Analysis of Changes in Habitat Suitability of the Javan Leopard (Panthera pardus melas, Cuvier 1809) on Java Island, 2000–2020
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the current period of constant anthropic pressure on the biodiversity, the topic of the work is very relevant. Leopards are an attractive species of contemporary fauna and it is positive that we are recording efforts to preserve them. The work brings knowledge about the decrease of suitable habitat for this species, but does not describe the changes in the population density. Although it was not the goal of the work, directions for preserving the original habitats could be indicated. It seems that even the mentioned organizations for saving the species cannot stop the negative trend. For the work, data were obtained from other sources, which were then processed using mathematical and statistical methods. As long as the authors guarantee the plausibility of the input data, it can be accepted. For a better understanding of the work, it would be necessary to characterize not only the monitored locations, but also to describe in more detail the statistical methods used. What were the input data and what was the procedure for working with them. In the conclusion, two values for positive habitat and one negative for each of the observed years are given. What is the difference between two positive data. The values are diametrically different from the data in the abstract.
- Lines 56 – 63 belong to the introduction
- Picture 1 – legend in which language?
- Chapter 2.1. is insufficiently described
- Line 99 – the dot at the end is missing
- Lines 98 and 103, the source of the information must be included in the text, not only in the references
- Line 129 – reformulate “you can"
- Table 3, 4 – where are variables 1 - 8 described?
- 168 the square bracket is missing
- Chapter 2.4. very briefly described, it is not possible to repeat the process according to the description
- Table 5 environmental variables such as forests and human settlements have the highest values. Is this a positive effect?
- Figure 4 is not labeled "a" and "b"
- The list of protected areas is not necessary when similar parameters are not calculated for each of them, it is enough to indicate their numbers
- What does "province boundary" mean - white color in the pictures
The data used in the work are a good starting point for publication, but in the current state the arguments are not clear and the procedures are not sufficiently explained. In the conclusions, there should be clearer recommendations for the application of the results in practice.
Although I am not a native speaker, the correction of English will be necessary.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We are grateful for your numeral comments, suggestions and remarks. They really led to improvements of the understanding and readability of the paper.
Please find our response as attached bellow.
Thank you very much.
Best Regards,
Muhammad As'ary.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present a nice study of habitat analyses for the Javan leopard in Indonesia. The study has been well-planned, analyzed, and presented. The contents are of great value and should be published. However, the language requires editing either by a native English speaker or an appropriate program/application. I will be happy to reread the paper after it is edited for syntax. Some points for starters:
Title correct to: Analysis of Changes in Habitat Suitability of the Javan Leopard (Panthera pardus melas, Cuvier 1809) on Java Island, 2000-2020.
Change throughout – peak predator to apex predator
Lines 34-35 – incomplete sentence
Line 82. Change Fig. 1 Area study to Figure 1. Study area
Remove periods (.) after acronyms
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We are grateful for your numeral comments, suggestions and remarks. They really led to improvements of the understanding and readability of the paper.
Please find our response as attached bellow.
Thank you very much.
Best Regards,
Muhammad As'ary.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is interesting and contributes information to an endangered subspecies. That said, the manuscript requires a thorough improvement on the English grammatical structure. the authors need to cluster tables. for example table 7 and 8 should be combined to see which conservation areas have remained important during the comparative periods. The resulting analysis of suitability should do the same, identify those areas that are predicted in 2000 and 2020... those that are recurrent become important conservation targets either within Natural Protected Areas or outside of them. The authors need to redo the graphs replacing the local name of the variables for those in English, this makes the reading friendlier and easier to follow.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
We are grateful for your numeral comments, suggestions and remarks. They really led to improvements of the understanding and readability of the paper.
Please find our response as attached bellow.
Thank you very much.
Best Regards,
Muhammad As'ary.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have corrected all my comments. The article has much higher standard compared with first version. I agree with the publishing of manuscript.
