All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I have read your responses to reviews carefully two times now and feel that you have done a thorough and credible job of answering the many technical concerns. Given that, I believe the best decision is to accept this. Well done, My best wishes for the New Year.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
As you can see, the reviewers have some detailed concerns, which I hope you can address in your revision.
The manuscript titled "Mapping the global distribution and conservation status of oases - ecosystems of pivotal biocultural relevance" presents a comprehensive study on the global distribution of oases, their biodiversity, and conservation status. The study combines literature review and Random Forest (RF) modelling to delineate oases, assess species diversity, and evaluate their conservation status. The findings underscore the biocultural, ecological, and geopolitical importance of oases, which are increasingly threatened by climate change and human activities. This work not only deepens our understanding of these critical ecosystems but also highlights the urgent need for enhanced conservation efforts. It is a valuable asset in the field of environmental research and will guide future conservation strategies.
Specific Comments:
1. Introduction:
The introduction of the manuscript effectively outlines the definition and significance of oases but lacks a comprehensive background on the current state of remote sensing interpretation of arid terrestrial ecosystems and the status of oasis land classification research. To align with the theme of the paper and provide context, it is recommended that the authors supplement the introduction with a literature review on these topics. This will help establish the relevance of the research and its contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
2. Methods:
It is strongly recommended that the authors present the RF training metrics data in tabular format, detailing the data types, sources, resolutions, and the final output resolution of the mapping results. Furthermore, given that the study has produced a dataset, the authors should provide the final vector or raster files. The absence of these files is a significant drawback, and their inclusion is crucial for the citation and verification of the research findings.
3. Accuracy Assessment of Classification Results:
Please supplement the attachment with an accuracy assessment of the classification results.
4. Comparison with Existing Studies:
While the manuscript acknowledges the scarcity of global-scale oasis mapping studies, it notes that several national or regional-scale studies have been published. The authors are strongly encouraged to provide a more detailed comparison of the mapping results from these existing studies, discussing their respective strengths and weaknesses. The current discussion on this topic is too brief and fails to provide sufficient insights into the novelty and added value of the current research.
5. Definition of Oases:
The accuracy of oasis mapping depends on a clear and theoretically grounded definition. Although the authors have proposed a definition for oases, it appears to lack theoretical support. It is recommended that the authors discuss existing definitions of oases in the literature,指出 their limitations, and provide a theoretical basis for the definition used in the study. This will strengthen the methodology and enhance the credibility of the research.
6. Oasis Coordinate Dataset:
The study compiles previous research on oases and organises their coordinates, which is a commendable contribution. However, the manuscript only provides the number of oases per country without detailed coordinates or names for RF training samples. To ensure transparency and facilitate external verification, the authors should include an attachment listing the specific coordinates or names of each oasis used for RF training, rather than just the count per country.
no comment
no comment
This study depicted the distribution of global oases and their conservation status through machine learning and literatures. The topic is interesting. For a review, many references are out of date. For example, the author in line 46 cited a reference in year 2007 to conclude that 38% of human are in drylands.
Line65-line72, please clarify the definition of oases. for example, how high production? How densely vegetated? can you tell us the range?
Line 86, Precipitation in dryland is scarce, the water resource in fog oases is major derived from fog? Please added more information to clarify these oases types. Also including more information like their location, area, vegetation type may be better.
Some references such as cui et al., 2024 define the oasis with constraints such as stable water supply which is conflict with the source oases (temporary flow) and fog oases in here.
Many oases samples derived from the literatures, the definition of oases in all literatures are same and consistent with the definition in this paper? The
Line 217, the overall accuracy of the random forest model is 1, is it overfit? Add more results to clarify it.
It would be good if the author can show a global oases map with their types such as fog oases, linear oases, source oases, etc.
It would be better to add more details to compare the difference between each oases in species, species richness, conservation status, and world heritage sites as it is an important part in your paper. Some photos of the world heritage and endangered species in different oases may more vivid.
it may be good to compare the Global distribution of oases in Fig 3 with other studies such as cui et al., 2024 and Fensham et al., 2023.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.