Next Article in Journal
Introduction to the Special Issue on Early Child Development: From Measurement to Optimal Functioning and Evidence-Based Policy
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Zooplankton and Environmental Factors on Clear-Water Phase in Lake Paldang, South Korea
Previous Article in Journal
Having to Work from Home: Basic Needs, Well-Being, and Motivation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Retrieval and Evaluation of Chlorophyll-a Concentration in Reservoirs with Main Water Supply Function in Beijing, China, Based on Landsat Satellite Images
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Regression Tree Analysis for Stream Biological Indicators Considering Spatial Autocorrelation

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(10), 5150; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105150
by Mi-Young Kim 1 and Sang-Woo Lee 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(10), 5150; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105150
Submission received: 20 March 2021 / Revised: 7 May 2021 / Accepted: 10 May 2021 / Published: 13 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Quality and Ecosystem Monitoring, Analysis, and Management)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper explains the relationships between land cover and biological indicators, focused on planning and management. In my opinion, the study has been well-planned and developed, the text is correctly written, and the information is orderly and clearly exposed. I am not an expert on statistical and regression tree analysis and spatial autocorrelation, but I believe this approach is consistent. I think that this study is worthy of being published; only a few minor changes should be considered:

Line 85: delete ‘using Moran’s I (MI)’ and introduce this abbreviature in the Material & Methods section.

Table 1: Regarding FAI (Fish Assessment Index), is the sum correct? The index is the sum of numbers and percentages, without any kind of calibration?

Lines 182-186: This is not Material & Methods; please replace this on Discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have carefully read the manuscript and it seems to me that it presents the quality that the journal needs. I think that the introduction provides sufficient background and presents the relevant references; the methods are adequately described. Results are clearly presented and discussed, and the conclusions are supported by the results. For all this, I recommend its publication in the present form.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop