known and aspects/elements of Parkland Landscapes research that have not yet been addressed internationally by scholars.

Lines 24-36: “Many landscapes […] question addressed here is”. This part lacks adequate references.

Lines 39-41: “Parklands constitute […] is seldom recognized”. This part lacks adequate references.

Lines 44-47: “The large typological […] systems”. This part lacks adequate references.

Lines 53-56: it is unclear what “methods” the Author refers to.

Lines 57-59: “From a strict phytodynamic point of view, describing the processes observed as concerns this type of vegetation as degradation is entirely justifiable, especially when one documents their Holocene history”. Please consider rephrasing. What is the “phytodynamic point of view”?

Lines 69-78: the Author lists five questions. However, it is unclear if these are research questions. In other words, what research gap does the Author intend to answer with the five questions? The questions appear to be personal questions devoid of any scientific basis.

Line 79-80: “geohistorical approach to landscape”. What is a geohistorical approach? The Author is advised to provide a clear description of this approach.

The aims of the study are unclear.

Section “2. Materials and Methods”

While Section “2.1. Presentation of the study area” is too detailed, Section “2.2. Methods” is poor in terms of clarity.

Section “2.2. Methods”

This section lacks clear description of the method, which appears to have no scientific basis. The Author refers to a research in French: “Ballouche, A. Contribution à l’histoire récente de la végétation du Bas-Loukkos (Province de Larache, Maroc). PhysioGéo, 2013, 7, 67-82”. However, as Land is an international journal, an ordinary international scholar would expect key points of French research to be translated into English. Many questions arise:

·        Why does the pollen analysis concern a 315 cm core sample? Why 315 cm and not 320?

·        How were samples collected and stored?

·        How many samples were collected?

·        How and by whom were the chemical analyzes carried out? With what instruments?

As for the second paragraph “In order to translate the history of vegetation […] Madrid), or France” (lines 161-171):

·        What criteria were used to survey, select, and scrutinize the documents?

·        Was manual, semi-automatic or automatic content analysis adopted?

·        What tools and software were adopted?

The Author refers to “geohistorical approach” but no clear definition is provided. I would suggest the Author clearly describe this approach. Is this approach validated and adopted in previous research? Who adopted this approach? When? What are the pros and cons? It is not clear what scientific elements underlie the proposed methodology.

Results, discussion, and conclusions

Due to the lack of adequate literature review and the weakness of the method, the results and conclusions are questionable.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the manuscript could be considered for publication.

Minor editing of English language required.