Construction of Karst Landscape Ecological Security Pattern Based on Conflict between Human and Nature in Puzhehei
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, we utilized population and land data to develop an Ecological Security Pattern for the Karst Landscape in Puzhehei. Our aim was to provide a valuable reference for the management of Karst ecosystems. However, several significant issues need to be addressed before this paper can be considered for publication.
First, the Introduction section outlines the regional context, problems in Puzhehei, and the research methods employed in constructing the ecological security pattern. However, it lacks a clear identification of existing literature gaps, which are essential to establish the rationale for this study and underscore its novelty.
Second，the Results section appears to include a substantial amount of discussions, which would be better placed in the dedicated Discussion section. To enhance the paper's structure, we suggest separating the Results and Discussion. Furthermore, we recommend that a native English speaker review the manuscript for language edits.
In addition to these general concerns, we have identified specific comments as follows:
-
Lines 11-23: The abstract lacks clear research objectives and conclusions, which are vital components.
-
Line 20: The first mention of 'DPC' requires the full name to be provided.
-
Line 118: The latitude and longitude indicators in Figure 1 are in Chinese and should be adjusted to English.
-
-
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am glad to review this manuscript entitled “Construction of Karst Landscape Ecological Security Pattern Based on Contradiction between Population and Land in Puzhehei”. In this manuscript, the authors faithfully performed the analysis in accordance with the their research goals. However, for publication, the manuscript needs to be revised so that readers can easily access the research results.
○ Major questions
#1. The authors seem to need to reconsider their terminology.
(1-1) In the title, the term ‘contradiction’ is strange. The ‘conflict’ between population and nature is understandable, but not contradictory. Population and nature are not opposites.
(1-2) In the manuscript, I am unfamiliar with the term ‘ecological security pattern’. Overall, the content of this manuscript focuses on ecosystem conservation. Is the term ‘security’ appropriate?
#2. There is insufficient description of the materials and methods used in the manuscript.
(2-1) For data obtained from satellite images (e.g., surface water, NDVI), it should be specified when and from what source the data was obtained. The same applies to the rest of soil, land-use, etc.
(2-2) (L155-156) According to the explanation for Guidos Toolbox (https://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/activities/lpa/gtb/), MSPA is an abbreviation for Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis. Not Multiple Scale Patch Analysis. Is it a different method?
(2-3) Please add the reference corresponding to each index (IIC, PC, dPC, etc.).
(2-4) Referring to the documentation for Conefor 2.6, dPC is a percentage value (x100). Is the formula in the manuscript correct?
#3. Overall, the figures and tables in the manuscript are raw, unclear, and unfriendly to readers.
(3-1) In Figure 1, change the Chinese characters displayed in latitude and longitude to English.
Also, what is the meaning of ‘constraction land’? construction? In addition, what is the meaning of ‘unused land’? Except for the natural environment in the legend, the other areas such as cultivated or construction land need to be displayed in a color different from green.
(3-2) The workflow in Figure 2 is interrupted. How is each diagram connected? Also, what does the blue area in the middle, including the ‘ecological corridor’ mean? In this area, A white arrow appears opposite to the overall direction of progress (black arrow).
(3-3)The letters in the pieplot in Figure 3 are hidden. Also, what do ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’ in the figure mean? Is this just a simple example? No explanation whatsoever.
(3-4) The text (including the legend) in the picture is too small or not clearly visible. In particular, Figure 5 ~ 7.
(3-5) In Figure 9, it is difficult to distinguish between the ‘crucial ecological point’ and ‘the crucial ecological corridor’ because the colors are the same. In addition, there is a typo in Figure 9 (black point: point). Furthermore, can there be cases where general ecological points are not located on general ecological corridors?
# 4. It is necessary to check the contents of the manuscript again.
(4-1) Abbreviations using similar letters appear frequently in the manuscript (dpc, dPC, Dpc, and DPC). Unify the use of terms for words that have the same meaning, and use different abbreviations for different meanings.
(4-2) The content of the main text (L198-L201) has been added between the legend and the content of Table 1. In addition, what do the ‘hydrological analysis’ values in Table 1 mean?
(4-3) It would be nice to clarify the significant figures in the manuscript. In Table 2, up to 4 decimal places are shown, and in Table 3, up to 5 decimal places are shown. Too many decimal units make the manuscript cluttered.
(4-4) The numbers in Figure 4 seem to correspond to the ‘Number’ in Table 3. However, in the text (L303-304), an explanation of the ‘Patch number’ in Table 3 is mentioned. Make clear the distinction between ‘source site number (L303)’ and patch number in the manuscript.
(4-5) In ‘section 3.5’, numbers are assigned to the 16 crucial ecological nodes in Figure 9, and attaching the corresponding numbers when describing the region in the manuscript will greatly help readers understand the author's explanation. It is inconvenient to go back and forth to Figure 5 where the local name is written every time.
○ Minor checkpoints.
- (L40-41) As the sole designated "Tourism Circular Economy Pilot Zone" in 40 Yunnan Province, it holds considerable international influence.: what is the ‘international influence’? I understand that the authors want to talk about the uniqueness of the region, but the point seems to be a little different.
- (L64) pattern analysis[2]， evaluation of landscape connectivity[3], : comma is strange.
- (L72) model[12] is used to identify : ‘used’ is a different font.
- (L94) this project. while also serving as a valuable : while -> While
- In the introduction, there is the use of abbreviations without explanation such as MCR, MSPA and AHP.
- Arc Gis -> ArcGIS
- (L267) What is the full name of ‘LCD’?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled ‘Construction of Karst Landscape Ecological Security Pattern Based on Contradiction between Population and Land in Puzhehei’ by Li et al. has conducted morphological spatial pattern analysis and landscape connectivity assessment to the karst landscape of Puzhehei, and achieved several conclusions. The topic is well-aligned with the scope of this journal; however, the manuscript requires some critical revisions before it can be accepted for publication.
The abbreviation ‘DPC’ should be spelled out in full at its first appearance in the abstract.
The introduction section contains an excessive amount of background information about the study area. It should be more concise, focusing on introducing the background and scientific significance, summarizing previous research on the topic, identifying research gaps, and outlining the study's objectives. The current introduction fails to address these points, making it difficult for readers to understand the study's purpose and approach.
It appears that the upper-right panel of Figure 1 is a land cover classification map, which does not align with the figure caption. Additionally, the left column of Figure 1 is within the frame of longitude and latitude, indicating a serious error.
In Section 2.2, more detailed descriptions of the data used in the study should be provided. For example, the spatial and temporal resolution of NDVI should be included.
The analysis methods used in this research appear to be qualitative ranking and analysis. A more convincing approach would involve a quantitative evaluation.
The font size of the legend in Figure 5 is too small, and the meaning of the legend should be explained in the accompanying text.
The first two paragraphs of the discussion section should be reorganized and included in the introduction section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReply to the author
The article takes Puzhehei Karst landscape in Qubei County, Wenshan Prefecture, Yunnan Province as the research object, determines the ecological source area through the combination of MSPA and landscape connectivity evaluation, constructs a comprehensive ecological resistance surface from the perspective of natural environment and socio-economics, and amends the resistance surface by combining the sensitivity of rock desertification. Finally, based on the MCR model and circulation theory, ecological corridors and ecological nodes were identified to construct the landscape ecological security pattern. The research objectives are clear, the research method is appropriate and full of logical ideas. On the whole, there are still the following deficiencies, and the feedback on the revision is as follows:
1. Abstract: Lack of research objectives, novelty of the work and conclusions of the study, which need to be further optimized.
2. Introduction: (1) the introduction of the background of the study is a bit empty, does not provide enough background information, and does not go from the big to the small in-depth; (2) although the theme of "population and land conflicts" is introduced, it is not linked with the main line of the study - the construction of the ecological security pattern; (3) the review of previous research is not comprehensive enough, and it does not explain the difference between this paper and previous research; (4) "less research in the construction of karst landscape security pattern", what is the basis? The significance and value of the research is not obvious.
3. Study area: The latitude and longitude labels in Figure.1 are not in English; the scale is problematic; and the content does not reflect the research significance of the study area.
4. Data sources: paragraph subparagraph questions.
5. Results: (1) Simply a literal translation of the charts, suggesting a simple elaboration of the reasons behind; (2) The legend is not clear; (3) In the analysis of the results of the ecological source area, some of the values do not have a unit; (4) There is no illustrative analysis in the construction of the landscape ecological security pattern in conjunction with the theme of the contradiction between population and land.
6. Discussion: (1) Lack of in-depth discussion related to the topic; (2) The mechanism behind failed to dig deeper.
7. Conclusion: The main findings should be summarized accurately, concisely and completely, highlighting the research contribution.
8. The title of the article emphasizes "population and land conflicts", but it seems that the whole article does not reveal well how to construct the landscape ecological security pattern of the study area based on population and land conflicts.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageBe coherent, but need to be clear about terminology and tense choice.
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsno comment.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate you for the constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Construction of Karst Landscape Ecological Security Pattern Based on Conflict between Human and Nature in Puzhehei” (Manuscript ID:sustainability-2707366).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors# Comments and Suggestions for Authors
○ General comment
- Although the authors have fully revised the manuscript based on the previous comments. there are still some parts that need to be revised. However, the authors will be able to quickly revise it.
○ Checkpoints
-Please exclude words mentioned in the title and abstract from keywords as much as possible.
-In Figure 2, there is a white box in the light blue area.
-Still, MSPA is Multiple Scale Patch Analysis in the manuscript, not Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis (L122-123, L206-207).
-If you specified words and abbreviations in the introduction, you can use only abbreviations thereafter. (for example: MSPA, AHP, etc.)
-Do you need a ‘The picture was drawn by the author’ for each figure?
-In the beginning, ‘ecological security’ is mentioned, but in the latter part, ‘landscape security’ is mainly mentioned. The authors said in the cover letter that these two are the same, and this should be stated in the text as well.
-In the ‘discussion’, I think the interpretation of the results is insufficient. What is the importance of founded ecological points and corridors? How can they contribute to the sustainable development of Puzhehei? Which area is ecologically valuable and should be preserved? There is some related information in ‘results’. The authors can also consider moving this to ‘discussion’.
Comments on the Quality of English Language- In L569-L592, ‘On the one hand’ and ‘On the other hand’ are repeated a lot.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did a OK job, it can be accepted now. Pay attention to some grammar errors and language issues.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate you for the constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Construction of Karst Landscape Ecological Security Pattern Based on Conflict between Human and Nature in Puzhehei” (Manuscript ID:sustainability-2707366).
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReply to the author
The paper has done a good research work, but it needs to be further improved in the condensation of innovation points. The following suggestions are for reference of polishing and optimization.
1. The structure of the introduction is not clear enough. Usually the content of the introduction mainly includes the research background, the research status and the research purpose. The beginning of the introduction discusses the research background. The summary of the research area here is too complicated and fails to grasp the key point. The literature review part summarizes the research content, methods and conclusions of the literature, and analyzes contributions, advantages and shortcomings. The article is simply listed in the review part without pointing out shortcomings, so it cannot highlight its own contributions. At the end of the introduction, I introduce my research motivation, purpose and significance.
2. The social and economic conditions can be supplemented in the overview of the research area. Figure 1. Need to add a scale. The scale expression of the latitude and longitude network needs to be modified (for example: 24°10′N、103°50′E). In addition, the latitude and longitude of the distribution map of land cover classification and rocky desertification are wrong. If the study areas of the two maps are consistent, the latitude and longitude should also be consistent.
3. In the diagram of the result analysis part, the scale format and the number of decimal places in the legend should be kept as uniform as possible.
4. The discussion part is not well written, and the current discussion is still a summary of the research content. I suggest that the discussion can be discussed from the perspective, such as the improvement of research methods or the diversification of research perspectives. In addition, the policy suggestions are relatively macro, and targeted countermeasures should be put forward based on the research content of this paper.
5. The conclusion part summarizes the core achievements of the paper and suggests describing them one by one. The typical analysis of the research area can be put in the overview of the research area.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The writing logic, syntactic structure and wording standard were further improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
