Assessing Historical LULC Changes’ Effect on Ecosystem Services Provisioning and Their Values in a Mediterranean Coastal Lagoon Complex

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Editor-in-Chief

land-3116753

Manuscript Title: Assessing historical LULC changes’ effect on ES provisioning and their Values in a Mediterranean coastal lagoon complex

 

After carefully assessing the manuscript, I have some feedback for the authors' consideration during the revision process. The manuscript is well-organized, but a major revision is recommended. Details of the comments are as follows:

 

Abstract and Title:

- It is recommended to include key results and numerical findings in the abstract.

Introduction:

- The introduction section contains too many general citations such as [7-9], [10-12], [15-17]. Highlighting the specific importance of each study would make it more understandable for readers.

- The "Research Background" section is missing in the introduction. It is recommended to review related research on the topic and conclude with a summary to better highlight the importance of the present study.

- Include more literature to engage readers regarding landscape change and its impacts on various ecosystem services.

- Provide a more detailed discussion on the driving forces of LULC change both generally and specifically in the study area.

- Expand the literature review to cover different approaches/tools for quantifying land use dynamics, landscape change, and LULC prediction.

- Before stating the objective, clearly specify the study area and highlight significant aspects of the research conversation for better emphasis.

- The introduction section lacks information about the novelty. Indicate what exactly your research addresses and highlight its importance in the closure paragraph.

Study area and Methodology:

- The information provided in the study area section should be well-documented and based on reliable sources.

- The section on land use map extraction requires more detailed explanations.

- What month and time of year do the aerial photos/images used correspond to?

- How many GPS points were taken, and how were their locations distributed?

- What is the accuracy of the produced land use maps?

- In the sensitivity analysis section, on what basis was the "adjustment of 50%" considered?

- Were the areas considered in the sensitivity analysis?

- The quality of Figure 3 is low; please improve it in the next revision stage.

 

Results and discussion:

- How can the findings of this research assist land use managers in making informed decisions?

- Explain the key factors driving land use changes.

- Interpret the results according to the Ramsar Convention guidelines.

 

Conclusions:

- What environmental recommendations do you suggest for protection?

- What additional research, both theoretical and practical, do you propose to complement this study?

- The limitations of the research and potential sources of error should be discussed in the conclusion section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript's English level is not satisfactory, A complete revisions are needed. These can be addressed by revising the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your time and effort to review in detail our manuscript. After receiving your comments and suggestions, we thoroughly revised our manuscript and tried to clarify any confusing parts.

 

Please find below our detailed responses to all comments proposed. All changes are marked with change in lettering (fonts) .

 

Comment 1: It is recommended to include key results and numerical findings in the abstract.

Reply: Information was added in the abstract (lines 19-22), as suggested.

 

Comment 2: The introduction section contains too many general citations such as [7-9], [10-12], [15-17]. Highlighting the specific importance of each study would make it more understandable for readers.

Reply: In our revised manuscript, we provide the significant contribution of the cited research.

 

Comment 3: The "Research Background" section is missing in the introduction. It is recommended to review related research on the topic and conclude with a summary to better highlight the importance of the present study.

Reply: In our revised manuscript, we have broaden the research. We hope that the revised version answers the reader’s questions.

 

 

Comment 4: Include more literature to engage readers regarding landscape change and its impacts on various ecosystem services.

Reply: Landscape and its metrics is not a part of our research, that’s why we complimented your comment as follows. The introduction section has been expanded to incorporate further information regarding the importance of assessing LULC change and their effects on ecosystem services (lines 88-93).

 

Comment 5: Provide a more detailed discussion on the driving forces of LULC change both generally and specifically in the study area.

Reply: In our manuscript, we highlight the driving forces of LULC change in aquatic systems and specifically in coastal lagoons. These are mainly agriculture intensification, urban development and climate change as mentioned in the Introduction section. In section 2.1, are also described the drivers, through the historical overview of the major events in the study area.

 

Comment 6: Expand the literature review to cover different approaches/tools for quantifying land use dynamics, landscape change, and LULC prediction.

Reply: Since this research does not include modeling of LULC, we did not include any literature review on land use dynamics and LULC prediction. However, we added more information on the most common approach used in landscape change detection which is the combined use of remote sensing and GIS (lines 94-111).

 

Comment 7: Before stating the objective, clearly specify the study area and highlight significant aspects of the research conversation for better emphasis.

Reply: Further information regarding the study area and its importance was added in introduction section, as suggested (lines 127-137).

 

Comment 8: The introduction section lacks information about the novelty. Indicate what exactly your research addresses and highlight its importance in the closure paragraph.

Reply: While the methodology employed in our study is robust and well-documented, it does not introduce novel techniques. The significance of our research lies in its provision of the first historical record of (LULC) changes and ES values within a region of considerable environmental and socio-economic importance. Our work not only presents trends in these changes but also identifies necessary actions to mitigate the impacts resulting from them. This comprehensive approach offers valuable insights for future management and policy decisions. This is mentioned in the introduction section (lines 140-142).

 

Comment 9: The information provided in the study area section should be well-documented and based on reliable sources.

Reply: Regarding historical events, where possible, citations were added, being though in Greek language (lines 174-180). Most of the information gathered for the study area are administrative acts that cannot be cited.

 

Comment 10: The section on land use map extraction requires more detailed explanations.

Reply: In 2.2 section, further information was added describing the method used for Land Use map extraction, as suggested (lines 199-208).

 

Comment 11: What month and time of year do the aerial photos/images used correspond to?

Reply: Given the restricted availability of aerial photographs before 1975 since they come from a single provider, we faced a difficulty in selecting aerial photos taken the exact same period. To overcome this challenge, we mostly chose mid-season images to avoid discrepancies between warm and cold periods. The same approach was also applied to satellite imagery, where there were more options available, to ensure consistency. In 2.2 section, explanation was added, as suggested (lines 210-213).

 

Comment 12: How many GPS points were taken, and how were their locations distributed?

Reply: A table with the requested information has been added in the supplementary material (Table S1).

Comment 13: What is the accuracy of the produced land use maps?

Reply: Maps generated from historical data cannot be evaluated for accuracy because the study area cannot be revisited for those earlier periods. However, for dates after 1989, such assessment was considered unnecessary due to the spatial analysis of the imagery and the classification scheme used, which had clearly identifiable and easily distinguishable classes for photointerpretation.

 

Comment 14: In the sensitivity analysis section, on what basis was the "adjustment of 50%" considered?

Reply: Concerning sensitivity analysis, we followed the methodology described in the literature, without making any further adjustments, other than the ones applied by other researchers.

 

Comment 15: Were the areas considered in the sensitivity analysis?

Reply: For each one of the lagoons, sensitivity analysis has been performed separately. A clarification has been added in 3.2 section (lines 257-258).

 

Comment 16: The quality of Figure 3 is low; please improve it in the next revision stage.

Reply: The image quality is improved, as suggested.

 

Comment 17: How can the findings of this research assist land use managers in making informed decisions?

Reply: The results of our study highlight the trend in ES and their values in the ND lagoons, potentially serving as a valuable asset in a management plan that incorporates social, economic, and environmental aspects. Moreover, the insights into LULC changes provided by this study aid in identifying stakeholders and potential conflicts among them. Information has been added in the revised manuscript (lines 476-482)

 

Comment 18: Explain the key factors driving land use changes

Reply: The key factors driving land uses changes have been described in 2.1 section. See comment 5.

 

Comment 19: Interpret the results according to the Ramsar Convention guidelines

Reply: Taking into account your comment, information has been added in the Discussion session (lines 465-475).

 

Comment 20: What environmental recommendations do you suggest for protection?

Reply: From our findings it is clear that the reduction of anthropogenic land uses in favor of water related is essential to improve the values of the ES provided by the lagoonal system. Information has been added to the revised manuscript (lines 498-500).

 

Comment 21: What additional research, both theoretical and practical, do you propose to complement this study?

Reply: Detailed description on future research needs is added in Conclusion section, as suggested.

 

Comment 22: The limitations of the research and potential sources of error should be discussed in the conclusion section.

Reply: A paragraph describing the limitations of the research has been added in the Conclusion section, as suggested (lines 537-549).

 

We would like to extend our sincere gratitude for your invaluable comments and insights. Your feedback has significantly contributed to the enhancement of our manuscript. We have revised the article to incorporate a more detailed and comprehensive analysis, which we believe has substantially improved its quality. We are hopeful that the revised version now meets the high standards set by Land and provides a thorough and robust exploration of the subject matter.

We thank you again and we remain at your disposal if any additional clarifications are needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your time and effort to review in detail our manuscript. After receiving your comments and suggestions, we thoroughly revised our manuscript and tried to clarify any confusing parts.

 

Please find below our detailed responses to all comments proposed. All changes are marked with change in lettering (fonts) .

 

Comment 1: Suggest reorganizing the keywords, as some of them are not strongly related to the research topic.

Reply: Taking into account your comment, the keyword “Sensitivity Analysis” has been removed.

 

Comment 2: Lines 76-77: In the Introduction section, "When using satellite images to identify land uses, there are several drawbacks, particularly when examining historical changes." What does "there are several drawbacks" specifically refer to? Suggest indicating appropriately and accurately citing.

Reply: In our revised manuscript, we provide further information on the drawbacks, as suggested (lines 94-111).

 

Comment 3: Line 113: Km2, this unit should be standardized in lowercase according to international standards.

Reply: This has been modified, as suggested.

 

Comment 4: Lines 110-157: The "2.1 Nestos Delta lagoons study area" section repeats too much content in chronological order, and some introductions are not strongly related to the research topic, such as to make up for the word count. It is suggested that the author consider simplifying it

Reply: In order to meet your comment, details on historical information have been removed. A chronological table time-flow has been added, to present the major events.

 

Comment 5: Lines 151-153: The sentence ("It is important to note that the study lagoons have been extensively exploited for fishing since 1946 by the Agricultural Fishing Cooperative of Keramoti Lagoons of Kavala.".), ends with an additional period.

Reply: This has been modified, as suggested.

 

Comment 6: Lines 249-250: "It is important to note that the Tidal Marsh Biome has experienced a significant decline (41 to 73%) throughout all lagoons (Table 3)." In this sentence, "41 to 73%", how can we tell from the numbers that it is a "significant decline" rather than a noticeable increase? Or is the author's language expression inaccurate?

Reply: Taking your comment under consideration, the current paragraph has been paraphrased and further information has been added, in order for the results to be clear.

Comment 7: Lines 258-259: "Swamps/Floodplains comprise the second critical Biome that has shown a decrease (31 to 43%) (Table 3)". The comment on this sentence is the same as above. Please verify the accuracy of the wording and provide a response.

Reply: Taking your comment under consideration, the current paragraph has been paraphrased and further information has been added, in order for the results to be clear.

 

Comment 8: The analysis content in the "3. Results" section is a bit simple, especially the "3.3 Sensitivity analysis" section, which does not play a prominent role in the text and seems optional. The suggestion is to strengthen the overall content of the results analysis section

Reply: We would like to inform you that indeed the sensitivity analysis was optional, but we applied it to each lagoon in order to confirm the reliability of our results. The 3.3 sections has been removed. In the revised manuscript, further information has been added in the Results section.

 

Comment 9: Although the author believes that this study has made many contributions, it cannot be denied that there are still research shortcomings, which need to be directly expressed in the article.

Reply: In the revised manuscript a more detailed and comprehensive analysis has been performed.

 

Comment 10: The Discussion section lacks logic. It is suggested to draft subheadings and have a structured and targeted discussion.

Reply: This has been modified, as suggested.

 

Comment 11: The reference format needs to be unified, for example, the format of the issue number in References 19-20 is different from other references. Also, it is necessary to standardize whether the first letter of the title of the reference should be capitalized.

Reply: This has been modified, as suggested.

 

We extend our gratitude for your valuable comments and insights. Your feedback has greatly enhanced our manuscript. We have revised the article to include a more in-depth and thorough examination, which we believe has significantly improved its quality. We are confident that the revised version now meets the high standards set by Land and offers a thorough and robust exploration of the subject matter.

 

We thank you again and we remain at your disposal if any additional clarifications are needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

In this article, the authors analysed 75 years of historical land use and land cover (LULC) changes in the Nestos Delta lagoons and their impacts on ecosystem service provisioning and values, and used robustness analyses to validate the robustness and reliability of the results, as well as providing valuable insights and analyses of the drivers and trends of these changes. The results of the study and the proposed conservation strategies are important to guide future habitat conservation efforts and to support sustainable management of Mediterranean coastal lagoons. I am very interested in this study, but there is still room for improvement in this paper. Therefore, I recommend a "Minor Revision".

 

Specific Comments: 

Comment 1:

Figure 2 is proposed to be placed in 3.2.

 

Comment 2:

3.3 It is recommended that the table of results of the sensitivity analyses be supplemented and that a cause analysis be carried out to address the results of the sensitivity analyses.

 

Comment 3:

The colour of a portion of the font on lines 231-233 is purple, and it is recommended that this be adjusted.

 

Comment 4:

The main analytical conclusions of the study are condensed and added, as appropriate, in the "Conclusion" chapter.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your time and effort to review in detail our manuscript. After receiving your comments and suggestions, we thoroughly revised our manuscript and tried to clarify any confusing parts.

 

Please find below our detailed responses to all comments proposed. All changes are marked with change in lettering (fonts) .

 

Comment 1: Figure 2 is proposed to be placed in 3.2.

Reply: Taking into account your comment, the Figure has been move in 3.2 section.

 

Comment 2: 3.3 It is recommended that the table of results of the sensitivity analyses be supplemented and that a cause analysis be carried out to address the results of the sensitivity analyses.

Reply: The results of Sensitivity analysis were supplemented in table S5. In our revised manuscript, we provide further analysis on the sensitivity analysis, as suggested.

 

Comment 3: The colour of a portion of the font on lines 231-233 is purple, and it is recommended that this be adjusted.

Reply: This has been modified, as suggested.

 

Comment 4: The main analytical conclusions of the study are condensed and added, as appropriate, in the "Conclusion" chapter.

Reply: Taking into account your comment, the mail conclusions have been moved in the conclusion section.

 

We would like to extend our sincere gratitude for your invaluable comments and insights. We are hopeful that the revised version now meets the high standards set by Land and provides a thorough and robust exploration of the subject matter.

We thank you again and we remain at your disposal if any additional clarifications are needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello,

Dear Editor-in-Chief

The authors have revised the majority of suggestion/comments in the text. Therefore, the paper has been greatly improved and is acceptable for publication.

Final Reviewer

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

We would like to extend our sincere gratitude for accepting our article titled “Assessing historical LULC changes’ effect on ES provisioning and their Values in a Mediterranean coastal lagoon complex” for publication in Land Journal. Your thoughtful review and constructive feedback have been invaluable to us throughout the revision process. We are thrilled to have the opportunity to share our findings with the journal’s readership.

 

Thank you once again for your support and for playing a crucial role in the peer review process. We look forward to seeing our work published and hope it contributes meaningfully to the ongoing discussions in the field.

 

Best regards,

 

Anastasia Mirli

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors carefully revised my comments in the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is necessary to polish the language of the article appropriately.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for the time and effort you invested in reviewing our submission. Your insights have significantly contributed to refining our work.

Your feedback was instrumental in improving the clarity and quality of our manuscript. We have made several changes to address the language and overall presentation to ensure that it aligns with the high standards of the journal. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the expectations of Land Journal.

Thank you once again for your constructive comments and for supporting the enhancement of our research. We look forward to your thoughts on the revised version and hope that it will be suitable for publication.

Please let us know if there are any further revisions or additional information required.

Best regards,

 

Anastasia Mirli

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx