Passive Restoration Achieved through Natural Processes over 70 Years in the Korean DMZ

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is interesting and takes into account an important topic for the natural processes in riparian ecosystems. A remote sensing analysis was performed through Landsat images and topographic data in order to assess the landcover and land use changes. My main suggestion to improve this paper is too avoid long sentence and to delete some repetitions that are presents in the main text. Then, you have to avoid acronyms in the title and in the abstract. Other comments are highlighted in the attached pdf file.

Kind regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer’s comments

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for reviewers’ valuable advice and comments. We answered faithfully to reviewers’ questions and revised our manuscript be reflecting reviewers’ valuable advice and comments.

Thank you again for reviewers’ kind advice and comments.

Sincerely Yours,

Chang Seok Lee

Reviewer #1

Explain acronym.

☞ We explained it in the Abstract section.

This sentence is too long. Maybe you can modify like this: The landscape of Korean DMZ is characterized by riparian forests without human settlements. Here, anthopogenic activities have been restrained since 1953.

☞ We revised this part. Lines 12 – 16.

Similar results of what?

☞ We revised this part. Lines 25-26.

Explain what kind of difference you detected.

☞ We revised this part. Lines 27.

All these sentence must be moved in the Study area section.

☞ This is a necessary part to explain the characteristics of the DMZ. In the Study area section, I would like to deal only with the DMZ.

alluvial plain

☞ We revised this part. Line 36.

has been

☞ We revised this part. Line 58.

It is unclear, maybe you mean that infiltration is high in the riparian ecosystems.

☞ It means that organic substances contained in the flood can be held up by slowing the flow of water.

The sentences are too verbose. Please reduce.

☞ We revised this part. Lines 83-93.

Figure 1: Please insert geographic grid, scale bar and north arrow.

☞ We revised Figure 1.

There are too repetitions. I highlighted this, however you have to correct others.

☞ We revised our manuscript to reduce repetitions.

Has

☞ We revised this part. Line 275.

Consider also other causes, like climate change, sea-level rise, water stress (see 10.3390/rs14194936; 10.3390/rs15184415)

☞ We agree with your opinion. However, such factors are far from the subject of this study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed this manuscript with interest as the authors attempted to find the cause of ecological restoration within the DMZ by comparing land use types and vegetation changes in the DMZ and CCZ over nearly 70 years. Overall, there are major problems with this manuscript, as described below:

(1)    The title indicates that the study spans about 70 years, but from the elaboration of the manuscript, it appears that the remote sensing imagery data used in the manuscript goes back as far as 1979, and the authors show a land use type map from about 1950 in Figure 3, so please add the complete DMZ land use type map from about 1950 in the appendix.

(2) The first occurrence of abbreviated terms such as DMZ and CCZ in the abstract should be given in full.

(3) Please add the international context related to passive restoration, control of military zones, etc. in the introduction.

(4) Why is a detailed description of riparian landscapes and ecosystems in L51-L63 necessary, and what is the purpose and significance?

(5) The introduction does not summarize and distill the scientific questions addressed by the manuscript, and it is not clear why the authors chose the DMZ as the study area, and what is the significance and purpose of the study? There is also no literature review of research advances in passive restoration.

(6) Please add DEM map, land cover map of the study area.

(7) Is there no quantitative analysis in this manuscript? Why quantitative methods such as kinetic attitude analysis and transfer matrix analysis are not used in the analysis of land use change in the DMZ. Please add the specific formula for the landscape pattern index mentioned in L264 (Table 4).

(8) What is the time year of Figure 2? Where exactly is Figure 2 located in the DMZ?

(9) Please add to the discussion the theoretical and practical implications of passive restoration.

(10) Please add to the discussion the significance of conducting this research to other countries or the contribution to the international academic community.

(11) Please add to the discussion the shortcomings and prospects of the current study.

(12) The references are too old and mostly Korean, so please add international literature from the last three years.

Author Response

Response to reviewer’s comments

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for reviewers’ valuable advice and comments. We answered faithfully to reviewers’ questions and revised our manuscript be reflecting reviewers’ valuable advice and comments.

Thank you again for reviewers’ kind advice and comments.

Sincerely Yours,

Chang Seok Lee

Reviewer #2

Authors must define the acronyms in the Abstract.

☞ We revised the parts. Lines 12 and 18.

It is interesting that the authors include numerical and statistical results in the Abstract.

☞ We revised the part. Lines 21.

In addition to this table, it is important to have descriptive statistics results.

☞ Statistical processing was not possible due to the small number of repetitions of the data. Instead, this table was replaced with a figure to facilitate comparison.

In addition to the Table, I suggest the authors create a boxplot to identify outliers and variability between categories.

☞ The boxplot method could not be applied because the number of repetitions of the data was small. Instead, this table was replaced with a figure that was easy to compare.

In my opinion, it is necessary for the authors to create a Conclusions or Final Considerations item and within this item include limitations and recommendations for new studies.

☞ We added 5. Conclusion section by accepting reviewer’s comment. Lines 510 – 542.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript has potential for publication. However, it requires adjustments, improvement in results and discussion to be accepted.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer’s comments

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for reviewers’ valuable advice and comments. We answered faithfully to reviewers’ questions and revised our manuscript be reflecting reviewers’ valuable advice and comments.

Thank you again for reviewers’ kind advice and comments.

Sincerely Yours,

Chang Seok Lee

Reviewer #3

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed this manuscript with interest as the authors attempted to find the cause of ecological restoration within the DMZ by comparing land use types and vegetation changes in the DMZ and CCZ over nearly 70 years. Overall, there are major problems with this manuscript, as described below:

(1) The title indicates that the study spans about 70 years, but from the elaboration of the manuscript, it appears that the remote sensing imagery data used in the manuscript goes back as far as 1979, and the authors show a land use type map from about 1950 in Figure 3, so please add the complete DMZ land use type map from about 1950 in the appendix.

☞ We added data in the 1950s obtained through aerial photography analysis by reflecting the advice of the reviewer. Appendix

(2) The first occurrence of abbreviated terms such as DMZ and CCZ in the abstract should be given in full.

☞ We revised them. Lines 12 and 18.

(3) Please add the international context related to passive restoration, control of military zones, etc. in the introduction.

☞ We added them by accepting reviewer’s comments. Lines 73 – 97.

(4) Why is a detailed description of riparian landscapes and ecosystems in L51-L63 necessary, and what is the purpose and significance?

☞ Korea is a country that uses rice as its staple food, and like other countries that use rice as its main food, most wetlands have been converted to rice paddies. In addition, due to the high population density, most of the areas from flat lands to lowlands were over-exploited, and riparian ecosystems and landscapes disappeared or were greatly damaged. However, the DMZ, which has been left in the natural process for a long time recovers it, and thus, it is the factor that the DMZ is the most different from other regions in Korea. In addition, these landscape factors are very important factors for the preservation of biodiversity as many organisms use them as spaces for reproduction. These factors are the background in which this study focuses on riparian landscape and ecosystem systems.

(5) The introduction does not summarize and distill the scientific questions addressed by the manuscript, and it is not clear why the authors chose the DMZ as the study area, and what is the significance and purpose of the study? There is also no literature review of research advances in passive restoration.

☞ We revised the parts. Lines 55 – 97.

 (6) Please add DEM map, land cover map of the study area.

☞ We revised it.

(7) Is there no quantitative analysis in this manuscript? Why quantitative methods such as kinetic attitude analysis and transfer matrix analysis are not used in the analysis of land use change in the DMZ. Please add the specific formula for the landscape pattern index mentioned in L264.

☞ We revised the parts. Lines 248 – 258.

 (8) What is the time year of Figure 2? Where exactly is Figure 2 located in the DMZ?

☞ It is Data from 2019. One of them is DMZ and the other two are rural and urban areas.

(9) Please add to the discussion the theoretical and practical implications of passive restoration.

☞ We added them in Introduction section by accepting reviewer’s suggestions. Lines 73 – 97.

 (10) Please add to the discussion the significance of conducting this research to other countries or the contribution to the international academic community.

☞ We revised the parts. Lines 567 – 574.

(11) Please add to the discussion the shortcomings and prospects of the current study.

☞ We addressed them in 5. Conclusion section that I prepared newly.

(12) The references are too old and mostly Korean, so please add international literature from the last three years.

☞ We revised it by adding new and literatures published international Journals.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

everything is ok.