Construction and Optimization of the Ecological Security Pattern in Liyang, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of manuscript "Construction and Optimization of the Ecological Security Pattern in Liyang, China" (land-1916102)
Dear authors, your research aims to construct and optimize the ecological security pattern within a county-level city in China. It is complete and fits the aims and scope of the journal topic. Unfortunately, the authors need to highlight the novelty of their research building upon previous research. Therefore, "Major Revision" is required to largely improve this manuscript. Specifically, the reviewer has the following comments and suggestions:
(1) The Abstract: this part did not put this study into an international context. Almost all the contents are merely related to the study area, the county-level Liyang City in China.
(2) The Introduction Section: this part is also weak because the authors did not highlight the purpose and novelty of this study from an international perspective. As a consequence, reviewers cannot figure out why this research must be performed in this context. In particular, the morphological spatial pattern analysis (MSPA) method has been widely utilized by more and more related studies. In those relevant studies, the selection of an ecological source is somewhat subjective and ignores the connectivity role of patches in the landscape. This problem can be easily solved by MSPA. The authors need to discuss this cutting-edge method for identifying ecological sources and optimizing ecological security pattern in the Introduction (please find below for discussion). A thorough literature review is meant to set the context for your research work and highlight how it contributes to the knowledge in this field and builds on previous relevant research.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108138
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084530
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109258
(3) Line 69-82: in this part, the authors have mentioned three points for discussion. However, these points are not that important. Firstly, the selection and evaluation of indicators in this study still contained subjectivity. Secondly, although the scale effect does exist, this effect is subject to the specific study area, which is not a novelty point in this manuscript. Thirdly, some studies have already compared the ecological pattern before and after the optimization (see the first article mentioned above).
(4) Section 2.2 Data sources and processing: in this part, the authors should clarify what were the accuracies of land use classification? What is the date of the DEM? In addition, why the years for all these datasets were different? How to handle all the data with very different spatial resolution (e.g., 30m and 30'')?
(5) Line 154-158: in this part, the authors should clearly explain why these landscape metrics have been selected and used.
(6) Section 2.3.2 Ecosystem services evaluation: There are a number of different categories of ecosystem services provided by the INVEST model. Why the authors just selected those four modules, i.e., "habitat quality, water yield, soil conservation, and carbon sequestration"? What about the others, such as grain production?
(7) Besides, the coefficient values may substantially change across different areas. Did the authors merely reuse the values from previous studies focusing on other study cases? There are several challenges that should be carefully dealt with when using these different methods. In particular, the determination of the parameters/variables should be clearly explained, such as Table 2 and Table 3.
(8) Section 2.3.3 Connectivity evaluation: in this part, the authors also need to clearly describe the determination processes of parameters/variables for these two equations, such as the distance thresholds.
(9) Table 4 and Figure 5: In my opinion, an analysis based on a detailed and fine spatial resolution will always be better than the analysis based on a coarse resolution, with respect to the optimization of ecological security pattern research.
(10) Line 289-290: in this part, the authors need to explain why the patches larger than 1 km2 were selected as ecological sources? Are there any more convincing reasons? For instance, why the patches with an area smaller than 1 km2 were excluded? In fact, these works can be done by the MSPA.
(11) Figure 6: I suggest that the color schemes remain consistent for these different maps.
(12) Tables should be "three-line table" without any color.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting and could make an important contribution to the field, but unfortunately in its current form the manuscript lacks research depth, visible by a focus on the case study rather than the research issue, proved by poor introduction, discussions, and conclusions. Thus, the manuscript requires a strong development of these sections. Moreover, the article lacks the international exposure required for publication in an international journal. Detailed comments are provided for each section of manuscript.
Normally, in a scientific article the introduction critically analyzes the existing literature in order to identify their shortcomings (ambiguities, controversies, misconceptions or lacks), justifying the need for research. The authors should add, before declaring the research goals (lines 93-100), a paragraph summarizing the shortcomings of previous studies. The research goals (lines 93-100) should be placed in a separate paragraph, to better emphasize them. Also, based on the shortcomings of the previous studies, it would help to add after the research goals 1-2 sentences showing how these goals are addressing the previous shortcomings, and what the novelty of research is, compared to previous studies. The Introduction focuses on the study area (lines 89-93). Such a descriptive and local presentation belongs to the methods, in order to explain the particular features of the study area, or to the discussion, in order to explain the significance of results. In any case, they do not belong to the introduction, and should be moved where they belong. Last but not least, the introduction would benefit upon discussing similar concepts, such as the territorial system of ecological stability (https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017518529210, https://doi.org/10.1515/eko-2015-0032, or https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00321-0).
Figure 1 shows the inability of authors to write up research. This is an article for an international journal, and not a report for the national authorities. The authors should present a map showing the location of the study area in an international context, making visible the neighboring countries with their names, so that a Brazilian researcher could understand it too. China is not the only country in the world!
The most important section of a research article, the Discussions, is insufficiently developed. The section is meant to emphasize the importance of research, justifying its publication. Normally, this section includes include (A) the significance of results - what do they say, in scientific terms; (B) the inner validation of results, against the study goals or hypotheses; (C) the external validation of results, against those of similar studies from other countries, identified in the literature; (D) the importance of results, meaning their contribution (conceptual or methodological) to the theoretical advancement of the field; (E) a summary of the study limitations and directions for overcoming them in the future research. Only the significance of results is presented. The "Discussions" should be developed to include the missing elements.
Conclusions are not sufficiently broad in scope, and lack research depth, pertaining only to the case study and being in fact just a summary of the main findings. Conclusions are meant to deliver a scientific message, far away beyond the case study, to the entire scientific community, making a clear contribution to the theoretical (conceptual or methodological) development of the field. Conclusions must be developed beyond the case study.
The abstract looks like a shopping list, focusing on the case study only, and not on the broader implications of research and only on what has been done, without the slightest indication on why it has been done, and what knowledge gap is actually being filled in. The abstract is supposed to deliver ideas, and not state the research steps in brief and provide useless figures instead of their significance. It needs to be rewritten entirely, and shift the focus from the case study to the research issue investigated in the study (construction and optimization of the ecological security pattern).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for incorporating my comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have fully and deeply addressed my previous comments, and as a result the manuscript increased its research depth and addresses a broader international audience. I do not have any additional comments and recommend its publication in the revised form.
