Spatiotemporal Analysis of Ecological Security Based on Landscape Patterns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper authors tend to analyze qualitatively the ecological degradation of a certain region of Earth.
They use the number of patches, edge density, percent of landscape and largest patch index to analyse the degree of landscape damage. The authors propose an ecological security evaluation system consisting of the three levels of pressure, state and response. The authors select proper weighted factors to obtain results for the four periods for which observation data is presented.  Such studies are important to modern ecology and are a perfect example of interdisciplinary benefits and I can recommend the paper for publication. Despite my overall positive impression I also found several shortcomings and can provide authors with corresponding recommendations.

Firstly, the applicability of the developed approach to different regions of China and World should be discussed. Can it be easily scaled to larger region? Region with less landscape variability can have different patterns of ecological degradation.

Second, the paper investigates a certain area in 2005-2020. Meanwhile, it is 2024 now. Were any prognoses made using the reported comprehensive analysis? If yes, did they turned to be correct? How is the current situation? Is any fresh data available now? The key shortcoming of your study is that it is really region-specific, and it is acceptable, but the ecological situation could change significantly since 2020. Do the key statements of your study still stand? Is it relevant to the nowadays moment?


Third concern is about Fig.2 and other thereafter. They are barely readable in PDF version. I recommend increasing resolution or DPI, or both.

Plots in Fig. 6 show points at 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. Meanwhile, some of analyzed data was mentioned being from 2019 etc. How was the extrapolation done, if was?

It is necessary to completely rewrite the abstract to clarify the problem statement, targets and goals of the study, key results and future studies directions. The current version is declarative (if not say too emotiomnal) and speaks more about the ecological problems in certain region of China than about methods, goals and scientific contribution of the reported study. I recommend avoiding literature review in abstract as well as strong statements such as "were not evaluated in literature".


Please redraw or recompose Figure 9. It is now hard to perceive due to similarity of four incorporated images. "Image legend" showing dispersed, random and clustered can be avoided or given once.

My main concerns goes to the lack of economical data used in the reported analysis. I believe the economics influences ecological degradation maybe even more, than human population. For example, there can be a large highly automated factory which employs several dozens of people, but produces an extraordinary amount of toxic waste, or consumes billions of gallons of water per year. The authors mention economic factors but it does not seem it influenced the research much. Besides, the study seems to be government-supported, and the information about key facilities should be available to authors. It could be interesting to show large industrial objects in figures depicting the maps of the region with overlapped analysis results.

Nevertheless, I like the paper and think it can be accepted after minor revisions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors mix American and British english grammar which is a bit confusing. The paper should be extensively proofread paying special attention to articles.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the paper entitled Analysis of Changes in Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Ecological Security and Its Driving Forces is to present the landscape pattern  characteristics and dynamic changes in ecological security in Song County during 2005- 2020. It is worth to say that this paper is based on the  natural, social and economic factors of regional ecological security evaluation. Overall paper sounds good but a few aspects should be corrected. Firsty, the introduction. It is well prepared but it is very long. Please remove part of the description of the study area from the introduction. Please justify why these Landscape pattern indexes were used. The description of the research results, discussion and summary are unobjectionable. All drawings are necessary. Their resolution is sufficient. In the summary, please specify what period of time would be necessary to obtain optimal test results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language used in the article is correct. It is understandable and does not require correction by a native speaker. There are minor linguistic errors in the text, so it is possible to review the article while preparing a response to the review and any corrections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study assesses and examines the factors that driving force ecological security in the chosen experimental area using the landscape pattern index, GIS, and RS. It has some novel and useful implications. Unfortunately, the author still suggests that the following issues be fixed in the study.

1. It would be best to omit the somewhat unnecessary introduction and instead make it simpler.

2. The second-biggest tributary of the Yellow River is the Yihe River. It is recommended that you confirm.

3. What criteria is used to choose the index in section 3.2? Furthermore, the index's description is laborious and, given the available information, might be made simpler.

4. What is the relevant literature mentioned in line 326? It is advised that you include references.

5. Where are the weights in formulae 10 and 11 derived from?

6. Does A_bio have a mistake on line 372?

7. The format is inconsistent when the formula variables are described in many places in the paper, so it is recommended to check and modify the whole text.

8. The administrative region is mentioned in the paper's conclusion description, but the figure is missing the administrative region's annotation, making it impossible to verify. The appropriate figure should be added to or modified. For instance, "Muzhi Street Township"  in line 674 and  "Muzhujie Township" in line 720, etc.

9. The amount of wording duplication in the manuscript is 22%. It is suggested that you reduce the value.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper comprehensively evaluates the ecological security level of a county in Henan Province from 2005 to 2020.

The length of this article is too long, and there are nearly 15 pages describing the method and there is too much basic detail, which is beyond the form of a journal paper. It is suggested to select effective content and delete and retain about 2/3 of the volume.

However, for the most interesting part, that is, the changes in the level of ecological security in the past two decades, and the corresponding driving mechanism, the author's analysis is not deep enough.

For example, are the changes in the region as a whole completely consistent with the changes in the local region, are there areas with improved security levels, and what are the reasons behind them. Whether the causes of change are classified into different types, and whether there is a correspondence between these types and subsequent management policies.

Some of the normative questions are listed below:

1.  Text in line 133 to 147 shall be moved to the study area section. And the originality of the article should be stated in this section.

2. The Figure 1 shall be move to methods section instead of introduction.

2.     Table 1 missing the description of social-economic data while the description of meteorological data is missing from the data source section.

3.  The order of factors in Table 2 shall be the same as in Figure 3. So it is with Table 3 and figure 4.

4. the A_bio in 372 shall be A_con.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Review: 

The manuscript entitled “Analysis of Changes in Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Ecological Security and Its Driving Forces” was reviewed. 

The study presented in the paper addresses the pressing issue of ecological security in Song County within the context of rapid urbanization and environmental degradation. By employing a decision tree model and landscape pattern analysis, the authors effectively characterized land use changes over time and their impact on ecological security. The constructed ecological security evaluation system offers a comprehensive framework for assessing the pressure, state, and response levels, shedding light on the complex dynamics at play.

Abstract: The abstract is clear and covers the entire work carried out.

Introduction: The introduction furnishes a thorough overview of the importance of land use, underscoring their extensive application across ecological domains. It adeptly contextualizes the study by underlining the potential environmental ramifications of improper land use systems.

The introduction underscores the growing importance of ecological security research within geography, resource and environmental sciences, and ecology, highlighting its significance in understanding static and dynamic changes. These issues threaten societal stability severely, necessitating comprehensive analysis and proactive measures. Noteworthy content has been published. The descriptions in the lines (numbered 53-60) are much appreciated. However, the author has repeatedly used the word – “For Example” which can be removed such as in sentences 92,132 and others. 

The format of the references has not been followed appropriately. The Initials have been mentioned instead of first names such as in sentence numbered 107 and even the year of publication is missing in many contexts. Therefore, thorough and precise provision of references and citations is required. 

The brief description of the study area from 134 to 147 seems repetitive and can be removed as the study area has been thoroughly mentioned under the same subheading. The content in sentences 152-156 can better be removed and can be described in the study area or methodology. 

Materials and Methods: The methodology outlined in this paper leverages a diverse array of data sources to comprehensively analyze ecological security in the study area. Key datasets include Landsat8 OLI and Landsat5 TM remote sensing images, providing multi-temporal coverage from 2005 to 2020. These images, with their multiple bands, allow for the extraction of essential information such as land cover classification and indices like NDWI and NDVI, crucial for assessing vegetation and water dynamics over time. Overall, the integration of these diverse datasets underscores the interdisciplinary nature of the research, combining remote sensing, GIS, socio-economic, and geological data to provide a comprehensive assessment of ecological security in the study area. This approach ensures a robust foundation for the analysis and enhances the reliability and applicability of the study's findings.

Results: The results were presented well. A brief scientific explanation is suggested to incorporate at the end. 

Discussion: The context of the discussion has no references cited. It needs to be rewritten. The present work needs to be discussed with other similar works carried out in various areas which gives a better understanding of pro and contra opinions on the subject and accordingly, conclusions can be drawn.

References: The references are up-to-date but need to be correctly cited in the respective format. 

Overall Rating: 

The manuscript demonstrates significant potential. But need to rewrite the discussion to present the results from different viewpoints. 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall written well. Need through check.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research entitled “Analysis of Changes in Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Ecological  Security and Its Driving Forces”  is well designed and presented. However, a few points need to be clarified. Why the study area selected for ecological security analysis? In study area section, authors states that “it has high risk of geological disasters and threatened ecological security. While results reveals that the study area is less threatened and more sustainable. Address this points. The 1st part deals with the landscape pattern analysis followed by PSR model. How these are interlinked? I would suggest removing the un-necessary indices to make the analysis and results more focussed and consistent.

 However, few suggestions are recommended to incorporate.

1.      Title should be rephrased, can be started with “Spatiotemporal analysis....”

2.      Abstract is more generalized and less specific. Methods need to be clearer and give some quantitative findings.

3.      Introduction must be improved with more relevant references and focussed objectives at end. Concise alot of information about ‘landscape ecology’.

4.      How do you link landscape pattern analysis with PSR model. Need to explain and connected well in methods and results

5.      Introduction part need to present more relevant review about PSR model.

 

6.      Schematic flow diagram (Fig 1) should be Maps in fig 3 and 4, 7, 10 and 11 are large, need to be in one frame. No need of figure 9, instead it can be presented in table format.

7.      Discussion part need to be strengthened with relevant reference literature.

8.      Conclusion should be more concise with clear findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments has received good response.

Best wishes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Compared with the previous version, the length of the article has been greatly improved, but there is still a certain gap between publication.

A suggestion on the landscape pattern indices (Table 2) is still keep the full name for each index, for example NP number of patches. While in the section 3.2 a brief introduction shall be given instead of just use “are as follows”.I kept the original introduction here to make sense——

In this article, the number of patches (NP), edge density (ED), percent of landscape (PLAND) and largest patch index (LPI) were selected to analyse the degree of landscape damage and dispersion at the type level. At the landscape level, the number of patches (NP), patch density (PD), contagion index (CONTAG), landscape shape index (LSI), interspersion and juxtaposition index (IJL), Shannon’s diversity index (SHDI) and Shannon’s evenness index (SHEI)……

And I still have concern about the figure 3,4,5,7 & 12. When these maps are overlaying on DEM, the difference between the color in the legend is weakened, preventing understanding the map’s factor content. However, DEM has been shown in the map of the study area (Figure 1). Please give the reasons for whether the elevation and water system information must be retained in the map. In particular, the dividing line between some factors seems to be the administrative unit.

Some of the normative questions are listed below:

1.  Text in line 126 to 127 is repeated. Please check.

2. The data in Table 1 aren’t consist with the whole work. For example, where is the source of population density? How about GDP density? If that’s all from the “Interpolation data” then the source needs more description on its data processing.

3.     Check again about all the figures and table. There are still a lot of typos. For example, the “meteorological data” in table 1 corrected while still in Figure 2.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the edited/revised version. Authors have substantially improved the version and I have no additional comments on it. Therefore, I recommend it for acceptance

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx