Delimitation of Ecological Corridor Using Technological Tools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Editor Sustainability,

 

Dear Editor,

The manuscript - sustainability-2387674 entitled ‘Delimitation of ecological corridor using technological tools’ has been reviewed. The manuscript propose a route for the implementation of an ecological corridor in the Itapemirim river watershed and also described the compare land use and land cover in the delimited areas. I appreciate the authors for their research work. However, there are several points, as mentioned below, to be addressed if to consider the manuscript. The abstract is too descriptive, rather it could be limited to the rationale behind the work and the findings very relevant to the study and as the primary factors for decision-making regarding the location of the best route. Introduction could also include a para on how the Itapemirim River hydrographic basin may benefit form this work. Table 1 could be moved to the text. Same for Table 2. Subheadings and bullet points under ‘Mapping of the APP of top of hill’ needs to be reduced. Similar comment for section 2.5.1. The information in tables 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 could easily be moved to the text. Methods still could be comprehensive, currently it’s a very detailed section. Figures are also in number. Authors needs to address the key issues, for example, land use land cove rand associated implications need to be discussed and figures could present only the most important findings of the work. The discussion section needs considerable improvements. The conclusion section also needs to be rewritten, avoid repetition of Results, authors should add only the key outcomes of the work.

Sincerely,

minor corrections needed

Author Response

Dear Mr. Reviewer,

We authors would like to thank you for the rich and relevant contributions to the manuscript. The modifications that you found pertinent were mostly made in the document attached herewith.

King regards,

Vinícius Duarte Nader Mardeni

Corresponding author.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.    The introduction section lacks sufficient description of existing research on ecological corridors and their delineation, making it difficult to reflect the innovation and importance of this study. It is recommended to supplement relevant research.

2.    Regarding the overview of the research area, only a brief introduction was provided, lacking an introduction to existing issues.

3.    The discussion in the conclusion section is insufficient. It is recommended to increase the discussion on the limitations of the research and clarify the focus of future strengthening and improvement.

4.    Detailed issues, please unify the decimal places in the table.

Author Response

Dear Mr. Reviewer,

We authors would like to thank you for the rich and relevant contributions to the manuscript. The modifications that you found pertinent were mostly made in the document attached herewith.

King regards,

Vinícius Duarte Nader Mardeni

Corresponding author.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript investigated the use of technological tools, such as the application of Fuzzy logic in land use assessment. The work was well done, but the texts in the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion should be polished before the acceptance for publication.

Introduction: This section is to give enough background information, such as the definitions of most important concepts in this study (e.g. landscape fragmentation, ecological corridors, Fuzzy logic), what has been researched previously, the current situation, and the knowledge gap why this study is needed. The organization of the paragraphs is not very logical. I suggest the authors to combine some paragraphs into one concise paragraph, based on their relevance. I suggest the authors to move the first paragraph (Line 46-50) to the subsection 2.1 Study Area.

Materials and Methods: Very well described and easy for a reader to follow. Maybe Lines 184-223 could be moved to a supplementary file published online, so that readers who are interested in how to process the data in QGIS can follow each step how the authors had produced the results of mapping the permanent preservation area (APP).

Results: Very well described with beautiful and informative figures. I suggest the authors to pay attention to the decimals in the tables, which is sometimes 2 decimals and sometimes 3 decimals. Does the resolution of maps allow 3 decimals in the results?

Discussion: I suggest authors mentioning their findings first and then comparing their results with relevant literature. At the moment, the first two paragraphs are like background information for this study, instead of discussion based on the findings of the research. After discussing the main findings of this study, the authors can develop the Discussion to a bigger picture how to use the methods in general in similar occasions for landscape conservation.

Conclusion: This section is to conclude the most important findings of the study, not to repeat what has been stated in the previous texts. The section at the moment consists of eight paragraphs, and in each paragraph is only one sentence. I do not see the logic of the conclusion here.

 

Minor comments: 

Line 14: Please specify in which country the Itapemirim river watershed locates.

Line 43: Keywords should be words or phrases that appear neither in the title nor in the abstract. ‘Landscape ecology’ has appeared in the abstract. I suggest the authors to use other keywords, so that potential readers have high chance to find this article.

Line 289: ‘J: number of fragments (dimensionless);’ I do not see ‘J’ in the equations.

Line 702: The texts ‘…with the findings of [35]’ looks strange. Maybe change to ‘… with the findings of a previous study that the largest number of … [35]’

Line 707: ‘According to [44]’ -> ‘According to a previous study [44]’

Table 11: ’Porcentagem (%)’ -> ’Percentage (%)’

Table 12: ‘Porcentage (%)’ -> ‘Percentage (%)’, ‘Urban área’ -> ‘Urban area’

Table 15 & 16: ‘Porcentage (%)’ -> ‘Percentage (%)’

The authors should pay attention to how to organise a paragraph logically. Normally a paragraph in English starts with a core sentence stating the main idea of the paragraph, followed by a few examples to support the idea. A paragraph ends with a conclusion sentence summarising the information of the previous texts of the paragraph.

Author Response

Dear Mr. Reviewer,

We authors would like to thank you for the rich and relevant contributions to the manuscript. The modifications that you found pertinent were mostly made in the document attached herewith.

King regards,

Vinícius Duarte Nader Mardeni

Corresponding author.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This article attempts to determine the permanent preservation areas and ecological corridors based on the relevant regulations in the author's own country and according to the least cost. The article provides detailed descriptions of the methods and steps used for the delineation, as well as the data acquisition and processing procedures. While this appears to be a very practical and informative article, further substantial revisions are needed to meet publication requirements. Specifically:

1 Please provide a brief introduction to Law No. 12.651 of May 25, 2012.

2 Please provide a detailed explanation of "subnormal clusters."

3 Please provide a detailed explanation of CONAMA nº 09/96.

4 Please add keywords such as "ecological corridor" and "least cost".

5 Please ensure consistency in numerical values throughout the article, as there appear to be discrepancies in the study area's size and in the areas presented in the text versus the tables.

6 The Introduction should emphasize the current methods for delineating ecological corridors and their pros and cons.

7 Please label the existing protected areas, particularly UC, Caparaó National Park, and Serra das Torres State Natural Monument, in Figure 1.

8 Please correct the numbering of Table3 to Table2.

9 Please provide the basis for the delineation in Table 2.

10 Please clarify the significance of the delineation of "top of hill."

11 Why was the area with an altitude greater than 1800 meters removed? What does "declividade" raster mean in lines 200-201?

12 Please provide an explanation of the landscape index's meaning, particularly in 3.4.

13 Please ensure consistency in the abbreviation of ecological corridor.

14 Please provide a detailed description of the specific method used to delineate the ecological corridor in section 2.6.

15 Please explain the relationship between the delineation of the ecological corridor and the priority areas for forest recovery in section 2.7.

16 Please note that "cost matrix" in Line 467 is incorrect and should be "priority matrix."

17 Please move the "Classification of land use and land cover (LULC)" in section 3.1 to section 2.2.1.

18 Please correct the numbering of Figure11 to Figure12 in Line 608.

 

19 Please increase the resolution of the figure.

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Mr. Reviewer,

We authors would like to thank you for the rich and relevant contributions to the manuscript. The modifications that you found pertinent were mostly made in the document attached herewith.

King regards,

Vinícius Duarte Nader Mardeni

Corresponding author.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

please see attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

minor corrections needed

Author Response

Dear Mr. Reviewer,

We authors would like to thank you for the rich and relevant contributions to the manuscript. The modifications that you found pertinent were mostly made in the document attached herewith.

King regards,

Vinícius Duarte Nader Mardeni

Corresponding author.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have put sufficient efforts into the revision of the manuscript. I suggest the manuscript to be accepted after minor revision.

Minor comments:

In Conclusion, there are still many sentences stand out as short paragraphs. Is it a formatting error, or did the authors do it intensionally? In my opinion, each sentence in the current Conclusion does not form complete logic and contain enough information to be a paragraph.

The authors should pay attention to how to devide texts into paragraphs according to the logic and the relevance of information.

Author Response

Dear Mr. Reviewer,

We authors would like to thank you for the rich and relevant contributions to the manuscript. The modifications that you found pertinent were mostly made in the document attached herewith.

King regards,

Vinícius Duarte Nader Mardeni

Corresponding author.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed the majority of my concerns, and the revised manuscript now meets the requirements for publication in the journal. 

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Mr. Reviewer,

We authors would like to thank you for the rich and relevant contributions to the manuscript. The modifications that you found pertinent were mostly made in the document attached herewith.

King regards,

Vinícius Duarte Nader Mardeni

Corresponding author.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

The revised manuscript has been reviewed. My main comment ‘the manuscript is still lengthy and descriptive’ could be worked-on. Authors have the data while the write up is yet like a Thesis document whereas a manuscript usually comprises of the key findings. Another comment about the Tables, as given in previous reviews could also be considered.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Mr. Reviewer,

We, the authors, would like to express our gratitude for your patience and valuable contributions to the manuscript. The modifications you deemed relevant have been mostly implemented in the attached document.

Sincerely,

Vinícius Duarte Nader Mardeni

Corresponding Author.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf