Identification and Construction of Ecological Nodes in the Fuzhou Ecological Corridors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed article concerns the analysis of the functioning of ecological corridors in the city of Fuzhou, China. The authors analyzed in detail the ecological nodes constituting the structural and functional element of ecological connections, using for their identification the kernel density analysis method. Ecological corridors, and in particular their structural function, influence of various corridors and surface temperatures on the construction of ecological corridors were determined on the basis of the MCR model. The degree of connection was characterized by indexes α, β, γ and Cost Ratio index. The research was based on a grid map of the water, green and ventilation corridors, designated on the basis of surface temperature. The authors also analyzed in detail the existing corridors and ecological nodes in terms of ecological resistance factors. The method used was presented clearly and comprehensibly and the results obtained on its basis should be positively assessed. The reviewed article meets the requirements set for the scientific work of the Forests journal.

However due to the analysis of one of the regions of China, the article has a regional character and its greater value should be the methodological dimension. Hence, in the analysis and interpretation of the results, reference should be made to the effectiveness of the method, and this can be achieved, inter alia, by referring to other research results or analyzes conducted for other regions of China regarding ecological structures (corridors and nodes), and such studies have been conducted, some of them the authors mention in the introduction.

Detailed comments and suggestions below:

1. The purpose of the research should be clearly stated in the introductory section.

2. Remove the denotation of the results in the abstract and replace it with a description.

3. Too short discussion and few conclusions, in particular the lack of comparison to other similar works on landscape ecology (the functioning of ecological corridors and nodes) for the area of ​​China. With an extensive methodology, in particular the analysis of the calculated indicators in terms of such and not other values, the discussion should refer to the results obtained by other researchers in more detail and slightly expand the conclusions based on the analysis of the results.

4. Verse 88 – the definition needs clarification „GB/T 721010-2017 classification of land use status” – what kind of classification is this?

5. The markings used for image resolution are unclear-  for example „2,5-M”, „90-M” (verses 86 and 94). Is it about the resolution in meters - use the „m” symbol.

6. In table 1, units – „number” would be more appropriate than pieces.

7. Marking the corridors is mathematically described, however, it would be worth clarifying what their actual structure was based on the land cover, e.g. whether they were trees, shrubs, grasslands, etc.

8. The definition of watershed temperature is not entirely clear - its meaning should be explained.

9. The markings for raster maps should be detailed - not only with the low and high values ​​assigned automatically by the program. You can enter ranges for the color scale.

10. Figures and tables should be first referenced and then included in the text  - figure 3, 4, 6, table 2.

12. The markings on the scale of values ​​in Figure 4 are not entirely clear. When presenting (all) the values ​​of the indicator, give its letter designation.

13. I suggest you move Verses 303-309 and 341-352 to the method description.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments on our manuscript entitled "forests-1925811". We thank the reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript, all the changes highlighted by using the track changes mode in MS Word. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a red color. We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.

Sincerely.
Mrs Lin

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The problem of ecological connectivity is widely covered in the scientific literature. I believe that you need to strengthen the theoretical foundations of this problem with the importance of providing ecosystem services and as an important instrument for urban/landscape planning. Please provide a more detailed definition of the main benefits for urban areas – especially for ventilation. 
I also think that you should clearly indicate why the selected research area is a good and/or necessary example of a case study for the improvement of ecological connectivity.
Please provide a map that will explain the research area in a wider territorial context.
Please provide more details about the geospatial databases that are obligatory for applied methods.
In the discussion, the results should be elaborated upon through the prism of previous research and should be presented as a possible tool for practical usage, especially in urban development and urban planning.
Conclusion should provide much more fundamentals of importance of this research – for connectivity assessment and connectivity improvement and also for issues of landscape/urban planning. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments on our manuscript entitled "forests-1925811". We thank the reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript, all the changes highlighted by using the track changes mode in MS Word. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a red color. We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.

Sincerely.
Mrs Lin

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, I am glad that my comments contributed to improving the quality of your work, which in its current form is adequate for publication.