Modelling Multi-Scenario Ecological Network Patterns and Dynamic Spatial Conservation Priorities in Mining Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors used the MOP-PLUS model to evaluate the historical and future ENs of a typical coal mine area. The manuscript is rich in content and heavy in workload. The conclusion can provide an effective reference for ecological restoration in other open-pit coal areas. However, it seems that there are still some problems and shortcomings in the manuscript. In order to make the manuscript more scientific and perfect, the author can solve the following problems:

 

Line 24-31: In the results section of the abstract, authors should add some numerical values of the findings as appropriate. Such as what is the minimum value of coal mine?

 

Line 69-75: At present, the construction of ENs combining MCR model and circuit theory is also a highly reliable way. It is not that the ecological corridors identified by circuit theory are not good enough. MCR model is also a mainstream model. The way the author writes in this section is not appropriate. The author wants to distinguish between different models, but it is not appropriate to disparage the current mainstream models in this field. In addition, the author does not fully consider the disadvantages of the MCR model. Indeed, in some ecologically fragile areas, as well as in watersheds or urban clusters where there is significant human activity, the model does ignore the problems described by the authors. However, in some areas with high ecological stability, such as the construction of ecological security network in nature reserves or national parks, MCR model still has certain advantages.

 

Line 96-104: In the current similar regional environmental assessment articles. This part should introduce the general situation of the study area. As a typical open-pit coal, why SD is chosen as the study area.

 

Line 167: This table records the origin of all the data in the manuscript. However, some data have a resolution of 1km, which is a big error for the prediction accuracy and result accuracy of the study area. In addition, in addition to soil data, In a regional case study, socio-economic data and meteorological data can be interpolated to achieve a resolution of 30m. Therefore, the resolution of 1km will undoubtedly reduce the accuracy of the data. I have questions about the amount of work on the manuscript in this section. Finally, the PLUS model should require that all resolutions and the number of rows and columns be consistent. How does the author achieve this?

 

Line 421-437: The southeast region is the area covered by forest land, which is the most protected ecosystem under current policy. But are forested areas highly populated? This is inconsistent with many studies. Is it a phenomenon in coal mining areas? In addition, if possible, could the author discuss the urgent restoration of open-pit coal mines within the framework of the manuscript in future or current research?

 

Line 510-514: The author's conclusion is that landscape hotspots are mainly concentrated in areas with high population density. But the authors' driver fasctors shows that population density is not high in the central and southeast regions. In contrast, the areas with higher population density are in the north and west. How did the author arrive at his conclusion? Or is there something wrong with the underlying data?

 

Line 522-520: Consistent with the content of the appeal, the resolution of 1km is not a limitation of the study. This is something to consider when preparing for work. A resolution of 30m is already common in regional environmental monitoring.

 

Line 524-525: The author highlights the effects of climate change several times in the manuscript. However, climate factors are a necessary driver in current future prediction models. I don't see any discussion of climate factors in the manuscript. Does the climate of arid or semi-arid regions affect the construction of ENs in coal mining regions?

 

Formatting and English writing problems:

Authors should carefully check the English writing standards of the manuscript, such as the EDP and EEB scenarios in lines 28 and 29 of the abstract. What is the IEA on line 36? Should the 124th and 125th row millimeters be uniform? Unit superscript in lines 201 through 208?  The author should examine the other parts of the article carefully for similar problems.

 

Finally, in the reference section, the author's manuscript seems to be unchanged from the template of the previous journal, which seems to be a problem. Please check it carefully. The citation format of the article also needs to be changed according to the requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the conclusions, a summary of what has been done is provided, but no recommendations are given, nor are any relevant or broadly applicable conclusions drawn. What are the references for mining areas to take targeted regional protection measures in advance, thereby avoiding the failure of protection and the waste of funds, as mentioned in the introduction? Therefore, I believe the conclusion should be rewritten with applicable specifications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     Line 20, please give the full names of the abbreviations when EEB and EDP first appear.

2.     Fig.1, please note the accuracy of the map of China in the upper right corner. The administrative boundary between Qinghai and Inner Mongolia is incorrect. Please refer to the Standard map service website of the Ministry of Natural Resources for correction.

3.     Tabal.1, the column of “unit”, the “4” in “104CNY” should be superscript.

 

4.     Lines 267-268 and “Resistance score” among different land use types in Table 3, in most of the existing studies about ecological network or ecological security pattern, the resistance value of water body is at a medium level, and the maximum value is for construction land, while the authors set the resistance value of water body as 1000, please verify and explain.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While it is true that the conclusion could have been significantly improved with more concrete references, the review conducted by the authors can be considered sufficient.