Spatio-Temporal Evolution Patterns of Hydrological Connectivity of Wetland Biodiversity Hotspots in Sanjiang Plain between 1995 and 2015
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The ideas and methods of the paper are simple and unitary, and the originality is not enough. The scientific contribution to the hydrological field is not great. In addition, the figures and tables of the paper is not standardized, ambiguous, and the structure is chaotic, which indicates that the paper cannot meet the requirement of publication.
Author Response
Responses to comments of Reviewers
Dear reviewers,
Thank your for your comments! We have studied the comments carefully and have made revision according to your comments. Revised portions are marked in red in the “Revised manuscript with changes marked”. The main corrections in the paper and responses to comments are as following:
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1:
The ideas and methods of the paper are simple and unitary, and the originality is not enough. The scientific contribution to the hydrological field is not great. In addition, the figures and tables of the paper is not standardized, ambiguous, and the structure is chaotic, which indicates that the paper cannot meet the requirement of publication.
Thank your for your comments! We have studied the comments carefully and have made revision according to your comments. Revised portions are marked in red in the “Revised manuscript with changes marked”. The main corrections in the paper and responses to comments are as following:
Reviewer #2:
It seems that this article has been revised, but the referees' answers are not in the files so that I can carefully check the comments.
But according to the text, I have two general comments
Comment1:
1) Discussion and conclusion should be separated
Response1: Discussion and conclusion have been separated.
Comment2:
2) In the conclusion section, the application of this study for managers should be addressed
Response2: The application of this study for managers have been addressed in the conclusion section.
Reviewer #3:
Comment3:
“Spatio-temporal evolution patterns of hydrological connectivity of wetland biodiversity hotspots in Sanjiang Plain during 1995 and 2015” is an overall well-structured article; it adds to existing knowledge and provides scientific support for sustainable management of wetland and biodiversity in China. It has the potential to be accepted for publication in Sustainability, but some points have to be clarified or fixed before we can proceed and take positive action.
This work will provide readers with a pleasant opportunity to better understand the benefits and limitations of using IIC, PC, and MSPA methods, especially in monitoring wetlands and their biodiversity. Therefore, it is better to consider these questions in the Discussion section. What impact do the findings of this study have on wetland and biodiversity conservation? How does this study improve methods currently used to monitor wetland and biodiversity changes in the Sanjiang Plain? What are the study limitations and a priority for future research on the Sanjiang Plain?
Response3:
Your suggestion is very helpful. Many Thanks for it and e have explain these questions in the Discussion section.
Comment4:
L24–L25, “Functionally, core wetlands and edge wetlands are the key functional types of wetland hydrological connectivity in biodiversity hotspots,” should be deleted for the reason that it is general information. To effectively communicate the potential consequences, it is preferable to include an inference of the results reported in L26–L27.
Response4:
The sentence has been deleted.
Comment5:
L27–L30 “This study has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the spatio-temporal changes in hydrological connectivity in wetland biodiversity hotspots, which can provide a reference for the evaluation, monitoring, and management of hydrological connectivity in wetland biodiversity hotspots.” should be “The findings on hydrological connectivity evolution patterns would aid in the conservation and restoration of wetlands and biodiversity hotspots.”
Response5:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment6:
L31–L32 It is better to add “marsh wetland ecosystem” to the keyword list.
Response6:
We have added “marsh wetland ecosystem” to the keyword list.
Comment7:
L48–L60 References should be standardized. The entire manuscript should be double-checked.
Response7:
According to the reviewer's opinion, we have modified it.
Comment8:
L74–L80 The research hypotheses are not covered in the Introduction. The methodology should be clearly established. Goals should be improved or strengthened. The study assessed “spatio-temporal variation.” What information about the hydrological connectivity variations of marsh wetlands will be provided? It does not sound good to provide references on the management of wetland biodiversity hotspots for conservation and restoration as objective. A better way to say it is “to provide an insight into hydrological connectivity evolution patterns for a better reference in wetland biodiversity hotspots for conservation and restoration.” What do the authors expect from studying the hydrological connectivity variations of marsh wetlands?
Response8:
This paragraph has been revised according to your suggestion.
Comment9:
L81 It is best to create a section called “Materials and Methods” and then place “1. Research field overview” as its first subtitle, “2. Research methods” as its second subtitle, etc.
Response9:
All sections and subtitles have been adjusted.
Comment10:
L84–L87 This clearly demonstrates progress in protecting wetlands; thus, the research goal should not be to establish references, but to provide insight into the situation for a better understanding of environmental concerns and to improve management strategies. The findings on hydrological connectivity evolution patterns would aid in the conservation and restoration of wetlands and biodiversity hotspots.
Response10:
It has been revised in the Introduction section.
Comment11:
L107 It is better to use a common name to indicate the type of animal involved in the survey. The data type (such as species name, species counts, abundance, biomass, etc.) in the dataset and survey time should be specified.
L108 Separate “[20]” and “and” with a space.
Response11:
The type of animals involved and the data type have been specified。
A space has been inserted.
Comment12:
L109 References should be added to “…other literature.”
Response12:
We didn’t add references to “…other literature”because the information we used mainly came from the China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals and the China Species Red List. Other literatures were used as supplement and verification. The literature analysis process involved a lot of literatures, which will occupy a large space of the text, so we just delete “other literature”.
Comment13:
L112 References should be added to “…the yearbooks of each county in the study area.”
Response13:
The data source has been modified and references have been added.
Comment14:
L130 Add the version number C-Plan protection planning software.
Response14:
The version number of C-Plan has been added.
Comment15:
L148 Conefor version 2.6 software is distributed free of charge for non-commercial use. The preferred reference for citing Conefor is the following: Saura, S. & J. Torné. 2009. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environmental Modelling & Software 24: 135-139.
Response15:
The reference for citing Conefor has been replaced by the suggested one.
Comment16:
L160 Delete …”in this study…
Response16:
Deleted.
Comment16:
L172 “Guidos Toolbox” is open-source software; a reference should be added.
Response16:
A reference has been added.
Comment17:
L187–L190 The statement should be moved in “Material and methods” section
Response17:
The statement has been moved in “Material and methods” section.
Comment18:
L218 “Changes of IIC and PC of wetlands inside each hotspot from 1995 to 2015” should be “Changes in IIC and PC of wetlands inside each hotspot from 1995 to 2015”
Response18:
The subtitle has been replaced.
Comment19:
L227–L229 It is preferable to state, “The core wetland areas of Bio1, Bio2, Bio5, and Bio8 were drastically reduced, while the branch and bridging wetlands in Bio2 and Bio4 were significantly increased (Fig. 4).” in order to make the results stand out in the discussion.
Response19:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment20:
L232 “According to the statistical analysis of MSPA results, …” should be “According to MSPA results (Fig. 5), …”
Response20:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment21:
L273–L276 It is better to say that “The analysis of changes in hydrological connectivity of each biodiversity hotspot from 1995 to 2015 using the IIC, PC (structural connectivity), and MSPA (functional connectivity) approaches substantially improved knowledge in wetland biodiversity conservation.”
Response21:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment22:
L276 What results? It is preferable to indicate the results being discussed by adding a figure or by briefly adding values. It is necessary to double-check for similar concerns through discussion (e.g., L283, L299, and L302).
Response22:
The results being discussed have been indicated by adding figures or by briefly adding values.
Reviewer #4:
The manuscript entitled “Spatio-temporal evolution patterns of hydrological connectivity of wetland biodiversity hotspots in Sanjiang Plain during 1995 and 2015” has been reviewed. The subject is interesting and falls within the scopes of Sustainability. In my opinion the manuscript I worth of publication considering the following minor comments.
Comment23:
Why the Introduction section is not numbered? Please check the numbering of headings.
Response23:
According to the reviewer's opinion, we have modified it.
Comment24:
The authors have provided an enriched literature review. However, a very similar paper is recently published (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3620) that could be used by the authors and the similarities and differences between the result of the present study and those of the mentioned paper should be discussed in the “Discussion” section.
Response24:
The mentioned paper have been cited and discussed in the “Discussion” section.
Comment25:
Lines 49, 54, 55: The format of references should be checked.
Response25:
According to the reviewer's opinion, we have modified it.
Comment26:
Lines 81-98: “Overview of the study area”: please embed in section 2.
Response26:
We have created a section called “Materials and Methods” and then place “1. Research field overview” as its first subtitle, “2. Research methods” as its second subtitle.
Comment27:
Line 118: “Irreplaceability (IRR)”. Please add some explanations and the definition of this parameter.
Response27:
We have added the explanation of IRR.
Comment28:
Line 152: please provide the equation number.
Response28:
We have added the equation number.
Comment29:
Lines 152-158: please keep uniformity between the format of parameters in the equation and in the text (in term of italic, etc.)
Response29:
We have uniformed the format of parameters in the equation and in the text.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
It seems that this article has been revised, but the referees' answers are not in the files so that I can carefully check the comments.
But according to the text, I have two general comments
1) Discussion and conclusion should be separated
2) In the conclusion section, the application of this study for managers should be addressed
Author Response
Responses to comments of Reviewers
Dear reviewers,
Thank your for your comments! We have studied the comments carefully and have made revision according to your comments. Revised portions are marked in red in the “Revised manuscript with changes marked”. The main corrections in the paper and responses to comments are as following:
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1:
The ideas and methods of the paper are simple and unitary, and the originality is not enough. The scientific contribution to the hydrological field is not great. In addition, the figures and tables of the paper is not standardized, ambiguous, and the structure is chaotic, which indicates that the paper cannot meet the requirement of publication.
Thank your for your comments! We have studied the comments carefully and have made revision according to your comments. Revised portions are marked in red in the “Revised manuscript with changes marked”. The main corrections in the paper and responses to comments are as following:
Reviewer #2:
It seems that this article has been revised, but the referees' answers are not in the files so that I can carefully check the comments.
But according to the text, I have two general comments
Comment1:
1) Discussion and conclusion should be separated
Response1: Discussion and conclusion have been separated.
Comment2:
2) In the conclusion section, the application of this study for managers should be addressed
Response2: The application of this study for managers have been addressed in the conclusion section.
Reviewer #3:
Comment3:
“Spatio-temporal evolution patterns of hydrological connectivity of wetland biodiversity hotspots in Sanjiang Plain during 1995 and 2015” is an overall well-structured article; it adds to existing knowledge and provides scientific support for sustainable management of wetland and biodiversity in China. It has the potential to be accepted for publication in Sustainability, but some points have to be clarified or fixed before we can proceed and take positive action.
This work will provide readers with a pleasant opportunity to better understand the benefits and limitations of using IIC, PC, and MSPA methods, especially in monitoring wetlands and their biodiversity. Therefore, it is better to consider these questions in the Discussion section. What impact do the findings of this study have on wetland and biodiversity conservation? How does this study improve methods currently used to monitor wetland and biodiversity changes in the Sanjiang Plain? What are the study limitations and a priority for future research on the Sanjiang Plain?
Response3:
Your suggestion is very helpful. Many Thanks for it and e have explain these questions in the Discussion section.
Comment4:
L24–L25, “Functionally, core wetlands and edge wetlands are the key functional types of wetland hydrological connectivity in biodiversity hotspots,” should be deleted for the reason that it is general information. To effectively communicate the potential consequences, it is preferable to include an inference of the results reported in L26–L27.
Response4:
The sentence has been deleted.
Comment5:
L27–L30 “This study has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the spatio-temporal changes in hydrological connectivity in wetland biodiversity hotspots, which can provide a reference for the evaluation, monitoring, and management of hydrological connectivity in wetland biodiversity hotspots.” should be “The findings on hydrological connectivity evolution patterns would aid in the conservation and restoration of wetlands and biodiversity hotspots.”
Response5:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment6:
L31–L32 It is better to add “marsh wetland ecosystem” to the keyword list.
Response6:
We have added “marsh wetland ecosystem” to the keyword list.
Comment7:
L48–L60 References should be standardized. The entire manuscript should be double-checked.
Response7:
According to the reviewer's opinion, we have modified it.
Comment8:
L74–L80 The research hypotheses are not covered in the Introduction. The methodology should be clearly established. Goals should be improved or strengthened. The study assessed “spatio-temporal variation.” What information about the hydrological connectivity variations of marsh wetlands will be provided? It does not sound good to provide references on the management of wetland biodiversity hotspots for conservation and restoration as objective. A better way to say it is “to provide an insight into hydrological connectivity evolution patterns for a better reference in wetland biodiversity hotspots for conservation and restoration.” What do the authors expect from studying the hydrological connectivity variations of marsh wetlands?
Response8:
This paragraph has been revised according to your suggestion.
Comment9:
L81 It is best to create a section called “Materials and Methods” and then place “1. Research field overview” as its first subtitle, “2. Research methods” as its second subtitle, etc.
Response9:
All sections and subtitles have been adjusted.
Comment10:
L84–L87 This clearly demonstrates progress in protecting wetlands; thus, the research goal should not be to establish references, but to provide insight into the situation for a better understanding of environmental concerns and to improve management strategies. The findings on hydrological connectivity evolution patterns would aid in the conservation and restoration of wetlands and biodiversity hotspots.
Response10:
It has been revised in the Introduction section.
Comment11:
L107 It is better to use a common name to indicate the type of animal involved in the survey. The data type (such as species name, species counts, abundance, biomass, etc.) in the dataset and survey time should be specified.
L108 Separate “[20]” and “and” with a space.
Response11:
The type of animals involved and the data type have been specified。
A space has been inserted.
Comment12:
L109 References should be added to “…other literature.”
Response12:
We didn’t add references to “…other literature”because the information we used mainly came from the China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals and the China Species Red List. Other literatures were used as supplement and verification. The literature analysis process involved a lot of literatures, which will occupy a large space of the text, so we just delete “other literature”.
Comment13:
L112 References should be added to “…the yearbooks of each county in the study area.”
Response13:
The data source has been modified and references have been added.
Comment14:
L130 Add the version number C-Plan protection planning software.
Response14:
The version number of C-Plan has been added.
Comment15:
L148 Conefor version 2.6 software is distributed free of charge for non-commercial use. The preferred reference for citing Conefor is the following: Saura, S. & J. Torné. 2009. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environmental Modelling & Software 24: 135-139.
Response15:
The reference for citing Conefor has been replaced by the suggested one.
Comment16:
L160 Delete …”in this study…
Response16:
Deleted.
Comment16:
L172 “Guidos Toolbox” is open-source software; a reference should be added.
Response16:
A reference has been added.
Comment17:
L187–L190 The statement should be moved in “Material and methods” section
Response17:
The statement has been moved in “Material and methods” section.
Comment18:
L218 “Changes of IIC and PC of wetlands inside each hotspot from 1995 to 2015” should be “Changes in IIC and PC of wetlands inside each hotspot from 1995 to 2015”
Response18:
The subtitle has been replaced.
Comment19:
L227–L229 It is preferable to state, “The core wetland areas of Bio1, Bio2, Bio5, and Bio8 were drastically reduced, while the branch and bridging wetlands in Bio2 and Bio4 were significantly increased (Fig. 4).” in order to make the results stand out in the discussion.
Response19:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment20:
L232 “According to the statistical analysis of MSPA results, …” should be “According to MSPA results (Fig. 5), …”
Response20:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment21:
L273–L276 It is better to say that “The analysis of changes in hydrological connectivity of each biodiversity hotspot from 1995 to 2015 using the IIC, PC (structural connectivity), and MSPA (functional connectivity) approaches substantially improved knowledge in wetland biodiversity conservation.”
Response21:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment22:
L276 What results? It is preferable to indicate the results being discussed by adding a figure or by briefly adding values. It is necessary to double-check for similar concerns through discussion (e.g., L283, L299, and L302).
Response22:
The results being discussed have been indicated by adding figures or by briefly adding values.
Reviewer #4:
The manuscript entitled “Spatio-temporal evolution patterns of hydrological connectivity of wetland biodiversity hotspots in Sanjiang Plain during 1995 and 2015” has been reviewed. The subject is interesting and falls within the scopes of Sustainability. In my opinion the manuscript I worth of publication considering the following minor comments.
Comment23:
Why the Introduction section is not numbered? Please check the numbering of headings.
Response23:
According to the reviewer's opinion, we have modified it.
Comment24:
The authors have provided an enriched literature review. However, a very similar paper is recently published (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3620) that could be used by the authors and the similarities and differences between the result of the present study and those of the mentioned paper should be discussed in the “Discussion” section.
Response24:
The mentioned paper have been cited and discussed in the “Discussion” section.
Comment25:
Lines 49, 54, 55: The format of references should be checked.
Response25:
According to the reviewer's opinion, we have modified it.
Comment26:
Lines 81-98: “Overview of the study area”: please embed in section 2.
Response26:
We have created a section called “Materials and Methods” and then place “1. Research field overview” as its first subtitle, “2. Research methods” as its second subtitle.
Comment27:
Line 118: “Irreplaceability (IRR)”. Please add some explanations and the definition of this parameter.
Response27:
We have added the explanation of IRR.
Comment28:
Line 152: please provide the equation number.
Response28:
We have added the equation number.
Comment29:
Lines 152-158: please keep uniformity between the format of parameters in the equation and in the text (in term of italic, etc.)
Response29:
We have uniformed the format of parameters in the equation and in the text.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
“Spatio-temporal evolution patterns of hydrological connectivity of wetland biodiversity hotspots in Sanjiang Plain during 1995 and 2015” is an overall well-structured article; it adds to existing knowledge and provides scientific support for sustainable management of wetland and biodiversity in China. It has the potential to be accepted for publication in Sustainability, but some points have to be clarified or fixed before we can proceed and take positive action.
This work will provide readers with a pleasant opportunity to better understand the benefits and limitations of using IIC, PC, and MSPA methods, especially in monitoring wetlands and their biodiversity. Therefore, it is better to consider these questions in the Discussion section. What impact do the findings of this study have on wetland and biodiversity conservation? How does this study improve methods currently used to monitor wetland and biodiversity changes in the Sanjiang Plain? What are the study limitations and a priority for future research on the Sanjiang Plain?
L24–L25, “Functionally, core wetlands and edge wetlands are the key functional types of wetland hydrological connectivity in biodiversity hotspots,” should be deleted for the reason that it is general information. To effectively communicate the potential consequences, it is preferable to include an inference of the results reported in L26–L27.
L27–L30 “This study has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the spatio-temporal changes in hydrological connectivity in wetland biodiversity hotspots, which can provide a reference for the evaluation, monitoring, and management of hydrological connectivity in wetland biodiversity hotspots.” should be “The findings on hydrological connectivity evolution patterns would aid in the conservation and restoration of wetlands and biodiversity hotspots.”
L31–L32 It is better to add “marsh wetland ecosystem” to the keyword list.
L48–L60 References should be standardized. The entire manuscript should be double-checked.
L74–L80 The research hypotheses are not covered in the Introduction. The methodology should be clearly established. Goals should be improved or strengthened. The study assessed “spatio-temporal variation.” What information about the hydrological connectivity variations of marsh wetlands will be provided? It does not sound good to provide references on the management of wetland biodiversity hotspots for conservation and restoration as objective. A better way to say it is “to provide an insight into hydrological connectivity evolution patterns for a better reference in wetland biodiversity hotspots for conservation and restoration.” What do the authors expect from studying the hydrological connectivity variations of marsh wetlands?
L81 It is best to create a section called “Materials and Methods” and then place “1. Research field overview” as its first subtitle, “2. Research methods” as its second subtitle, etc.
L84–L87 This clearly demonstrates progress in protecting wetlands; thus, the research goal should not be to establish references, but to provide insight into the situation for a better understanding of environmental concerns and to improve management strategies. The findings on hydrological connectivity evolution patterns would aid in the conservation and restoration of wetlands and biodiversity hotspots.
L107 It is better to use a common name to indicate the type of animal involved in the survey. The data type (such as species name, species counts, abundance, biomass, etc.) in the dataset and survey time should be specified.
L108 Separate “[20]” and “and” with a space.
L109 References should be added to “…other literature.”
L112 References should be added to “…the yearbooks of each county in the study area.”
L130 Add the version number C-Plan protection planning software
L148 Conefor version 2.6 software is distributed free of charge for non-commercial use. The preferred reference for citing Conefor is the following: Saura, S. & J. Torné. 2009. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environmental Modelling & Software 24: 135-139.
L160 Delete …”in this study…”
L172 “Guidos Toolbox” is open-source software; a reference should be added.
L187–L190 The statement should be moved in “Material and methods” section
L218 “Changes of IIC and PC of wetlands inside each hotspot from 1995 to 2015” should be “Changes in IIC and PC of wetlands inside each hotspot from 1995 to 2015”
L227–L229 It is preferable to state, “The core wetland areas of Bio1, Bio2, Bio5, and Bio8 were drastically reduced, while the branch and bridging wetlands in Bio2 and Bio4 were significantly increased (Fig. 4).” in order to make the results stand out in the discussion.
L232 “According to the statistical analysis of MSPA results, …” should be “According to MSPA results (Fig. 5), …”
L273–L276 It is better to say that “The analysis of changes in hydrological connectivity of each biodiversity hotspot from 1995 to 2015 using the IIC, PC (structural connectivity), and MSPA (functional connectivity) approaches substantially improved knowledge in wetland biodiversity conservation.”
L276 What results? It is preferable to indicate the results being discussed by adding a figure or by briefly adding values. It is necessary to double-check for similar concerns through discussion (e.g., L283, L299, and L302).
Author Response
Responses to comments of Reviewers
Dear reviewers,
Thank your for your comments! We have studied the comments carefully and have made revision according to your comments. Revised portions are marked in red in the “Revised manuscript with changes marked”. The main corrections in the paper and responses to comments are as following:
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1:
The ideas and methods of the paper are simple and unitary, and the originality is not enough. The scientific contribution to the hydrological field is not great. In addition, the figures and tables of the paper is not standardized, ambiguous, and the structure is chaotic, which indicates that the paper cannot meet the requirement of publication.
Thank your for your comments! We have studied the comments carefully and have made revision according to your comments. Revised portions are marked in red in the “Revised manuscript with changes marked”. The main corrections in the paper and responses to comments are as following:
Reviewer #2:
It seems that this article has been revised, but the referees' answers are not in the files so that I can carefully check the comments.
But according to the text, I have two general comments
Comment1:
1) Discussion and conclusion should be separated
Response1: Discussion and conclusion have been separated.
Comment2:
2) In the conclusion section, the application of this study for managers should be addressed
Response2: The application of this study for managers have been addressed in the conclusion section.
Reviewer #3:
Comment3:
“Spatio-temporal evolution patterns of hydrological connectivity of wetland biodiversity hotspots in Sanjiang Plain during 1995 and 2015” is an overall well-structured article; it adds to existing knowledge and provides scientific support for sustainable management of wetland and biodiversity in China. It has the potential to be accepted for publication in Sustainability, but some points have to be clarified or fixed before we can proceed and take positive action.
This work will provide readers with a pleasant opportunity to better understand the benefits and limitations of using IIC, PC, and MSPA methods, especially in monitoring wetlands and their biodiversity. Therefore, it is better to consider these questions in the Discussion section. What impact do the findings of this study have on wetland and biodiversity conservation? How does this study improve methods currently used to monitor wetland and biodiversity changes in the Sanjiang Plain? What are the study limitations and a priority for future research on the Sanjiang Plain?
Response3:
Your suggestion is very helpful. Many Thanks for it and e have explain these questions in the Discussion section.
Comment4:
L24–L25, “Functionally, core wetlands and edge wetlands are the key functional types of wetland hydrological connectivity in biodiversity hotspots,” should be deleted for the reason that it is general information. To effectively communicate the potential consequences, it is preferable to include an inference of the results reported in L26–L27.
Response4:
The sentence has been deleted.
Comment5:
L27–L30 “This study has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the spatio-temporal changes in hydrological connectivity in wetland biodiversity hotspots, which can provide a reference for the evaluation, monitoring, and management of hydrological connectivity in wetland biodiversity hotspots.” should be “The findings on hydrological connectivity evolution patterns would aid in the conservation and restoration of wetlands and biodiversity hotspots.”
Response5:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment6:
L31–L32 It is better to add “marsh wetland ecosystem” to the keyword list.
Response6:
We have added “marsh wetland ecosystem” to the keyword list.
Comment7:
L48–L60 References should be standardized. The entire manuscript should be double-checked.
Response7:
According to the reviewer's opinion, we have modified it.
Comment8:
L74–L80 The research hypotheses are not covered in the Introduction. The methodology should be clearly established. Goals should be improved or strengthened. The study assessed “spatio-temporal variation.” What information about the hydrological connectivity variations of marsh wetlands will be provided? It does not sound good to provide references on the management of wetland biodiversity hotspots for conservation and restoration as objective. A better way to say it is “to provide an insight into hydrological connectivity evolution patterns for a better reference in wetland biodiversity hotspots for conservation and restoration.” What do the authors expect from studying the hydrological connectivity variations of marsh wetlands?
Response8:
This paragraph has been revised according to your suggestion.
Comment9:
L81 It is best to create a section called “Materials and Methods” and then place “1. Research field overview” as its first subtitle, “2. Research methods” as its second subtitle, etc.
Response9:
All sections and subtitles have been adjusted.
Comment10:
L84–L87 This clearly demonstrates progress in protecting wetlands; thus, the research goal should not be to establish references, but to provide insight into the situation for a better understanding of environmental concerns and to improve management strategies. The findings on hydrological connectivity evolution patterns would aid in the conservation and restoration of wetlands and biodiversity hotspots.
Response10:
It has been revised in the Introduction section.
Comment11:
L107 It is better to use a common name to indicate the type of animal involved in the survey. The data type (such as species name, species counts, abundance, biomass, etc.) in the dataset and survey time should be specified.
L108 Separate “[20]” and “and” with a space.
Response11:
The type of animals involved and the data type have been specified。
A space has been inserted.
Comment12:
L109 References should be added to “…other literature.”
Response12:
We didn’t add references to “…other literature”because the information we used mainly came from the China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals and the China Species Red List. Other literatures were used as supplement and verification. The literature analysis process involved a lot of literatures, which will occupy a large space of the text, so we just delete “other literature”.
Comment13:
L112 References should be added to “…the yearbooks of each county in the study area.”
Response13:
The data source has been modified and references have been added.
Comment14:
L130 Add the version number C-Plan protection planning software.
Response14:
The version number of C-Plan has been added.
Comment15:
L148 Conefor version 2.6 software is distributed free of charge for non-commercial use. The preferred reference for citing Conefor is the following: Saura, S. & J. Torné. 2009. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environmental Modelling & Software 24: 135-139.
Response15:
The reference for citing Conefor has been replaced by the suggested one.
Comment16:
L160 Delete …”in this study…
Response16:
Deleted.
Comment16:
L172 “Guidos Toolbox” is open-source software; a reference should be added.
Response16:
A reference has been added.
Comment17:
L187–L190 The statement should be moved in “Material and methods” section
Response17:
The statement has been moved in “Material and methods” section.
Comment18:
L218 “Changes of IIC and PC of wetlands inside each hotspot from 1995 to 2015” should be “Changes in IIC and PC of wetlands inside each hotspot from 1995 to 2015”
Response18:
The subtitle has been replaced.
Comment19:
L227–L229 It is preferable to state, “The core wetland areas of Bio1, Bio2, Bio5, and Bio8 were drastically reduced, while the branch and bridging wetlands in Bio2 and Bio4 were significantly increased (Fig. 4).” in order to make the results stand out in the discussion.
Response19:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment20:
L232 “According to the statistical analysis of MSPA results, …” should be “According to MSPA results (Fig. 5), …”
Response20:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment21:
L273–L276 It is better to say that “The analysis of changes in hydrological connectivity of each biodiversity hotspot from 1995 to 2015 using the IIC, PC (structural connectivity), and MSPA (functional connectivity) approaches substantially improved knowledge in wetland biodiversity conservation.”
Response21:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment22:
L276 What results? It is preferable to indicate the results being discussed by adding a figure or by briefly adding values. It is necessary to double-check for similar concerns through discussion (e.g., L283, L299, and L302).
Response22:
The results being discussed have been indicated by adding figures or by briefly adding values.
Reviewer #4:
The manuscript entitled “Spatio-temporal evolution patterns of hydrological connectivity of wetland biodiversity hotspots in Sanjiang Plain during 1995 and 2015” has been reviewed. The subject is interesting and falls within the scopes of Sustainability. In my opinion the manuscript I worth of publication considering the following minor comments.
Comment23:
Why the Introduction section is not numbered? Please check the numbering of headings.
Response23:
According to the reviewer's opinion, we have modified it.
Comment24:
The authors have provided an enriched literature review. However, a very similar paper is recently published (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3620) that could be used by the authors and the similarities and differences between the result of the present study and those of the mentioned paper should be discussed in the “Discussion” section.
Response24:
The mentioned paper have been cited and discussed in the “Discussion” section.
Comment25:
Lines 49, 54, 55: The format of references should be checked.
Response25:
According to the reviewer's opinion, we have modified it.
Comment26:
Lines 81-98: “Overview of the study area”: please embed in section 2.
Response26:
We have created a section called “Materials and Methods” and then place “1. Research field overview” as its first subtitle, “2. Research methods” as its second subtitle.
Comment27:
Line 118: “Irreplaceability (IRR)”. Please add some explanations and the definition of this parameter.
Response27:
We have added the explanation of IRR.
Comment28:
Line 152: please provide the equation number.
Response28:
We have added the equation number.
Comment29:
Lines 152-158: please keep uniformity between the format of parameters in the equation and in the text (in term of italic, etc.)
Response29:
We have uniformed the format of parameters in the equation and in the text.
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript entitled “Spatio-temporal evolution patterns of hydrological connectivity of wetland biodiversity hotspots in Sanjiang Plain during 1995 and 2015” has been reviewed. The subject is interesting and falls within the scopes of Sustainability. In my opinion the manuscript I worth of publication considering the following minor comments.
why the Introduction section is not numbered? Please check the numbering of headings.
The authors have provided an enriched literature review. However, a very similar paper is recently published (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3620) that could be used by the authors and the similarities and differences between the result of the present study and those of the mentioned paper should be discussed in the “Discussion” section.
Lines 49, 54, 55: The format of references should be checked.
Lines 81-98: “Overview of the study area”: please embed in section 2.
Line 118: “Irreplaceability (IRR)”. Please add some explanations and the definition of this parameter.
Line 152: please provide the equation number
Lines 152-158: please keep uniformity between the format of parameters in the equation and in the text (in term of italic, etc.)
Author Response
Responses to comments of Reviewers
Dear reviewers,
Thank your for your comments! We have studied the comments carefully and have made revision according to your comments. Revised portions are marked in red in the “Revised manuscript with changes marked”. The main corrections in the paper and responses to comments are as following:
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1:
The ideas and methods of the paper are simple and unitary, and the originality is not enough. The scientific contribution to the hydrological field is not great. In addition, the figures and tables of the paper is not standardized, ambiguous, and the structure is chaotic, which indicates that the paper cannot meet the requirement of publication.
Thank your for your comments! We have studied the comments carefully and have made revision according to your comments. Revised portions are marked in red in the “Revised manuscript with changes marked”. The main corrections in the paper and responses to comments are as following:
Reviewer #2:
It seems that this article has been revised, but the referees' answers are not in the files so that I can carefully check the comments.
But according to the text, I have two general comments
Comment1:
1) Discussion and conclusion should be separated
Response1: Discussion and conclusion have been separated.
Comment2:
2) In the conclusion section, the application of this study for managers should be addressed
Response2: The application of this study for managers have been addressed in the conclusion section.
Reviewer #3:
Comment3:
“Spatio-temporal evolution patterns of hydrological connectivity of wetland biodiversity hotspots in Sanjiang Plain during 1995 and 2015” is an overall well-structured article; it adds to existing knowledge and provides scientific support for sustainable management of wetland and biodiversity in China. It has the potential to be accepted for publication in Sustainability, but some points have to be clarified or fixed before we can proceed and take positive action.
This work will provide readers with a pleasant opportunity to better understand the benefits and limitations of using IIC, PC, and MSPA methods, especially in monitoring wetlands and their biodiversity. Therefore, it is better to consider these questions in the Discussion section. What impact do the findings of this study have on wetland and biodiversity conservation? How does this study improve methods currently used to monitor wetland and biodiversity changes in the Sanjiang Plain? What are the study limitations and a priority for future research on the Sanjiang Plain?
Response3:
Your suggestion is very helpful. Many Thanks for it and e have explain these questions in the Discussion section.
Comment4:
L24–L25, “Functionally, core wetlands and edge wetlands are the key functional types of wetland hydrological connectivity in biodiversity hotspots,” should be deleted for the reason that it is general information. To effectively communicate the potential consequences, it is preferable to include an inference of the results reported in L26–L27.
Response4:
The sentence has been deleted.
Comment5:
L27–L30 “This study has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the spatio-temporal changes in hydrological connectivity in wetland biodiversity hotspots, which can provide a reference for the evaluation, monitoring, and management of hydrological connectivity in wetland biodiversity hotspots.” should be “The findings on hydrological connectivity evolution patterns would aid in the conservation and restoration of wetlands and biodiversity hotspots.”
Response5:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment6:
L31–L32 It is better to add “marsh wetland ecosystem” to the keyword list.
Response6:
We have added “marsh wetland ecosystem” to the keyword list.
Comment7:
L48–L60 References should be standardized. The entire manuscript should be double-checked.
Response7:
According to the reviewer's opinion, we have modified it.
Comment8:
L74–L80 The research hypotheses are not covered in the Introduction. The methodology should be clearly established. Goals should be improved or strengthened. The study assessed “spatio-temporal variation.” What information about the hydrological connectivity variations of marsh wetlands will be provided? It does not sound good to provide references on the management of wetland biodiversity hotspots for conservation and restoration as objective. A better way to say it is “to provide an insight into hydrological connectivity evolution patterns for a better reference in wetland biodiversity hotspots for conservation and restoration.” What do the authors expect from studying the hydrological connectivity variations of marsh wetlands?
Response8:
This paragraph has been revised according to your suggestion.
Comment9:
L81 It is best to create a section called “Materials and Methods” and then place “1. Research field overview” as its first subtitle, “2. Research methods” as its second subtitle, etc.
Response9:
All sections and subtitles have been adjusted.
Comment10:
L84–L87 This clearly demonstrates progress in protecting wetlands; thus, the research goal should not be to establish references, but to provide insight into the situation for a better understanding of environmental concerns and to improve management strategies. The findings on hydrological connectivity evolution patterns would aid in the conservation and restoration of wetlands and biodiversity hotspots.
Response10:
It has been revised in the Introduction section.
Comment11:
L107 It is better to use a common name to indicate the type of animal involved in the survey. The data type (such as species name, species counts, abundance, biomass, etc.) in the dataset and survey time should be specified.
L108 Separate “[20]” and “and” with a space.
Response11:
The type of animals involved and the data type have been specified。
A space has been inserted.
Comment12:
L109 References should be added to “…other literature.”
Response12:
We didn’t add references to “…other literature”because the information we used mainly came from the China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals and the China Species Red List. Other literatures were used as supplement and verification. The literature analysis process involved a lot of literatures, which will occupy a large space of the text, so we just delete “other literature”.
Comment13:
L112 References should be added to “…the yearbooks of each county in the study area.”
Response13:
The data source has been modified and references have been added.
Comment14:
L130 Add the version number C-Plan protection planning software.
Response14:
The version number of C-Plan has been added.
Comment15:
L148 Conefor version 2.6 software is distributed free of charge for non-commercial use. The preferred reference for citing Conefor is the following: Saura, S. & J. Torné. 2009. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environmental Modelling & Software 24: 135-139.
Response15:
The reference for citing Conefor has been replaced by the suggested one.
Comment16:
L160 Delete …”in this study…
Response16:
Deleted.
Comment16:
L172 “Guidos Toolbox” is open-source software; a reference should be added.
Response16:
A reference has been added.
Comment17:
L187–L190 The statement should be moved in “Material and methods” section
Response17:
The statement has been moved in “Material and methods” section.
Comment18:
L218 “Changes of IIC and PC of wetlands inside each hotspot from 1995 to 2015” should be “Changes in IIC and PC of wetlands inside each hotspot from 1995 to 2015”
Response18:
The subtitle has been replaced.
Comment19:
L227–L229 It is preferable to state, “The core wetland areas of Bio1, Bio2, Bio5, and Bio8 were drastically reduced, while the branch and bridging wetlands in Bio2 and Bio4 were significantly increased (Fig. 4).” in order to make the results stand out in the discussion.
Response19:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment20:
L232 “According to the statistical analysis of MSPA results, …” should be “According to MSPA results (Fig. 5), …”
Response20:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment21:
L273–L276 It is better to say that “The analysis of changes in hydrological connectivity of each biodiversity hotspot from 1995 to 2015 using the IIC, PC (structural connectivity), and MSPA (functional connectivity) approaches substantially improved knowledge in wetland biodiversity conservation.”
Response21:
The sentence has been replaced.
Comment22:
L276 What results? It is preferable to indicate the results being discussed by adding a figure or by briefly adding values. It is necessary to double-check for similar concerns through discussion (e.g., L283, L299, and L302).
Response22:
The results being discussed have been indicated by adding figures or by briefly adding values.
Reviewer #4:
The manuscript entitled “Spatio-temporal evolution patterns of hydrological connectivity of wetland biodiversity hotspots in Sanjiang Plain during 1995 and 2015” has been reviewed. The subject is interesting and falls within the scopes of Sustainability. In my opinion the manuscript I worth of publication considering the following minor comments.
Comment23:
Why the Introduction section is not numbered? Please check the numbering of headings.
Response23:
According to the reviewer's opinion, we have modified it.
Comment24:
The authors have provided an enriched literature review. However, a very similar paper is recently published (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3620) that could be used by the authors and the similarities and differences between the result of the present study and those of the mentioned paper should be discussed in the “Discussion” section.
Response24:
The mentioned paper have been cited and discussed in the “Discussion” section.
Comment25:
Lines 49, 54, 55: The format of references should be checked.
Response25:
According to the reviewer's opinion, we have modified it.
Comment26:
Lines 81-98: “Overview of the study area”: please embed in section 2.
Response26:
We have created a section called “Materials and Methods” and then place “1. Research field overview” as its first subtitle, “2. Research methods” as its second subtitle.
Comment27:
Line 118: “Irreplaceability (IRR)”. Please add some explanations and the definition of this parameter.
Response27:
We have added the explanation of IRR.
Comment28:
Line 152: please provide the equation number.
Response28:
We have added the equation number.
Comment29:
Lines 152-158: please keep uniformity between the format of parameters in the equation and in the text (in term of italic, etc.)
Response29:
We have uniformed the format of parameters in the equation and in the text.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
1. The format of the paper needs to be uniform, including punctuation and the spacing of references and text.
2. The resolution of the figure in the paper is too low to see, especially Figure 2 and Figure 3. It is suggested that the author redraw the figure.
3. The content of the paper is relatively simple, and it is suggested to divide the discussion into different sections, and supplement the implications of the research results for the sustainable management of wetlands in the Sanjiang Plain.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank your for your comments and suggestions! We have studied the comments and suggestions carefully and have made revisions. Revised portions are marked in red in the “Revised manuscript with changes marked”. The main corrections in the paper and responses to comments are as following:
Comment1:
The format of the paper needs to be uniform, including punctuation and the spacing of references and text.
Response1: According to the opinion of the reviewer, we modified the relevant content.
Comment2:
The resolution of the figure in the paper is too low to see, especially Figure 2 and Figure 3. It is suggested that the author redraw the figure.
Response2:
The resolution the Figures were improved expect Figure 2. Figure 2 is low resolution because it was captured from other literature. Considering this figure is only a map for concept explanation and it can clearly express the differences between different types of wetlands, we think it will not affect the readers' understanding of our manuscript.
Comment3:
The content of the paper is relatively simple, and it is suggested to divide the discussion into different sections, and supplement the implications of the research results for the sustainable management of wetlands in the Sanjiang Plain.
Response3:
We have divided the discussion into different sections, and supplement the implications of the research results for the sustainable management of wetlands in the Sanjiang Plain.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The language of the paper is need to be polished.The full text is need tobe compressed, and some contents are repeated.
Author Response
Dear Editor
We have carefully revised the text based on the comments you gave us, and we have used a language service company to make language enhancements throughout the text. The changes are highlighted in the text and we have provided a language service certificate at the end of the article, thank you again.
Bestregards！
Xu Nan
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well written easy to follow, and I would like to recommend some minor revisions.
The authors should present in more depth and with a proper analysis made. What's indexes are considered (IIC and PC), what type of statistical analysis has been made (MSPA analytical presentation not in results chapters)
Figures 1 and 2 advise for enlargement
Figure 5 improve the readability
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a review of the manuscript titled “Spatio-temporal evolution patterns of hydrological connectivity of wetland biodiversity hotspots in Sanjiang Plain during 1995 and 2015” by Nan et al. The manuscript tries to explore the changes in hydrological connectivity of wetlands at certain locations identified in a previous study using some well-known and widely used indices.
The manuscript lacks the novelty for a research article and is more of a technical note or case study in its present form. It is poorly written missing a number of key information regarding datasets used and the analyses presented are supported using figures that are hard to read making the manuscript impossible to evaluate in terms of the results and conclusions. As such I recommend rejecting the manuscript.
Introduction: The authors need to explicitly state the novelty of this manuscript. They should do a thorough literature review and then state the drawbacks of those studies and how this manuscript is improving on those or addressing a knowledge gap identified by the literature review.
Data: The manuscript needs to clearly articulate what data was used for calculating the indices, where they were sourced from and provide technical details of those datasets. For example, what is the spatial resolution of the DEM used, how old is it and what is its accuracy and source?
Some editorial points:
1. Poor formatting, such as absence of line numbers, makes it difficult to provide feedback.
2. Overview of the study area: wrong section number
3. Please include a figure showing the location and key aspects of the study area to accompany the “Overview of the study area” section.
4. Figure 2 is not in English. Figures 3 and 5 are impossible to read.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have produced a relevant and interesting paper.
The paper has a logical structure with adequate illustrations.
References are up-to-date.
Use of English language is adequate.
Hence the recommendation to accept in its present form.
