Land–Sea Interactions and Ecosystem Services: Research Gaps and Future Challenges
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper provides important information to understand which areas of research are needed for the sustainability of ecosystem services. Sufficient literature research and category classification by research field are well established. A discussion is needed on the role of migratory fishes as a link between land and marine ecosystems. In other words, further literature research on the functional maintenance and ecosystem services of terrestrial and marine ecosystems by migratory fishes seems necessary.
Overall, this paper provides important information to understand which areas of research are needed for the sustainability of ecosystem services. Sufficient literature research and category classification by research field are well established. Regarding ecosystem services, it is necessary to organize the literature on the impact of migratory biological resources on ecosystem services, and relevant comments are provided below.
- Since 2000, many studies have been conducted on the ecological role and importance of migratory organisms that connect terrestrial and marine ecosystems for the sustainability of ecosystem services. In this review paper, it is necessary to add literature research related to this. In other words, a discussion is needed on the role of migratory fishes as a link between land and marine ecosystems.
Author Response
Point 1: This paper provides important information to understand which areas of research are needed for the sustainability of ecosystem services. Sufficient literature research and category classification by research field are well established. A discussion is needed on the role of migratory fishes as a link between land and marine ecosystems. In other words, further literature research on the functional maintenance and ecosystem services of terrestrial and marine ecosystems by migratory fishes seems necessary.
Overall, this paper provides important information to understand which areas of research are needed for the sustainability of ecosystem services. Sufficient literature research and category classification by research field are well established. Regarding ecosystem services, it is necessary to organize the literature on the impact of migratory biological resources on ecosystem services, and relevant comments are provided below.
- Since 2000, many studies have been conducted on the ecological role and importance of migratory organisms that connect terrestrial and marine ecosystems for the sustainability of ecosystem services. In this review paper, it is necessary to add literature research related to this. In other words, a discussion is needed on the role of migratory fishes as a link between land and marine ecosystems.
Response 1: We agree. Fish migration studies have been conducted since decades ago and migration have a lot of consequences on different ecosystem services due its relation to food webs and movement of energy and nutrients. Unfortunately, as with other topics discussed in the limitation section of the study, fish migration was not a topic that was captured by our search. We appreciate the reviewer's comment and have therefore added information regarding the importance of fish migration and its relationship to ecosystem services.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. In order to avoid graphical confusion, when representing the number of found publications per scientific areas/subjects, I suggest a better "systematic approach" in the choice of "assembly geometry", "color" and also the use of "different patterns".
For instance, in Figure 5, respect same "geometry" for each "bottom item", i.e. add space for column "socio-demographic" in "Regulating" item
2. I found this "systematic search" interesting but I feel that authors did a "partial fast search" using "keywords" and some "combinations" that may conduce to a "biased sample"
a) they only looked to the "English" words...
b) specially after "filtering" 1333 publications into 166, only based in English therms...
This is a very limiting choice but can act as a "pick of the eye" of subject search.
3. It looks like authors were "screening subjects" to find out "new subject fields"...
I would have liked to have seen more in detail a more detailed summary of ideas and contexts.
4. The section I most appreciate was "4. Discussion" were some knowledge appears based on "actual contact" with published works.
Author Response
Point 1: In order to avoid graphical confusion, when representing the number of found publications per scientific areas/subjects, I suggest a better "systematic approach" in the choice of "assembly geometry", "color" and also the use of "different patterns".
For instance, in Figure 5, respect same "geometry" for each "bottom item", i.e. add space for column "socio-demographic" in "Regulating" item
Response 1: Thank you for sharing your perspective with us. We appreciate your suggestion for a more systematic approach to presenting the number of publications per scientific area/subject. While we understand your point about maintaining the same geometry for each item, we also want to ensure that the figure is easily understandable for all readers. We have taken your feedback into consideration and have made adjustments to the figure by adding a note at the bottom indicating that categories with 0 publications are not shown. Otherwise, the graphics could be very large and with a lot of empty space. We hope this will help to reduce any graphical confusion while still presenting the necessary information.
Point 2: I found this "systematic search" interesting but I feel that authors did a "partial fast search" using "keywords" and some "combinations" that may conduce to a "biased sample"
- a) they only looked to the "English" words...
- b) specially after "filtering" 1333 publications into 166, only based in English terms...
This is a very limiting choice but can act as a "pick of the eye" of subject search.
Response 2: We appreciate your input and agree that certain combinations can lead to biased results. We have addressed this issue in the limitations section of our study, where we discuss the exclusion of food webs, dams, and other novel entities from our analysis, which are crucial in understanding the interaction between land-sea ecosystems. We also took note of your suggestion and added a new limitation to our study regarding the use of only English words in our search and publications. Although only a small fraction of the publications we reviewed were in non-English languages (19 publications out of 1333), we believe it is important to expand search engines to include research in other languages.
Point 3: It looks like authors were "screening subjects" to find out "new subject fields"...I would have liked to have seen more in detail a more detailed summary of ideas and contexts.
Response 3: As we mentioned in the methods section of our study, the focus of our research was categorized based on the study objectives. To ensure that this categorization was unbiased, the full analysis of the papers was carried out by one author and these results were checked by another author.
Point 4: The section I most appreciate was "4. Discussion" were some knowledge appears based on "actual contact" with published works.
Response 4: We worked to ensure that our discussion section was informed with published works. We wanted to provide a comprehensive and insightful analysis of the data we collected. Thanks for your positive feedback.
