Potential for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) Applications in Biodiversity Conservation, Managing Forests, and Related Services in India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, the authors conducted systematic 20 search of literature related to application of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithm (ML) in forestry sector and biodiversity research and conservation across globe and in India using ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar. And they summarised the challenging fators influencing the adoption of AI technology in Indian forestry and biodiversity sector. It is a good work. So, I can suggest it for publication after some minor revisions.

Specific comments:

1. Please shorten the abstract.
2. Please move the Table S3 into the manuscript.
3. Among all the fators influencing the adoption of AI technology in Indian forestry and biodiversity sector, which one is the most important? Why is that?
4. Conclusions need a shrinking to better highlight the most innovative parts and the most significant findings of the study.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers Comments

Responses to Reviewer #1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

In this study, the authors conducted systematic search of literature related to application of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithm (ML) in forestry sector and biodiversity research and conservation across globe and in India using ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar. And they summarised the challenging fators influencing the adoption of AI technology in Indian forestry and biodiversity sector. It is a good work. So, I can suggest it for publication after some minor revisions.

We thank anonymous reviewer for the manuscript's thorough perusal and their appreciation for the work and recommending it for publication in the journal. We have now revised the manuscript based on the reviewer' comments, and we would like to mention that the reviewer's comments have substantially improved the quality of the manuscript. Below we share our point-by-point response to reviewer specific comments with the reviewer comments color-coded in blue and the author response in red:

Specific comments:

Please shorten the abstract.

As suggested by reviewer, we have now shortened the abstract.

Please move the Table S3 into the manuscript.

As suggested by reviewer, we have now moved Table S3 to main manuscript

Among all the factors influencing the adoption of AI technology in Indian forestry and biodiversity sector, which one is the most important? Why is that?

1) access to data related to forest and biodiversity2) technical and computation challenges of using technologies like AI (for example, challenges of making technologies like AI more accessible to wider community).

The above two factors are the most important in influencing the adoption of AI technology in Indian forestry and biodiversity sector, because the improved access to big data can attract research and innovation and improve adoption of AI technologies in Indian forestry and biodiversity sectors. Further, cheaper, and cost-effective access to computational space will make AI technology more affordable to developing countries like India. Moreover, building technical capacity in Indian researchers, professionals and scientists is also important for accelerating the AI technology in Indian forestry and biodiversity sector. We have added more detail to the conclusion section on factors influencing the adoption of AI technology in Indian forestry and biodiversity sector.

Conclusions need a shrinking to better highlight the most innovative parts and the most significant findings of the study.

We have shortened the conclusion section and we have also divided conclusion into number of short paragraphs to better highlight the significant findings of the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript needs major revisions, see the followings:

*The introduction should be improved (The literature review is weak).
*English should be improved.
*The Abstract should be improved.
*The References should be updated.

*Outstanding results should be defined as quantified in the abstract and conclusions.

*The novelty of this article is not clear. Please more explain it.

*Tables should be added to the main text.
*Better description and explanation of tables.
*There are some typing errors and inaccuracies in the manuscript. Please, check the paper again for any possible misprints.

*The validation section should be added.

* The conclusion should be improved.
* Introduction part needs to be extended by some of the recently published papers to show the importance of analysis of forest in high-quality journals. The following references should be included in this manuscript:

[1] Afitah, I., & Isra, E. P. (2021). Analysis of Forest and Land Fire with Hotspot Modis on Various Types of Land Cover in Central Kalimantan Province. AgBioForum, 23(2), 13-21.

[2] Lemma, D. B., Gebretsadik, K. T., & Debela, S. K. (2021). Forest cover change detection in relation to climate variability and LULC changes using GIS and RS techniques. A case of the Kafa zone, southwest Ethiopia. Journal of Water and Land Development, 152-162.

[3] Stasik, R., Kęsicka, B., & Korytowski, M. (2020). Water level trends in the ponds of Siemianice Experimental Forest Farm. Journal of Water and Land Development.169-175.

[4] Zinchenko, M., Zinchenko, S., Mazirov, M., Ragimov, A., Shitikova, A. (2021). Biological indicators in the environmental monitoring of gray forest soil of agrosystems. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 19(5), 891-896. doi: 10.22124/cjes.2021.5252

[5] Mirhashemi, H., Moradi, F., Pourbabaei, H., Mezbani, A. (2021). Changes in flora, life forms and geographical distribution of herbaceous plant species along an altitudinal gradient in oak forests, Iran. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 19(4), 619-627. doi: 10.22124/cjes.2021.5121

*I hope that the authors refer to more published papers in Sustainability.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript needs major revisions, see the followings:

We thank anonymous reviewer for the manuscript's thorough perusal of the manuscript and providing his valuable feedback. We have now revised the manuscript based on the reviewer' comments, and we would like to mention that the reviewer's comments have substantially improved the quality of the manuscript. Below we share our point-by-point response to reviewer specific comments with the reviewer comments color-coded in blue and the author response in red:

*The introduction should be improved (The literature review is weak).

As suggested by reviewer, we have now revised the Introduction with 10 more relevant literature,

*English should be improved.

All the authors have read and copyedited the manuscript to improve the language

*The Abstract should be improved.

As suggested by reviewer, we have now shortened the abstract and improved it.

*The References should be updated.

As suggested by reviewer, we have now updated references with more up to date and relevant literature

*Outstanding results should be defined as quantified in the abstract and conclusions.

As this was a synthesis or review article, we will not be able to give any quantitative  results. However, we have highlighted important findings and associated conclusion in abstract.

*The novelty of this article is not clear. Please more explain it.

The novelty of this synthesis article defined broadly in Introduction section and also highlighted in conclusion. Please see these sections for more details.

*Tables should be added to the main text.

We have moved Table S3 to main manuscript. But other tables are retained as supplementary material due to their length.

*Better description and explanation of tables.

We have updated Table and Figures legends as suggested.

*There are some typing errors and inaccuracies in the manuscript. Please, check the paper again for any possible misprints.

All authors have read and copyedited the manuscript to fix any typing errors and inaccuracies.

*The validation section should be added.

As this article is the synthesis or review paper, we are of the opinion that validation section may not be necessary.

* The conclusion should be improved.

As suggested by reviewer, we have now improved the conclusion section.

* Introduction part needs to be extended by some of the recently published papers to show the importance of analysis of forest in high-quality journals. The following references should be included in this manuscript:

[1] Afitah, I., & Isra, E. P. (2021). Analysis of Forest and Land Fire with Hotspot Modis on Various Types of Land Cover in Central Kalimantan Province. AgBioForum, 23(2), 13-21.

[2] Lemma, D. B., Gebretsadik, K. T., & Debela, S. K. (2021). Forest cover change detection in relation to climate variability and LULC changes using GIS and RS techniques. A case of the Kafa zone, southwest Ethiopia. Journal of Water and Land Development, 152-162.

[3] Stasik, R., Kęsicka, B., & Korytowski, M. (2020). Water level trends in the ponds of Siemianice Experimental Forest Farm. Journal of Water and Land Development.169-175.

[4] Zinchenko, M., Zinchenko, S., Mazirov, M., Ragimov, A., Shitikova, A. (2021). Biological indicators in the environmental monitoring of gray forest soil of agrosystems. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 19(5), 891-896. doi: 10.22124/cjes.2021.5252

[5] Mirhashemi, H., Moradi, F., Pourbabaei, H., Mezbani, A. (2021). Changes in flora, life forms and geographical distribution of herbaceous plant species along an altitudinal gradient in oak forests, Iran. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 19(4), 619-627. doi: 10.22124/cjes.2021.5121.

As suggested by reviewer, we have extended the Introduction section with more recently published articles. However, we felt that the articles suggested by reviewer were not relevant for our article. None of the articles suggested by reviewer fit into our review article focusing on AI and ML application in forest and biodiversity conservation. Thus, we did not include this suggested literature.

*I hope that the authors refer to more published papers in Sustainability.

We found following articles published in Sustainability journal that are relevant to our study and we have referred them in the article.

1. Ampatzidis Y, De Bellis L, Luvisi A. iPathology: robotic applications and management of plants and plant diseases. Sustainability. 2017 Jun;9(6):1010.
2. Dou X, Yang Y, Luo J. Estimating Forest carbon fluxes using machine learning techniques based on eddy covariance measurements. Sustainability. 2018 Jan;10(1):203.
3. Dominguez D, del Villar LD, Pantoja O, González-Rodríguez M. Forecasting Amazon Rain-Forest Deforestation Using a Hybrid Machine Learning Model. Sustainability. 2022 Jan;14(2):691.
4. Isabelle DA, Westerlund M. A Review and Categorization of Artificial Intelligence-Based Opportunities in Wildlife, Ocean and Land Conservation. Sustainability. 2022 Feb 9;14(4):1979.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

AI and Machine Learning can have a tremendous impact on the economy in several sectors. However, applications for biodervisity conservation are relatively scarce now.

This review investigates the 'Potential for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) applications in biodiversity conservation, managing forests and its related services in India'.
The manuscript is divided into several parts: an introduction presenting the scope of the review and its goal, a Materials and methods section, a Results and Discussion section composed of various subsections presenting the main applications of AI, and a conclusion. Supplementary tables summarize the main references for published articles to company actions. The subject may interest the readers of the journal, and, overall, the manuscript is well written and structured.

The authors might examine minor points in my opinion:
l 39: please remove 'T'
fig1: the authors should be careful about the resolution of the image as it is the only one in the manuscript
- l 186: some sentences are relatively redundant with line 161 for example, in my opinion. Can the text be shortened?
- l 226 - 239: maybe some academic references might be cited in the text (not only in supplementary tables)
l 287: I cannot find Bastin citation in the reference section. Is it normal?
l 310-317: please clarify the link with the subsection title
l 381: is this instance segmentation? e.g. for the recognition of a particular individual tiger
conclusion: the authors might consider breaking the conclusion into several paragraphs to ease reading.

Table S1: please be consistent and use ‘computer vision’ for mamals, birds, etc

Table S1: please give the type of technology and algorithm (at least one) for all sectors

Table S2: mainly sector should be presented first before companies’ names. Please hen sort by company name in each sector

Table S3: is there an ‘official’ reference for these figures?

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

AI and Machine Learning can have a tremendous impact on the economy in several sectors. However, applications for biodervisity conservation are relatively scarce now.

This review investigates the 'Potential for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) applications in biodiversity conservation, managing forests and its related services in India'.

The manuscript is divided into several parts: an introduction presenting the scope of the review and its goal, a Materials and methods section, a Results and Discussion section composed of various subsections presenting the main applications of AI, and a conclusion. Supplementary tables summarize the main references for published articles to company actions. The subject may interest the readers of the journal, and, overall, the manuscript is well written and structured.

We thank anonymous reviewer for the manuscript's thorough perusal and his appreciation for the work and recommending it for publication in the journal. We have now revised the manuscript based on the reviewer' comments, and we would like to mention that the reviewer's comments have substantially improved the quality of the manuscript. Below we share our point-by-point response to reviewer specific comments with the reviewer comments color-coded in blue and the author response in red:

The authors might examine minor points in my opinion:

l 39: please remove 'T'

Removed and corrected.

fig1: the authors should be careful about the resolution of the image as it is the only one in the manuscript.

We have provided high resolution image for fig1.

- l 186: some sentences are relatively redundant with line 161 for example, in my opinion. Can the text be shortened?

As suggested by reviewer, we have removed redundant text and shortened the text wherever appropriate.

- l 226 - 239: may be some academic references might be cited in the text (not only in supplementary tables)

As suggested by reviewer, we have also cited academic references in the main text.

l 287: I cannot find Bastin citation in the reference section. Is it normal?

Sorry, we missed adding this reference. We have now made sure that all cited literature included in reference list.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This article can be accepted.

Author Response

This article can be accepted.

Response: We thank reviewer for recommending our manuscript for publication in the Journal