Rewilding as a Multifaceted Concept and Emerging Approach: The Romanian Experience
, Laura Monica Gorghiu 3, Claudia Lavinia Buruleanu 4 and Ana-Maria Suduc 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript reviews rewilding as a conservation strategy, particularly emphasising the situation in Romania. The paper discusses the current situation in Europe, as well as the benefits and challenges of using rewilding. The paper deals with a relevant topic, and I present several suggestions for the authors to obtain a more robust contribution.
My main concern is that the different sections of the paper need to connect better. The authors should include at the beginning of the paper a general layout for the document, clearly stating the questions they propose to address. This should help as a guide for the reader and improve connectivity among the paper's sections. Section 5 on Rewilding between benefits and criticism is not balanced. The authors make an effort to present the positive points of rewilding, which is necessary for the paper, but leave out the challenges. The reader only finds three sections later, Section 8, the discussion about the challenges of rewilding. I suggest merging these two sections to present the reader with arguments to consider the options for rewilding. In this regard, I strongly suggest presenting the costs and benefits of rewilding compared to other strategies available to try to obtain similar conservation goals. In Section 7, consider discussing the need for mathematical models based on the multiple factors involved in the rewilding process to plan and assess the use of this strategy. Models based on population dynamics and socio-ecosystem dynamics have shown to be highly valuable tools in conservation.Also, I urge the authors to provide indicators to assess when a rewilding project was either successful or not. Consider ending the paper with a more robust "take-home message". I suggest finding the key elements learned from the exercise/review and presenting them to the reader in a brief manner.
The authors should consider adding a section about the prospects in the area, including, for example, the evaluation of the success or failure of current rewilding efforts. In general, I feel that the main ideas the authors try to convey can be understood from the paper, but several awkward sentences need to be improved. I have highlighted some of them, but the paper as a whole needs to be English-proofed by a native speaker. Also, I strongly suggest the authors replace imprecise expressions such as "much", "many" or "a lot", with expressions indicating what they want to say using indicators or numbers. That will allow the reader to decide whether it is "much" or "a lot". Additional specific comments are included in the pdf file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The document needs to be English-proofed by a native speaker.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment and the revised manuscript.
Thank you very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the manuscript is an important one and at a brief glance, it offers good information. However, the manuscript has many English grammar and translation errors such that it was difficult to review. The authors should have the manuscript corrected for English and should resubmit when that is completed. The references found on websites are missing the date accessed and for 63-79, the title of the sites. The authors should check the Author Guidelines: Sustainability | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com)
Websites:
9. Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year).
I did not have time to check the other reference formats.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The manuscript has many English grammar and translation errors making it difficult to read.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment and the revised manuscript.
Thank you very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSuggestions for changes in the manuscript
Section Rewilding in European context – For this section, please provide an overview of examples of how this concept has been implemented in Europe. Second, you generally write affirmatively about the concept of Rewilding in Europe. Are there any shortcomings that need to be pointed out?
Section Rewilding from social perspective – It is necessary to indicate to what extent Rewilding has positive and when it begins to have negative connotations from social perspective.
Lines 527-530 It is necessary to consider in more detail the projects that have been implemented with this theme on the territory of Romania. What were the key results and contributions to Rewilding in Romania and Europe? Are there any gaps in this research that need to be explored in the future?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment and the revised manuscript.
Thank you very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting topic and the authors evidently spent much time putting this together. In general, however, there are so many instances of words without spaces between them and incorrect verb tenses that it was difficult to read. It is too long and tends to be redundant with excessive verbiage such that the reader loses interest.
The authors did give a detailed treatment of international and European policies. Section 2.2 lists the different European biodiversity policies which are described in general terms but not directed as relevant for rewilding. Section 2.3 lists European rewilding projects but the whole paragraph lists the Rewilding Europe projects (1-10) taken directly from the Rewilding Europe website. It would have been better to identify the countries and have the reader access the list on the Rewilding Europe website. Section 4 covers benefits, risks, and gaps but these topics are repeated in subsequent sections. Section 6. Rewilding assessment would have been better with examples that illustrated the monitoring techniques and technology (species?). There were a few example using case studies in section 6.2 but most of the examples were very general. Section 8 reiterates rewilding shortcomings that were mentioned earlier in the manuscript. Section 9 finally discusses rewilding in Romania (which is in the title) and the description is very general. The title should reflect the rewilding efforts in Europe.
Table 1 - Rewilding projects and initiatives in Romania (5 pages) should be in a document in Supplementary Materials and not included in the manuscript.
In general, the topic of rewilding in Europe is an important conservation tool to restore ecosystems and biodiversity. This paper should be shortened considerably to mitigate redundancy, and use examples to illustrate the various concepts rather than incorporating lists of policies and projects.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe text contains many errors - incorrect verb tenses, words that run together rather than being separated by a space, incorrect sentence structure, etc.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable remarks and comments! We would like to excuse us for the unpleasant aspects related to the English grammar, which made the manuscript difficult to read. Also, we appreciate the reviewer’s comments referring to the length of the manuscript and its redundant aspects. We worked on all those aspects to improve the manuscript structure and content.
The changes made are mentioned below point by point, and in brief, these are the following:
- Section 2.2 was revised to refer to the relevant policies for rewilding;
- Section 2.3 was revised so that to not provide readers with information available on the website. The relevant European projects were briefly discussed.
- Sections 4.2 and 8 were merged and the resulting new section was revised to better illustrate the rewilding’s challenges and shortcomings, by avoiding redundancy of information;
- Section 5 (Rewilding from a social perspective) was revised to eliminate the redundancies and to present more coherent information;
- Section 6 was revised and examples that illustrate the monitoring techniques and technologies were added;
- Table 1 was revised and only the definitory data were kept, the others being removed or discussed to chapter 8; the actual length of the table is two and a half pages;
- The list of References was updated accordingly to the abovementioned changes.
The responses to the issues communicated are included in the attachment.
Thank You very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate your persistence and the work that was done to improve this manuscript to make it ready for publication! It's a thorough review of the different aspects of rewilding in Europe, and does a good job in discussing the programs in Romania. The addition of Section 6.2 (7.2; see note about renumbering the sections) discussing the monitoring techniques and technology was well done. There are minor corrections for English grammar and spacing in the Reference list.
Renumbering the sections: I suggest replacing 0. General layout of the paper with 1. Introduction as this is the format that is used for Reviews. Then, each subsequent section would be edited to reflect this sequence.
With these minor changes, this manuscript is ready for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are minor corrections for English grammar but overall, the quality of English is fine.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank You for careful and thorough reading of our manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to enhance the quality of the manuscript.
We have revised the manuscript and responded to the comments point by point (Please see the attachment). The corrections in the manuscript were made by using Track Changes.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
