Habitat Suitability Evaluation and Ecological Corridor Construction for Asian Elephants: The Case of Jiangcheng, a New Range for Elephants in Southwestern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figure 1, in the version provided in the pdf for review, the images are small and when magnified the detail is lost. Is it possible to outline the study area Jiangcheng on these maps? this would help the reader unfamiliar with this area.

Table 2, the information in each column does not seem to line up horizontally across the page. I tried to access the key references Zhang et al 2022 but could not find a version in English to check, and Jiang et al 2019 I could not find any version after considerable searching. 

Table 3.  the heading 'divide the criteria'  is not proper English, I think you mean something like 'data bands'.

Figure 5. could you please define, either in the figure legends, the terms 'primary/secondary/tertiary ecological source'  and 'source point'.

Figure 9. could you please comment on the 'suitable distribution' in this figure with the actual distribution as shown in figure 2: these look very similar. Does this mean (a) your model works well (b) the elephants have already occupied almost all of the suitable range (c) is there circularity in the method: without being able to read the references cited above, I am not sure how the environmental categories were assessed in relation to elephant distribution, and was this done in the same geographic area?  could the result be an artefact of this method?

I note the paper by Kai He et al 2023 'Evaluation of habitat suitability for Asian elephants in Sipsongpanna under climate change by coupling multi-source remote sensing products with MaxEnt model' . Remote Sensing 15: 1047. This looks at different targets but with some of the same methods, in a different part of Yunnan Province; it would be useful to compare your methodology and results with this paper (and any others similar) with regard to habitat factors and elephant distribution, to see if there is any different implication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

generally good but needs text editing (missing spaces etc). Do not begin English sentences with 'And'

Author Response

Comments 1: Figure 1, in the version provided in the pdf for review, the images are small and when magnified the detail is lost. Is it possible to outline the study area Jiangcheng on these maps? this would help the reader unfamiliar with this area.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have increased the resolution of all the illustrations in the full text and highlighted the area of the Jiangcheng in Figure 1. Please see line 73 of the manuscript for reference.

 

Comments 2: Table 2, the information in each column does not seem to line up horizontally across the page. I tried to access the key references Zhang et al 2022 but could not find a version in English to check, and Jiang et al 2019 I could not find any version after considerable searching.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the content of the form and the references. All references are now accompanied by download links. Please refer to line 154 of the manuscript

 

Comments 3: Table 3. the heading 'divide the criteria' is not proper English, I think you mean something like 'data bands'.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected the error. Please refer to line 251 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 4: Figure 5. could you please define, either in the figure legends, the terms 'primary/secondary/tertiary ecological source' and 'source point'.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have indicated their definitions. Please refer to lines 334-336 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 5: Figure 9. could you please comment on the 'suitable distribution' in this figure with the actual distribution as shown in figure 2: these look very similar. Does this mean (a) your model works well (b) the elephants have already occupied almost all of the suitable range (c) is there circularity in the method: without being able to read the references cited above, I am not sure how the environmental categories were assessed in relation to elephant distribution, and was this done in the same geographic area?  could the result be an artefact of this method?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. The factors selected in the construction of the model are based on the living habits of elephants and relevant literature. All trials were conducted in the same geographical area. The model's results are consistent with reality and should not be influenced by manual intervention. I hope you can accept my point of view.

 

Comments 6: I note the paper by Kai He et al 2023 'Evaluation of habitat suitability for Asian elephants in Sipsongpanna under climate change by coupling multi-source remote sensing products with MaxEnt model'. Remote Sensing 15: 1047. This looks at different targets but with some of the same methods, in a different part of Yunnan Province; it would be useful to compare your methodology and results with this paper (and any others similar) with regard to habitat factors and elephant distribution, to see if there is any different implication.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have carefully read this article and used it as my reference. I found that although both articles study the habitat of Asian elephants, the article you mentioned focuses on the future habitat of Asian elephants under climate change, while my article discusses plans for constructing the Asian elephant habitat based on the current situation.

If it is more convenient for you to review, please refer to Attachment 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a model of habitat suitable areas for Asian elephant in the Jiangcheng Hani and Yi Autonomous County region of China. On the one hand, the study is regional; for the same reason, the review of literature sources is very limited. On the other hand, the study is of interest to ecologists, zoologists and specialists in the field of conservation biology because the study region is located in the northern part of the habitat of Asian elephant. I think that the article can be published because the research is really interesting and important. However, I found some technical shortcomings that need to be addressed:

1) The introduction, as well as the discussion, lacks information about the ecology of the Asian elephant. I also recommend to add sources not only from Chinese authors.

2) Figure 1, 2. Authors need to increase the resolution. The inscriptions in the picture are very difficult to read

3) Line 104: Authors need to add a link to the source of population data

4) 3.1. Data Collection and Acquisition of Environmental Variables: This section should provide links to all data sources. For now, the authors provide a link only to OSM. Also, for all this data authors need to specify the time period.

5) Line 136: The authors named the satellite ALOS, but did not indicate the data source from which they directly took the data

6) Table 2: Rows in different columns are not correlated exactly

7) Line 161-162: Apparently, the authors did not binarize the rasters with LULC and vegetation type. But these variables are categorical, so each vegetation type and land cover type must be represented as a binary raster. For example, “forest” = 1, “not forest” = 0. Select those variables that have ecological significance for elephants and include them in the set of predictors.

8) Figure 3 and line 319: LUCC is written instead of LULC

9) Line 218: ArcGIS

10) Line 243: classification

11) Figure 4, 5 are better transferred to the results

12) Line 433-440 The conclusions should contain a conclusion on the results, and this paragraph with the goal and objectives better to transfer to the introduction

I will also note that the article was written carelessly, the authors made many typos. I pointed out some of the typos in the comments, but there are more in the article. This also needs to be carefully checked and corrected.

Author Response

Comments 1: The introduction, as well as the discussion, lacks information about the ecology of the Asian elephant. I also recommend to add sources not only from Chinese authors.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have included ecological information about Asian elephants in the introduction and discussion sections, as well as incorporated foreign references throughout the entire text. The revisions are reflected in lines 41-44 and 356-367 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 2: Figure 1, 2. Authors need to increase the resolution. The inscriptions in the picture are very difficult to read

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have enhanced the resolution of the illustrations in the full text. Please refer to lines 73 and 135 of the manuscript for Figures 1 and 2.

 

Comments 3: Authors need to add a link to the source of population data

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have added sources of population data, which can be found on line 150 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 4: 3.1. Data Collection and Acquisition of Environmental Variables: This section should provide links to all data sources. For now, the authors provide a link only to OSM. Also, for all this data authors need to specify the time period.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, the time-sensitive data is from 2021, as indicated in lines 152-153 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 5: Line 136: The authors named the satellite ALOS, but did not indicate the data source from which they directly took the data

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected the error. Please refer to lines 141-143 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 6: Table 2: Rows in different columns are not correlated exactly

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have made changes to the table content, please see line 154 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 7: Line 161-162: Apparently, the authors did not binarize the rasters with LULC and vegetation type. But these variables are categorical, so each vegetation type and land cover type must be represented as a binary raster. For example, “forest” = 1, “not forest” = 0. Select those variables that have ecological significance for elephants and include them in the set of predictors.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I have reclassified the land cover data according to your suggestion. However, the contribution rate of soil cover data to the model is very low during model construction, resulting in an unsatisfactory model performance. I reviewed the literature and analyzed the situation in the study area for the following reasons: First, due to the increased protection by the Chinese government for Asian elephants, their feeding habits have changed, and they now prefer to eat crops. Secondly, local forest protection has improved, resulting in higher canopies and the absence of shrub grass that elephants typically feed on under the forest. I hope you can accept my view.

 

Comments 8: Figure 3 and line 319: LUCC is written instead of LULC

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected this error. Please refer to lines 301 and 304 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 9: Line 218: ArcGIS

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected the error. Please refer to line 227 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 10: classification

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have corrected the error. Please refer to line 251 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 11: Figure 4, 5 are better transferred to the results

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have transferred this part to the results section. Please refer to the manuscript lines 313-318 and 321-331.

 

Comments 12: Line 433-440 The conclusions should contain a conclusion on the results, and this paragraph with the goal and objectives better to transfer to the introduction

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have transferred this part to the introduction. Please refer to lines 91-99 of the manuscript.

If it is more convenient for you to review, please refer to Attachment 2.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for answering the questions raised at first review, and for making revisions as appropriate. I accept the authors' replies, and do not find any further points for revision.