An Assessment of Ecological Sensitivity and Landscape Pattern in Abandoned Mining Land
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe proposed document is certainly interesting, as is the basic idea of putting together and integrating different ways of reading and evaluating the effects on the territory of certain interventions, a logical flow of analysis. Indeed, the different modes of analysis proposed are compatible and sequential from several points of view. However, the article does not seem to take into account, or at least it does not say so openly, the possible correlations between all the information taken into consideration. Within this framework, the paper can certainly be improved, especially in a clear explanation of the analytical flow used and how the different steps link together. In several parts, the reader gets lost and does not quite understand where he or she is in the analysis flow. Careful revision is recommended, even deep revision in some parts of the work, which nevertheless seems valid for publication. Greater attention to errors in the text and carelessness is also called for.
The first observation is that there is a lack of an outline of how the flow of analysis is organised. Chapter 2 proposes the different applications that the authors used, but not the connections between the parts, and the hierarchy of the paragraphs is uneven and difficult to read. It would be useful to give an overall graphic representation of the various steps used during the analysis. In particular, the part concerning the determination of the weights made by the experts is unclear in the formulae used. It is not clear how the Wi component is calculated. The order of the tables seems to need revision. Table 2 should be better explained.
There are repetitions between line 228 and line 233.
Formula (3) (line 233) is not explained and this makes it difficult to understand the text.
With regard to Table 3, the authors are asked whether they have taken into consideration the correlation that may exist between the factors relating to vegetation.
It is unclear how Landscape Pactch, Patch density, ... are calculated. There is no clear explanation or precise reference to the literature.
Concerning chapter 3 on results, regarding part 3.1, it is unclear why the three dimensions (ground conditions, water and vegetation cover) are then estimated separately. It is not clear in Tables 4,5,6 how the Wi factor was calculated. The usefulness of Table 7 and how it was calculated (average?) is unclear. Table 8 should be placed first. Finally, it is requested that the same format be used for all tables, see line 316 line 318 and line 320.
Line 324; and 325 what do they mean?
Concerning part 3.2; how do the authors consider the correlation risks between the different dimensions taken into consideration? It is evident, for example, that the vegetation in the area is related to the coverage capacity. This problem is found in several parts of the article, and especially in part 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. For example, in table 11 the correlation between vegetation type and vegetation cover is evident; these are the only two dimensions that are at odds with all the others, which, moreover, show very similar estimates. Was this predictable? It should be better explained.
The part between row, 401 and 409 should come first.
Can the authors inidcate how to read Table 10 correctly and what information it gives us?
The size of the Patch Type in Table 12 is not very clear, as mentioned earlier. How Table 12 and Table 13 relate to each other is not very clear in the text. In this sense, the flow of the analysis is really difficult to follow.
Part 3.2.5. "Comprehensive Landscape Pattern Index Analysis" would seem to be a sort of concluding point in the flow. If this is so, it should be better emphasised and also used for the discussion chapter.
Chapter 4 'Discussion' is very limited and sounds weak. It would be worth dwelling on it more, also from the point of view of policy indications. Furthermore, there is no reflection on the type of area and its size.
Chapter 5 of the conclusions brings nothing new and seems only a summary without additional reflection. In this, too, it is weak. It should be reconsidered.
Author Response
Dear referee,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on this manuscript. The manuscript has been revised and changes are highlighted in the additional copy of manuscript for further review. (Marked in blue.)
In general, I focused on revising the discussion section and reorganizing the overall structure of the article. The results section is now presented alongside the discussion as per your suggestion to enhance accessibility to the main findings. The entire manuscript has been modified based on your comments. A point-by-point response to your comments is provided below:
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has a clear logical structure and a thorough analysis of the research problem. It proposes the protection of mining abandoned land from an ecologically sensitive point of view and discusses the landscape pattern index, but there are still some problems, and further revision is recommended to improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. In line 165, five factors such as soil texture, elevation and slope are selected for terrain conditions, but only two factors are selected for surface water system and vegetation landuse, and the difference in the number of factors is too large to affect the final results of ecological sensitivity. Therefore, it is recommended to ensure that the number of factors at different evaluation levels is consistent or the difference is small.
2. In lines 288 and 289, it is mentioned that: Elevation refers to the height above sea level. Higher elevations are associated with lower biodiversity, indicating lower ecological sensitivity. Higher elevations are associated with lower biodiversity, indicating lower ecological sensitivity. However, in reality, the higher the elevation, the lower the level of human activities, and often the higher the ecological sensitivity, so it is recommended to redefine the different factors and reorganize the corresponding ecological sensitivity levels.
3. In table3, the suitability and sensitivity levels represented by several factors do not match with those expressed in the article, and it is suggested to reorganize them.
4. The numbering of headings such as 1. Indicator Selection in line 156 and 2. Determination of Indicator Weights in line 248 conflicts with the numbering above, and it is recommended that the numbering format be changed.
5. In line 362 the heading 3.1.1sin appears , but there is no article content below the heading, it is recommended to double check the article format and layout.
6.The suggestion part of this article should correspond to the research content of the article, and make suggestions with the actual research results.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe paper has a clear logical structure and a thorough analysis of the research problem. It proposes the protection of mining abandoned land from an ecologically sensitive point of view and discusses the landscape pattern index, but there are still some problems, and further revision is recommended to improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. In line 165, five factors such as soil texture, elevation and slope are selected for terrain conditions, but only two factors are selected for surface water system and vegetation landuse, and the difference in the number of factors is too large to affect the final results of ecological sensitivity. Therefore, it is recommended to ensure that the number of factors at different evaluation levels is consistent or the difference is small.
2. In lines 288 and 289, it is mentioned that: Elevation refers to the height above sea level. Higher elevations are associated with lower biodiversity, indicating lower ecological sensitivity. Higher elevations are associated with lower biodiversity, indicating lower ecological sensitivity. However, in reality, the higher the elevation, the lower the level of human activities, and often the higher the ecological sensitivity, so it is recommended to redefine the different factors and reorganize the corresponding ecological sensitivity levels.
3. In table3, the suitability and sensitivity levels represented by several factors do not match with those expressed in the article, and it is suggested to reorganize them.
4. The numbering of headings such as 1. Indicator Selection in line 156 and 2. Determination of Indicator Weights in line 248 conflicts with the numbering above, and it is recommended that the numbering format be changed.
5. In line 362 the heading 3.1.1sin appears , but there is no article content below the heading, it is recommended to double check the article format and layout.
6.The suggestion part of this article should correspond to the research content of the article, and make suggestions with the actual research results.
Author Response
Dear referee,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on this manuscript. The manuscript has been revised and changes are highlighted in the additional copy of manuscript for further review. (Marked in red)
Overall, based on your feedback, I focused on revising the introduction, discussion, and article sources. The results section is now presented alongside the discussion as per your suggestion to enhance accessibility to key findings. The entire manuscript has been modified according to your comments. Here is a point-by-point response to your feedback:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have made comments on the pdf, please look at these carefully. Overall the paper needs work at the beginning, the introduction and methods need some organisation and focus. Intro needs to be edited down, aims are missing. Study area needs work and please note the sections of text that need to be deleted. Results are fine. Discussion needs some focus, keep it relevant. Conclusions should be deleted.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
English is generally ok
Author Response
Dear referee,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on this manuscript. The manuscript has been revised and changes are highlighted in the additional copy of manuscript for further review. (Marked in yellow)
Overall, based on your feedback, I focused on introducing the evaluation factors, delineating the criteria for assessment, and establishing the evaluation system. The discussion will now be conducted in accordance with your suggestions to enhance accessibility to key findings. The entire manuscript has been modified based on your comments. Here is a point-by-point response to your feedback:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks to the authors for the thorough job of revising the text, which is now much more balanced and easy to read. In particular, we appreciate the clarity of Figure 2, which allows the reader to define the analysis scheme followed. This is an important improvement.
We also appreciate the revisions regarding the definition of the Patches, on the calculation methods (e.g., W); the analysis of results by groups, and for the improvements in the discussion chapter.
Some imperfections remain in the text (e.g., line 436,) so further careful reading is recommended. Finally, the problem of possible correlation is only partially solved, and the authors did not give an explanation of the results in Table 11. It would be interesting to have it.
Thus, the text is absolutely improved and is suitable for publication, after , precisely, a revision on minor errors.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on this manuscript. The manuscript has been revised and changes are highlighted in the additional copy of the manuscript for further review. (Marked in red)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis revision is better and the paper just needs tidying up, for example the latin names in italics in section 2.1. Please give the IRB ethics clearance number at the end of the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on this manuscript. The manuscript has been revised and changes are highlighted in the additional copy of the manuscript for further review. (Marked in red)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
