Designing an Ecological Network in Yichang Central City in China Based on Habitat Quality Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Summary: The study combines techniques of structural optimisation and function identification and applies these to three focal animal species to identify ecological sources, nodes and corridors as a means of supporting biodiversity conservation and green space planning in urbanised areas.  By combining techniques the paper provides a useful and practical method of planning for and supporting biodiversity conservation.

Manuscript Review: A well written and well structured manuscript, written in clear English.  Mostly very well referenced with a wide range of relevant and mostly recent sources cited.  Any older references are to keynote/fundamental sources. 

Ecological network research is introduced and described in suitable detail and research methodology is well explained.  Equations used are all explained in enough detail for the non-expert to understand their function.  Selection of focal species is transparent and sensible.  Material in sections 3.2 to 3.6 well presented and the analytical approach is justified.

Results are mostly well presented and clearly explained, but see specific comments below re figures/tables and referencing in the text.  I do have some concerns over the level of detail presented in figures and tables.  Figures 3, 4, 5 and 7 would benefit from being displayed at a bigger scale - perhaps each on a single page in landscape?  I am also not entirely convinced that there is enough information in the figure legend for each.  Conversely, are tables 7 - 10 necessary for understanding the results, or could they be added to the supplementary materials?

Discussion is again well written and quite convincingly argued, but unlike the rest of the manuscript there are instances where I would expect sources to be cited.  It is good to see recognition of shortcomings of the study, particularly with reference to species observation data.  I would hope that the authors are considering a follow-up publication in conjunction with field ecologists to address this gap.  Conclusion is concise, well considered and consistent with the materials presented in the paper.

Specific comments: 

Line 56: First mention of In VEST model - state what the letters stand for

Line 64: Ref 26 appears to be a Masters thesis - are there any more accessible sources?

Line 78: has "focal species pathway" been defined previously?

Lines 115-119: confusing use of target species and focal species.  Are "focal species" being used to select focal species?  Re-phrase.

Lines 139-140: does selection of constant/scaling parameter value need to be justified?

Table 3: detail on calculation of weightings? text line 154 merely states that these "were determined"

Line 199: citation for AHP to determine weights of influencing factors?

Line 287-288: figures and table wrongly numbered

Line 292: no reference to relevant figure/table in this paragraph

Line 306: reference figure 5 not 6?

Line 343: reference figs 8 and 9; not 9 and 10?

Figure 9: Means are plotted - any error bars to be added?

Line 359: cite source at end of sentence.

Line 361: cite source at end of sentence.

Line 364: "disconnected from the reality" not sure what this means.  Re-phrase?

Line 376: What is meant by "generic species were selected"?  clarify.

Line 379: refer to figure 10 not 11?

Lines 402 - 416: some citations in this section?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Tables 3 and 4. Are the data presented in them a result of your own evaluation study, or taken from other sources? If the latter is true, there should be corresponding quotations after the captions.

Line 194: Perhaps, you meant normalized difference vegetation index, as I have never heard about just normalized vegetation index.

Line 273, Figure 3. It would be interesting to hear deeper explanation and speculation on why the medium quality habitat for black-spotted frog is just 0.08%.

Tables 7-9: Check, whether you really used normalized vegetation index or normalized difference vegetation index.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this article, the authors provide support for biodiversity conservation across three phylogenetically and ecologically distinct species.

The authors seek in the study to build an ecological network to improve the connection between habitats to alleviate environmental problems in an urban area in China.

The presented article has an extensive theoretical base that allows for identifying the degree of knowledge and methodological requirement, of the scientific technician of the research group that carried out the study.

The work was so extensively and exhaustively explained methodologically, that at times it was difficult to understand, especially the entire algorithmic and methodological part behind the uses of the programs used.

Honestly, I am in doubt whether such information was necessary to be included in the text.

In any case, I congratulate the authors, as the results and conclusions presented clearly give a strong perspective on the need for a methodological review by managers and researchers on how to execute and manage the implementation of ecological corridors appropriate to the area, habitat, and species targets.

Especially in areas under strong and intense fragmentation due to urban growth.

The article, in general, presents all the technical-scientific requirements necessary for a scientific text.

I suggest that the authors (if they so wish) do a new round of reviewing the entire text, as there were some passages that were difficult to understand due to the lack of textual coherence (due to the translation of the text into English).

Below are just a few small observations:

It is important to emphasize that the Introduction has a solid bibliographic base. It is direct, objective, and there is no need for extensive contextualization to explain the objectives of the study. These, in turn, are noticeably clear throughout the reading of this section.

The identification table in Figure 2, which addresses the methodological aspects, was presented in a highly intelligent manner. Congratulations!

 

In line 121 of subsection 3.1 Focal species selection

What did the authors consider to be biologically representative? The first three factors managed to understand, however, the fourth factor evaluated was not clear. I don't know if it was the way the sentence was translated or another reason. I would like to clarify this fourth factor.

In Table 2 on species characterization, enter (as you did with the others) the conservation status for Parus venustulus.

In Table 4, is there any unit of measurement for the evaluated scales?

Suggestion: Simplify and synthesize the methodology more, so that it can be more easily replicated in other studies. I understand that the Materials and Methods section should be more easily replicated.

The results were very well presented. The generated figures are easily self-explanatory and easy to understand. This point (as well as the Introduction and Discussion Sections) diverges from the way the Methodology was presented. That is why I question the format in which the methodology was presented.

In Figure 5, there is a caption that is not in English. Please correct.

I did not find Figure 11 in the file.

I suggest that the authors (if they so wish) do a new round of reviewing the entire text, as there were some passages that were difficult to understand due to the lack of textual coherence (due to the translation of the text into English).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf