Regional Ecological Security Pattern Construction Based on Ecological Barriers: A Case Study of the Bohai Bay Terrestrial Ecosystem
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript portrays ecological security patterns constructions based on ecological barriers in the Bohai Bay Terrestrial Ecosystem. The authors analyzed the changes in habitat quality, identified ecological barriers, constructed ecological security patterns (ESPs), and explored the relationships between ecological barriers and ESPs. The manuscript is well-written, the results are empirically documented, and the conclusions are poised with the paper's objectives. I just have a few questions/comments:
- Section 2.2: How did the authors classify the LULC images? What was the basis of this classification?
- Lines 275-277: "In this study, the geometric centroid of the ecological sources is taken as the ecological source point, and the minimum cost distance and path spatial analysis tools of ArcGIS are used to extract the ecological corridors between ecological sources in Bohai Bay." I think showing how geometric centroids and minimum cost distance and path work as equations would help non-GIS users to connect with the paper.
- Figure 3C: I did not understand the legend. It'd be better to explain a little bit more about what this particular figure represents.
- Figure 3d: The authors might want to elaborate on what HH/HL/LH/LL means in the figure title. While I understand high-high or low-low clusters and their spatial outliers (low-high and high-low), it would be better to explain how cluster analysis works in more detail.
Author Response
Dear Respectable Reviewer 1, Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript represents an important comprehensive study for building Ecological Security Patterns (ESPs) in order to maintain the structure and function of ecosystems, ensuring long-term potential to provide ecosystem services. In addition, the results provide a solid basis for formulating adequate risk mitigation measures as well as adaptive ecological management in the highly populated area of Bohai Bay.
However, some small improvements need to be made:
Line 217: Table 1, add metrics of the Maximum Threat Distance (m, km, etc.).
Line 312: Add ‘respectively’ after ‘and 0.3045’.
Line 335: The sentence is incomplete. Something is missing after ‘and the area of Class V’, as well as a dot.
Lines 399 to 409: The sentence is too long and not clear enough. The adjectives such as ‘greater’, ‘smaller’ and ‘higher’ are comparative, and it is not clear with respect to which of the other risk values.
Line 531: Add ‘(D1- paddy land, D2- dry land, D3- urban land, D4- rural settlement, D5- 440 industrial and construction land, D6- unused land, D7- reclamation area, A- mean value)’ after ‘Bohai Bay’.
Line 582: Replace ‘Figure 1-3’ with ‘Figure 13’.
Line 587: Replace ‘Figure 1-4’ with ‘Figure 14’.
Author Response
Dear Respectable Reviewer 2, Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors:
The manuscript need revised the figures and tables
Figures 2 and 3 review and center
Figure 3 change one green color for blue, the contrast is poor in maps
Table 5 and 6 need review because the information is reiterative. Proposal sum tables 5 + 6, the percentage insert in () after area (km2)
Figure 4. Color changes, because poor contrast. The level V-II like I-II or the III-II is near to IV-I, the chromatic differences are poor.
Figures 6 and 5 will be combined and sum the information. One vision = two information sources.
Figure 8 and 9 not included A mean value
Figure 13 need a); b), c) and d) symbols referenced to before discussion.
Figure 14 the colors are signification context inner 1; 2; 3 or 4 ESPs options
Additional references will be need:
Sharp, R.; Tallis, H.T.; Ricketts, T.; Guerry, A.D.; Wood, S.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Nelson, E.; Ennaanay, D.; Wolny, S.; Olwero, N.; et al. InVEST User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund. 2014, pp. 1–307. Available online: https://invest-userguide.readthedocs.io/_/downloads/en/3.5.0/pdf
Grafius, D.R., Corstanje, R., Warren, P.H. et al. The impact of land use/land cover scale on modelling urban ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 31, 1509–1522 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0337-7
Assumma, V.; Bottero, M.; Caprioli, C.; Datola, G.; Mondini, G. Evaluation of Ecosystem Services in Mining Basins: An Application in the Piedmont Region (Italy). Sustainability 2022, 14, 872. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020872
Author Response
Dear Respectable Reviewer 3, Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
