Spatial Correlation of Landscape Fragmentation and Ecological Sensitivity in China’s Giant Panda National Park and Surrounding Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. While the introduction mentions the importance of investigating the spatial correlation between landscape pattern indices and ecological sensitivity (ES) in the Giant Panda National Park (GPNP) and its surrounding areas, it could be further enhanced by explicitly stating the specific objectives of the study and how it contributes to ecological conservation, restoration, and environmental management in a more detailed manner. This would provide a clearer context for readers.

2. The methodology section lacks detail on how the nine ecological evaluation factors and four landscape pattern indices were selected and applied using GIS and Fragstats software. Providing more information on the criteria used for selecting these factors and indices, as well as the specific analytical methods employed, would strengthen the study's reproducibility and credibility.

3. The findings section describes the spatial distribution of ecological sensitivity and landscape pattern indices but could be improved by including visual representations such as maps or graphs to illustrate these patterns more effectively. Additionally, interpreting the implications of these findings in relation to ecological conservation and management practices within the GPNP would add depth to the discussion.

4. While the study mentions a positive correlation between ecological sensitivity and landscape pattern indices, particularly with the DIVISION index, it would be beneficial to delve deeper into the implications of these correlations. Discussing potential causes for these correlations and how they might inform future conservation strategies within the park and its surroundings would enhance the study's practical value.

5. The conclusion should not only summarize the key findings but also provide clear recommendations for policymakers, conservationists, and environmental managers based on the study's results. This section could be strengthened by outlining specific strategies that can be implemented to leverage the identified correlations for the sustainable development of the GPNP and its surrounding areas, ensuring a more actionable outcome for stakeholders.

Author Response

Aug. 2024

Dear Reviewers:

With this cover letter, we will submit the revised Manuscript (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3141247) entitled ‘Spatial Correlation of Landscape Fragmentation and Ecological Sensitivity in China's Giant Panda National Park and Surrounding Areas’ for publication in the journal ‘Sustainability’. We would like to thank you for the careful and constructive reviews and suggestions. For our revised submission, we decided to upload the revised manuscript with the indication of our changes (track changes and highlights).

The replies in green are for reviewer 1, the replies in blue are for reviewer 2, and the replies in yellow are for reviewer 3.

Based on the comments received, we provide you with our answers for the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors evaluated the ecological sensitivity and landscape patterns of the GPNP and its surrounding areas. The research methodologies are reasonable, and the findings are interesting. However, there are still some aspects that should be improved to make the paper publishable. I focus here only on some points, which are hopefully easy for the authors to take into account in the revision.

 

(1)   Part Abstract - it should be summarized, and more fresh findings can be given. In addition, check it carefully, e.g., the full name of GPNP was not given.

(2)   Part Introduction - the author pointed out that ‘Previous studies have lacked exploration of the spatial correlation between landscape pattern evolution and ecological sensitivity in the GPNP and have overlooked the comprehensive landscape pattern analysis of the linkage zones outside various protected areas.’, maybe more attention should be paid to the landscapes of surrounding areas. Can you provide more details? There are many works related to the topic, as follows. 1) doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105910, 2) doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110053.

(3)   Table 1 - can you provide the basis for the grading?

(4)   Sec 2.3.2 - why choose size of 5km? In addition, there are many landscape indices, only SPLIT, PD, and DIVISION were used in this work, please give the reasons.

(5)   Figures are not clear enough, please modify.

(6)   How to define the surrounding area? I think it can be given.

(7)   I recommend the authors to check the full manuscript and correct any errors.

 

Overall, it is meaningful work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Aug. 2024

Dear Reviewers:

With this cover letter, we will submit the revised Manuscript (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3141247) entitled ‘Spatial Correlation of Landscape Fragmentation and Ecological Sensitivity in China's Giant Panda National Park and Surrounding Areas’ for publication in the journal ‘Sustainability’. We would like to thank you for the careful and constructive reviews and suggestions. For our revised submission, we decided to upload the revised manuscript with the indication of our changes (track changes and highlights).

The replies in green are for reviewer 1, the replies in blue are for reviewer 2, and the replies in yellow are for reviewer 3.

Based on the comments received, we provide you with our answers for the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is advisable for the authors of the article to use the digital expression of sensitivity indices, and avoid using phrases such as line 210 - "reduction of the sensitivity gradient" - by how much?

2. In my opinion, Table 3. Results of ecological sensitivity assessment (line 260) and Figure 4. Area statistics of ecological sensitivity levels in different park regions (line 259) repeat each other. It would be desirable to organize this information

Author Response

Aug. 2024

Dear Reviewers:

With this cover letter, we will submit the revised Manuscript (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3141247) entitled ‘Spatial Correlation of Landscape Fragmentation and Ecological Sensitivity in China's Giant Panda National Park and Surrounding Areas’ for publication in the journal ‘Sustainability’. We would like to thank you for the careful and constructive reviews and suggestions. For our revised submission, we decided to upload the revised manuscript with the indication of our changes (track changes and highlights).

The replies in green are for reviewer 1, the replies in blue are for reviewer 2, and the replies in yellow are for reviewer 3.

Based on the comments received, we provide you with our answers for the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has revised the previous round of reviews and I have no further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comments have been addressed, and it can be accepted.