Construction of an Ecological Security Pattern in an Urban–Lake Symbiosis Area: A Case Study of Hefei Metropolitan Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article is interesting. Ecological source, ecological corridors and ecological buffer zones was identified and delineated to form the ecological security pattern in Hefei metropolitan area. The paper delves deeper than the previous published works and it is well-organized. However, it should be noted that there is also some space of improvement for this paper. The language of this paper should be improved.
Keywords: The research object and the main methods should rank ahead of the research area.
1 Introduction
L70-72, what does end-end and front-end mean? It is confusing needing further explanation and reference is necessary.
Fig1 Land use types needs to be supplemented in the figure. There is only one land use type (water body) in this figure.
2.2 materials:
A table is recommended in this section to show the data sources.
- Methods
A figure is needed to show the whole approaches framework of this paper.
L199-202 “Ecological sensitivity refers to the response degree of the ecosystem to the 199
disturbance of human activities and changes in the natural environment, indicating the degree of difficulty and possibility of regional ecological environmental problems” This sentence i doesn't run smoothly.
L311-315 The font size of this paragraph seems different with other paragraph.
A comprehensively and thoroughly discussion is needed presenting the main findings of this article. You need to write more about what the findings mean and compare it to other studies.
- Results and prospects
Generally, the last section of a paper is conclusion. The conclusion of this article needs to be improved. The strength and limits of the article are the focuses of this section.
Author Response
Please view it in the Attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript builds an ecological security pattern of Hefei City. Several issues need to be addressed.
- The introduction part does not reveal what the shortage of current research, and thus does not highlight the contribution of this work. Line 96-100, the authors pointed that “some scholars add human activities, climate, and other factors to the resistance value”, but how this studies contribute differently from your research is unclear. Since all the methods are based on rather regular equations, the importance and the uniqueness of this work must be clarified.
- The justification of the choice of methods, weights and parameters need to be illustrated.
- Figure 1 does not reflect land use types, and is not quoted in the text.
- The quotations in the text are not in the right format. The full name should not appear.
Author Response
Please view it in the Attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “Ecological Security Pattern Construction in Rapid Urbanization of Rivers and Lakes in East China: A Case Study of Hefei Metropolitan Area” reflects the development of applied research, the topic is interesting and the manuscript has an approach innovative. However, the materials, methods, results have to be improved and a discussion section should be included. Thus, major changes are recommended.
General comments
- A) There are too may repetitions along the text.
- B) A large extent of the text is written without the necessary references.
- C) Methods need to be better described and structured. It is very difficult to understand the methodology.
- D) A flow chart could be added to unable a better understanding of the methodology.
- E) The source (reference) of may materials is missing.
- F) The result section has too many subsections with short paragraphs (6-8 lines). Please consider structuring the result section.
- G) The manuscript does not have a discussion section. Please include it with the necessary literature references.
- H) The authors should consider the revision of English.
Specific comments
1) Line 75 – “at home”? Are the authors refereeing to China?
2) Lines82-86 – Please clarify this sentence.
3) Line 91 – “classification types”. Which types? Of what?
4) Line 98-99 – Reference is missing.
5) Lines 127-128 – What do the authors mean by “obvious internal winds”?
6) Lines 128-140 – References are missing.
7) Figure 1 – The blue of the legends should be more contrasting. Part of the legend is not in English.
8) All figures – KM or km?
9) Lines 146-160 – The materials section should include the references of the data sources. Also, there should be included the reference to the software ArcGIS.
10) Lines 165-180 – Please clarify this paragraph and check English.
11) Lines 187-195 – The authors refer four types of ecosystem services, specify five types and describe four. Please clarify.
12) Line 191 – It is not clear why the why the four ecosystem services are assigned weights of 0.3, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.2 respectively. Please clarify.
13) Table 1 – The meaning of P is missing.
14) Table 1 – underground carbon sequestration or belowground carbon sequestration?
15) Lines 209-211 – Reference is missing.
16) Lines 215-222 – Please clarify and check English
17) Lines 231-233 – Reference is missing.
18) Lines 233-237 – Reference is missing.
19) Lines 241-242 – “??? is all paths between patch i and patch j”. There seems that there is some information missing.
20) Lines 262-263 – software references are missing.
21) Lines 266-286 – these section need to be structure and text revised thoroughly.
22) Lines 323-236 – It is not possible to identify in the maps where are the mountains, lakes and rivers.
23) Lines 332-334 – It is not possible to identify where the urban areas are because a land use map is not provided in the manuscript.
24) Lines 339-342 – and? Please provide justification.
25) Figure 2 – Not all colours in the legend do not correspond to the colours in the maps.
26) Figure 3 and 4 – Reading of the maps could improve if more contrasting colours were used.
27) Line 389,408 - software references are missing.
28) Lines 385-404 – Please clarify and check English.
29) Lines 411-413 - Please clarify and check English.
30) Figure 5 – It is not possible to see all the classes of the corridor core density. Could the number of classes be reduced? Also, it is not clear the difference between the lines of ecological corridor, important corridor and study area boundary.
31) Table 3 – The area units should be between brackets: (km2).
32) Lines 418-473 – the recommendations should be supported by literature references.
33)Lines 477-482 – please consider including references.
34)Lines 507-544 – Most of the text in the section 5 is the repetitions of the previous sections.
Author Response
Please view it in the Attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript entitled "Ecological Security Pattern Construction in Rapid Urbanization of Rivers and Lakes in East China: A Case Study of Hefei Metropolitan Area" aims to construct a regional ecological security pattern in Hefei metropolitan area by using NPP-VIIRS night light data, impervious surface and topographical index. The topic is interesting and important. A lot of work has been done with remote sensing technique used in the context of ecological security. Given that the readers of Remote Sensing may not be aware of the ecological terminology used in the manuscript (e.g., ecological source), revisions are suggested to improve the clarity of the manuscript.
Specific comments and suggestions:
The terms "Rivers and Lakes" in the title were not clearly explained in the main body of the manuscript. A revision of the title could be helpful.
Abstract can be revised. The aim is not clearly presented. The implication of this study can also be highlighted at the end of the abstract.
The introduction should be improved in terms of recent applications of Remote Sensing in the top journals on remote sensing or land use policy. Why remote sensing is important and essential in the topic and what are the most recent advances?
"5. Results and prospects": should it be Conclusions?
There are some language issues throughout the manuscript. Please carefully revise.
Author Response
Please view it in the Attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The modification is good. No other comments.
Author Response
Please view the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised manuscript has much improved. Yet, there are still some issue that should be addressed. Thus, minor changes are recommended.
Comments
1) All figures – KM should be replaced by km?
2) In all software’s used – references are missing.
3) Lines 352-359 - Please clarify and check English.
4) Discussion needs to be improved. Further details and comparisons with published studies need to be made as well as adding the corresponding references.
Author Response
Please view the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
