The Historical and Current Role of the Nature Reserves Network in Preserving Geoheritage in France

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very interesting, and gives an importante overview about the preservation of geological heritage in France. This overview inspires the possibility of new similar processes starting to gain support in other countries, which is very much welcomed. The information given by the authors are all necessary and good, making the reading of the paper a pleasant experience. Two questions nevertheless appear: first, it seems necessary to clarify that the preservation is only of geological elements stricto sensu. The paper talks about geodiversity, which includes, beside geological elements, also geomorphological, hydrological, pedological and even climatic elements (e.g. Claudino-Sales 2022). The items presented by the authors Only exposent paleontological, mineralogical and lithological features (there is a picture of a “gorge”, but the aspect of landform or landscape is not explored by the authors). The second point is, it misses a conclusion. You can not finish a paper in the item “discussion”. The discussion actually is not “discussion” exactly, the way it is presented indicates more a “conclusion”. The paper needs to be reorganized to include a real discussion and a conclusion. Besides it, it makes an excellent contribution to the analyses and spreading of the ideas of geodiversity, which is very much welcomed. We also register two minor changes to be made, as it is seen below:

 

Line 103 – The authors should tell the name and location of the smallest and largest reserve nature in this sentence.

 

Lines 185-192 – It is not clear the legal status of “geological reserves”

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find our detailed responses below. The corresponding revisions have been incorporated into the resubmitted manuscript file.

Comments 1. First, it seems necessary to clarify that the preservation is only of geological elements stricto sensu. The paper talks about geodiversity, which includes, beside geological elements, also geomorphological, hydrological, pedological and even climatic elements (e.g. Claudino-Sales 2022). The items presented by the authors only expose paleontological, mineralogical and lithological features (there is a picture of a “gorge”), but the aspect of landform or landscape is not explored by the authors).

Response 1. : You raise an important point. We have updated the text to specify that geomorphological features are less frequently used as the main criterion for the establishment of geological reserves compared to other geological objects because they are often safeguarded under distinct legal frameworks (see lines 250–257).

Comments 2. The second point is, it misses a conclusion. You can not finish a paper in the item “discussion”. The discussion actually is not “discussion” exactly, the way it is presented indicates more a “conclusion”. The paper needs to be reorganized to include a real discussion and a conclusion.

Response 2. To address the second point you raised, we have reworked the discussion and added a conclusion to the paper.

Comments 3. Line 103 – The authors should tell the name and location of the smallest and largest reserve nature in this sentence.

Response 3.  We have added the names and locations of the smallest and largest nature reserves in the revised sentence (lines 102-103).

Comments 4. Lines 185-192 – It is not clear the legal status of “geological reserves”

Response 4. We have clarified the legal status of geological reserves in the revised text.(lines 188-189)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is about nature reserves and heritage preservation in France. The presented scientific review focuses on and summarizes existing knowledge in the field of natural heritage and nature reserves. The review is well done and I can imagine that it would serve as a guide or a manual for other countries. France started with the concept of geological heritage protection more than 100 years ago. During that time, it has dealt with many problems. However, the country has undergone significant proposals and innovations in the rules only in the last few decades (lines 157,165,168,172,179). The process of creating the national inventory from 2007 is also admirable, which helped, but mainly clarified knowledge about one's own geological heritage. One cannot disagree with many of the statements made in the discussion. The literature used is sufficient for this contribution.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your positive feedback. We are pleased to hear that our review on nature reserves and heritage preservation in France is considered well done. We also appreciate your acknowledgment of the literature used in this contribution.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a major overview of Natural Reserves in France and overeas, rich in content and very well described. I found only 2 mistakes: reference 333 and reference 366 in the text, which are obviously reference 33 and reference 36.

Moreover, the final chapter should be titled "Discussion and Conclusions" and beefed up so as to encompass a few more conclusive remarks.

Overall, an excellent work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find our detailed responses below; the corresponding revisions have been incorporated into the resubmitted manuscript file.

Comments 1. I found only 2 mistakes: reference 333 and reference 366 in the text, which are obviously reference 33 and reference 36.

Response 1. We checked and updated our reference listing

Comments 2. Moreover, the final chapter should be titled "Discussion and Conclusions" and beefed up so as to encompass a few more conclusive remarks.

Response 2. We have reworked the discussion and added a conclusion to the paper.

Comments 3. The authors haven't dedicated any effort to address the role and meaning of geosites when it comes to geoheritage conservation. I believe the Authors should introduce the concept of geosite at line 141, citing adequate references, as suggested below.

Response 3: We have introduced the concept of geosite and cited relevant references, as suggested. (lines 189-191)

Comments 4. There are no Conclusions but a Discussion that summarizes some of the milestones of the paper and argues that geology should be regarded as a key element for any nature conservation effort. I urge the authors to separate the Discussion from a chapter dedicated to conclusive remarks.

Response 4. As mentionned above, we have reworked the discussion and added a conclusion to the paper.

Comments 5. As written above, there are a great deal of references related to geosites. I hereunder cite the following (and references therein):
1. Herrera-Franco, G.; Carrión-Mero, P.; Montalván-Burbano, N.; Caicedo-Potosí, J.; Berrezueta, E. Geoheritage and Geosites: A Bibliometric Analysis and Literature Review. Geosciences 2022, 12, 169.
2. Ruban, D.A.; Kuo, I. Essentials of geological heritage site (geosite) management: A conceptual assessment of interests and conflicts. Nat. Nascosta 2010, 41, 16 31.
3. Fuertes-Gutiérrez, I.; Fernández-Martínez, E. Mapping geosites for geoheritage management: A methodological proposal for the regional park of Picos de Europa (León, Spain). Environ. Manag. 2012, 50, 789 806.

Response 5. We have introduced the concept of geosite and cited relevant references, as suggested. (lines 189-191)