Identifying Key Areas of Green Space for Ecological Restoration Based on Ecological Security Patterns in Fujian Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper looks at the connectivity among greenspaces in the province of Fujian (China) to identify important ecological corridors. Using ecological functions and ecological sensitivity, this research identifies ecological corridors using the Circuitscape model from derived minimum cumulative resistances. Once these ecological corridors were identified, they were also related to key ecological sources, ecological corridors, ecological barriers, and ecological pinch points. These key areas were also assessed by their relationship with green space and non-green space areas with relevant restoration implications of these key areas.

Overall, this paper has merit because it assesses a large landscape gradient in the province of Fujian. However, generalizations made in the models are an issue unless they are clearly supported by literature. The reason is that these connectivity models have ecological functions implied based on the resistances chosen but this is not clear in the current version of the manuscript. As the connectivity is based on broad ecological needs, it is important to ensure that this reflects the species of interest. The conservation priorities of species with minimal dispersal abilities would be greatly affected by local fragmentation in these connectivity models than wide-range dispersal or migratory species, which need to be rationalized. Also related to the connectivity models, there are issues with the application as these models are extremely prone to the edge effect unless a buffer is used around the study area.

A general comment is that the paper uses the term “green space”. It is important to clearly define what this term means as it has different implications in various fields of research. Green space could imply parks in urbanized areas. It appears though that in this paper, the green space implies natural cover. This is especially important given that the study area spans from an urban to natural landscape gradient. Otherwise, defining it as natural cover may be more appropriate.

Taylor L, Hochuli DF. 2017. Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple disciplines. Landscape and Urban Planning. 158: 25-38.

 

Introduction

Overall, there needs to be support for the rationale using a general model based on Circuitscape as it is a connectivity model that helps identify ecological function through these corridors. Typically the resistances are related to the impact on specific movement or dispersal of species. Although I agree with the authors that the amount of imperviousness, development, and natural cover impacts restoration priorities, this rationale needs to be clearly stated in the Introduction, Methods, and Discussion. These general connectivity models have been slightly stated in the Discussion (lines 393-394) but need to be stronger in the Introduction.

Line 74: This is a typo and it should be McRae et al. Please correct here and in the References section.

 

Methods

Overall, the resistances chosen require stronger justification from literature. As this is a general model, these results could have a greater impact on poorly dispersing species.

A major issue of the connectivity is that the edge effect is evident without a buffer applied around the study area. This could underrepresent the corridors within the study area and this is evident in the Results (please see Figure 6). To address these issues, this study requires a buffer to include additional resistance and ecological sources slightly outside of the study area.

Koen EL, Garroway CJ, Wilson PJ, Bowman J. 2010. The effect of map boundary on estimates of landscape resistance to animal movement. PLOS ONE. 5:e11785.

 

Sections 2.3.1.-2.3.4: Please state the resolution and/or data type of the output models as various datasets were used to compile the inputs.

Lines 169-174: The biodiversity ecological service function makes an assumption that Net Primary Production is related to biodiversity trends. Although this assumption is good, it needs to be supported by literature. Also please state that this assumption is related to a proxy as there is no biological data used in this study actually demonstrating the biodiversity of these areas.

 

Results

Line 133: I recommend that “construction land” should refer to “developed land”. This also applies to Table 3 and elsewhere throughout the paper.

Table 1: Units are missing and should be defined where necessary for clarity.

Table 2: Please define acronyms in the table caption.

Figure 3: Legend is vague and clarification is needed with a heading. Please define what is low, medium, and high.

Figure 4: “The boundary of Fujian province” legend could be changed to “Boundary of Fujian province”.

Figures 4, 5, 6: There are inconsistent titles for the capitalization of letters in the legends of figures. Headings are sometimes not capitalized but capitalized in other figures. Please ensure consistency across figures.

Figure 6: The edge effect is evident here around the province as the corridors ignore the edges and follow the ecological sources only within the centre of the province. This greatly minimizes the potential opportunity that could be realized. Please see the recommendation in the Methods to fix this edge effect.

 

Discussion

The link to restoration from these ecological corridors requires further explanation. Exact tangible actions need to be supported by references throughout the section. For example, what actions can be proposed in these ecological corridors as the models were derived from the minimum cumulative resistances that were based on ecological functions and ecological sensitivity. Furthermore, the management actions of natural cover or green spaces could differ within urban areas versus natural areas outside of cities.

Lines 386-287: “promote the construction of an ecological civilization in China” is an awkward phrase. Perhaps the intention is “promote the focus on an ecologically oriented society in China”.

Line 404: Please clarify “disrupted ecological construction” as it is hard to interpret “ecological construction” as ecology cannot be constructed.

Line 448: “Research” should be capitalized.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written paper. The methodology is clearly explained and can easily be replicated elsewhere. 

Please note - line 74 should read McRae (not Marce), and in the references 24 and 25 should be McRae (not Mcrae).

This can presumably be corrected in the proofs.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear all,

this work is quite interesting and well-developed, congratulations!!

In my opinion, there is still space for the introduction and state-of-the-art sections be expanded and consequently more references should be added.

 

Regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The ecological source of Fujian province was identified in this study by completely examining the value of ecological service functions and ecological sensitivity. Using the MCR and circuit theory models, the authors simulated ecological corridors, ecological barriers, and ecological pinch spots in Fujian province, identifying key areas in need of ecological preservation and restoration. The paper contains lots of detailed analysis but It is quite hard to follow in places. Some of the sentence construction and writing are clunky but the analysis overall is quite impressive.

 

The Discussion and  Conclusion parts of the manuscript must cite and discuss previous research and current international literature on this topic.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for taking the time to complete the revisions and address my earlier comments. This current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication. I would like to thank the authors for their work and contribution.

The following comments are minor recommendations and edits to improve clarity.

 

Abstract

Line 19: Please state what 98.19% is a percentage of.

Line 24: Please state what 63.92% is a proportion of.

 

Introduction

Thank you to the authors for improving the Introduction. I believe it now justifies the novelty and intent of the research.

Lines 178-181: I recommend that this sentence could be removed as it is thoroughly described in the previous sentences and appears more like a Methods description.

 

Methods

Section 2.3.4: Please use lowercase s for “Circuitscape”.

 

Discussion

 

Line 597: Typo of “environment”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx