Anthropogenically Created Alpine Pastures as Landscape Resources for the Alpine Chamois Population in the Western Carpathians Mountain Range: Ďumbier Tatras Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is very thorough, informative in scientific terms and well demonstrates the complex relationship between man, mountain nature, climate and one of the animal species – the Alpine chamois for a long time. The analysis of historical, paleontological and geographical data determines the reliability of the results. Therefore, in general, the article makes a positive impression and can be published. Although the main conclusion is that currently the development of tourism negatively affects the spread of chamois and conservation efforts are required, it seems very general. It is obvious that in the conditions of modern warming (climate data, unfortunately, are not given) and the protected regime, the forest will rise up and occupy alpine meadows in areas free of tourist infrastructure. Since it is difficult to stop the development of tourism, the prospects for chamois are very problematic. Probably, the authors, they also think so, should have increased the emphasis on this problem.
There are some more comments. There are a lot of small details, especially in descriptions of the location of certain areas, the history of tourism development, etc. with local names of points, huts, localities, settlements, which are very difficult for a foreign reader to perceive without a large-scale map. This makes the volume of the article very large and makes it difficult to perceive it as a whole. It is most likely necessary to generalize these verbose descriptions, noting the main points important for the study, because it is obviously quite difficult to show the placement of all these objects and will further increase the volume of the article.
References to figures do not always correspond to the text where they are given. So, the link to Fig. 4, 5 is given in the text, where there is a description of the places of finds of the chamois skeletal remains, and the pictures show photographs of the skull and the animal.
In the introduction there are no references to the works of other authors, as well as in the discussion there is no comparison of the results of this study with similar works by other authors, in fact, there is a presentation of the results of the reintroduction of Alpine chamois and the influence of tourism with a very strong detail of the facts, which seems superfluous, since it does not provide new meaningful information for solving the tasks.
The objectives of the work formulated in lines 69-74 are duplicated in lines 228-231, but with a slightly different context. Apparently, it is necessary to determine which of the goals should be achieved in the work.
The words from the title of the article should not be duplicated in the "keywords" section
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic fits the aims and scopes of Journal <Land>. However, I have to say it cannot published in its present form. After reading the Introduction, I found there is no literature review, and no references are cited. So, I don't know the what is the question the authors want to address. The general background of this study is also not introducted well. The case of this study is very local, and international readers will not interested in this study. Journal <Land> is an international journal for international readers. A local story of historical pasture landscape change without clear question and quantitative method is not a good research article for publication in international journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors.
This article (Anthropogenically Created Alpine Pastures as Landscape Resources for Alpine Chamois Population in Mountain Range of Western Carpathians: Ďumbier Tatras Case Study) deals with an interesting paper. However. in my opinion it has diverse weaknesses.
Please see it below:
- In the introduction I didn´t understand what’s is the research problem of the study. Please clarify it. Also I don´t see any citation, that is any reference to other studies concerning this area of study. The contextualization of the study, the identification of the research question based on previous studies is very important. Also you present some figures but you don´t present the source of them.
- In the section called “2. Materials and Methods” you present the Theoretical Background. It is not correct. Literature review or the theoretical background should be in a separate major section. In the subsection called methods I don´t understand what procedures you use. For instance, you mentioned in your figure a bibliometric method. But I am not sure if you used a bibliometric method…
In this section you also have a subsection called “2.3. Historical and geographical view of natural and anthropogenic distribution (introduction) of chamois in Europe and in Western Carpathians”. Again I don´t understand why this subsection is insert here.
- In the Results section, you present a lot of results based on literature review, right? But you don´t mentioned this literature review. Again this is not correct.
- The same happens in the next section called Discussion. Here I see very few references. That is a discussion should confront the results of the study with other scientific works on this area and I think that you don´t do that.
- In the Conclusion section should contain the practical or theoretical and political implications of the study, the limitations of it and paths for future research.
Last but not the least please don´t forget to mentioned in your future works the sources of your figures and images.
For all these reasons I think that you should restructure all your work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Sorry about not mentioning lines or paragraphs. On the overall, the paper is OK.
But, I have a dilemma about a correlation between the Rupicapra population and the deforestation at the upper part of the Tatra Mountains. These deforestation took place in all Carpathians, with the clear purpose of using land for grazing mostly sheep or cows. They are taking place at the present moment, at least in Romania. Anyway, usually Rupicapra prefers more remote environments, and finds food not necessarily on pastures.
The mentions about Middle Ages population of the area are not supported clearly by the references. There are many historical references mentioned, unfortunately not clearly evidencing the problems posed. Again, not cited accordingly.
The term of anthropogenically created Alpine pastures is interesting....although a shorter term might be more refined. Maybe human-affected habitats? The term of created leads to the idea of...created...but from my point of view it is only a change / modification. If not affected, such ecosystems can turn back to the initial state.
Unfortunately, having in view the strong statements regarding the evolution of this landscape, the citations are lacking. Not mentioning the fact that arguments having in view the land changes are supported by recent data, even the text mentions Medieval periods.
Many opinions, not cited, are not supported by clear data or citations.
Leaving aside other aspects, and eliminating Chamois, which are not mentioned very clearly as habitation needs, I would recommend this paper, after some review, and changing the title, of course, to the same or other journal. The work done is interesting from a geomorphological, touristic or other perspectives, and can be published....but...after some revisions excluding the Chamois.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript do not improved substantially. I still cannot find the general background of the study. Why the study is important? What's the question this study want to address? What have been done by previous studies? What's the knowledge gap of previous studies? All of them are missing.
The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work.Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper.
Best wishes
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for your efforsts. However I think that the paper continues to present some major problems.
Again I don´t understand what is the research problem of the study. This should be based on literature review. Can you please clarify this in your response rather of write" research problem of the study was clarified in lines 93-103" ? In the same way the purpose of the study should be based on literature review. But, first you present the literature review and after the purpose of the study. This is not correct in my opinion.
I continue to have problems in understand the methodology section. And again in the section concerning "Results" you cite few references. So your work in based in what? What are the base of your work? You have to cite all the documents that are the base of your work.
The same problem, happen in the discussion and conclusion section. Please cite the works that are the base of your work.
Don´t forgett to add the limitations of your work and paths for future research.
Good work on the next steps.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
No comments, some changes have been made, but the subject is not that interesting, and the paper's idea is not that clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
