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.
Thank you for your contribution to PeerJ. I hope we have contributed to improved even further the quality of your work. Kind regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Dezene Huber, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Dr. Joo,
After reading your carefully written responses to reviewers comments and how you handled their suggestions on the MS, I am confident your MS is a valuable contribution deserving to be published.
In order to proceed with the final acceptance of your MS, please make clearer in the Result section or in a Supplemental Material (as suggested by Reviewer 1) which were the "Variables with < 10 VIF" that "remained in the analysis" (MS line 276 - 277).
In your reply to the comments of Reviewer 1, it is clear that all variables had VIF < 10 and so were retained. Please, just write it down on the MS and consider to include the table you provided in the reply to the Reviewer as a Supplemental Material.
Additionally, as noted by Reviewer 1, the link http://map.ngii.go.kr is not working. Please, confirm the site address.
Best regards,
In the first round I could not find any severe problem on the criteria of basic repotting. However in that round I found one dead link on the website (http://map.ngii.go.kr). Please check and show the final date of access. Authors should revise that to keep data accessibility.
The problems on analytical design which I indicated previous round were basically revised. On the VIF, I would like to recommend author to show there are no removed variables in the text, or show the table which snow the VIF values as supplemental material.
Discussion section and recommendation are basically adequate. However, I would like to request author more deep discussion in some points.
L329-332, Same as the bareland which showed latter, please discuss about the mechanism why natural vegetation could positively influence for the wetland condition. Currently authors showed the just result only.
L355-356, Please explain what is a gap more specific. This point is important to enhance the inventory work I think.
The authors have already answered correctly to my previous comments.
The authors have already answered correctly to my previous comments.
The authors have already answered correctly to my previous comments.
The authors have already answered correctly to my previous comments.
Dear Authors,
After reading your MS, I agree with both reviewers that your results are relevant for the international audience of PeerJ.
However, I am confident the comments made by the reviewers will improve the MS. Consider the reviewers comments, especially in regard the statistical analysis for wetland ranking, and resubmit your MS to PeerJ.
Best regards,
This study evaluated the current status and factors which influenced for these status of wetlands in whole of South Korea using national inventory. Wetland is one of the most threatened ecosystem worldwide so conservation strategy is strongly needed. Nation-scale assessment like this study is the important first step so I could find the significance of this study. The manuscript is satisfied basic criteria of PeerJ, English, construction of Introduction with literatures are clear. All figures and Tables are significant for this study. Data sets were basically opened in local languages from Open Data Potal in South Korea so readers could access that.
The aim of study and approach are significant, analytical approach is basically acceptable. However, there are several problems especially on data management.
First, authors used rank of wetland condition using scoring system by governmental criterions (L131-). This system itself is good to evaluate the condition of wetland quickly, but not suite for additional statistical analysis I think. For example, authors used wetland size as explanatory variable in the catchment and that strongly influence for the wetland rank (Table 3). However, that is already included the wetland ranking definition (L135). That is problem because in theory same value was used both explanatory variable and objective variable. Even authors integrated these wetlands within the catchment, I think that essential problem could not clear.
Second, relate to the first problem, authors used wetland size within the catchment as explanatory variable. However, this values include several types of wetland which have different origins i.e. riparian, lakes etc.. Each type could have different effects for the condition of target wetland I think. Authors should divide that variables at least natural and human-made.
Third is on spatial analysis. Authors treated all wetland as independence one. In other words, authors did not consider the spatial autocorrelation of distribution of wetland. Unfortunately authors did not show the distribution pattern of each origin type of wetland, I imagine same origin type could located closely. Authors should clear that problem.
Forth is the lack of explain of used data set. I surmise authors selected used explanatory variables based on VIF for statistical analysis (L185) but there are no specific mention of results of VIF analysis. In the result section authors showed the map which showed relationship between wetland and land cover (Figure 1) but no mention which types were removed in statistical analysis. Authors should explain what variables are correlated with removed variables such as cropland cover, forest, population.
Almost of all problems were caused by statistical analysis for wetland ranking. In my opinion, that part is not important for this study. Summarize and overview of wetland inventory itself has significance for the aim of this study namely. For this aim, descriptive statistics, i.e. without complex analysis is adequate.
There are some problems on statistical analysis so I could not evaluate the findings from these. I could evaluate the results of overview of wetland condition with nation wide. Summarize and overview of inventory itself is significant as nation wide assessment of wetland.
In this section I would like to take specific comments.
L60,
What are assessment tools? Please explain with come example.
L87-88,
Please explain why authors focused the importance of these points from several un-evaluated contents on wetlands.
There are many types of “spatial pattern”. For example, density, location information with majority land use are all spatial pattern. Please explain more details.
L111-,
Why authors used the category IV? Please explain more details.
L114-
Is there any references on that survey methods?
L135-,
How to select these 8 categories? Please explain more details.
Among these category, academic or educational values are difficult to evaluate. How to evaluate that?
L150-, Table 2,
How to decide these criterions to define rank A-D?
L185- Please show here which variables were removed.
I have not properly corrected the English writing since it is not my native language, but I think an English editing effort is needed.
Line 96. Please, add your hypotheses at the end of the Introduction section.
The M&M section should be improved: Lines 135-146. Justify and explain why you choose each wetland characteristic and how they were recorded.
To improve the Discussion:
Line 331. I think it would be worthy to comment of the effects of soil erosion from agricultural bare soils and its effects on wetlands.
Line 358. Please, offer here the most important wetland restoration and preservation measures to carry out in view of your results.
Title: The influence of size and surrounding land cover on wetland habitat conditions: a case study of inland wetlands in South Korea
The subject of this manuscript falls within the general scope of PeerJ. The manuscript is an original contribution to the preservation status of inland wetlands and environmental factor influencing on it. I recommend the publication of this manuscript in PeerJ after mayor revisions.
Abstract
Please, clarify in the Abstract that we are analyzing only inland wetlands and no coastal intertidal wetlands.
Lines 35-36. Rewrite and clarify this sentence: ‘We also found that the presence of protected areas is affected positively´
Lines 39-40. Keywords should be in alphabetical order. Please, avoid words already included in the title.
Introduction
Line 54. ‘National wetland inventory is’ should change to ‘National wetland inventories are’.
Lines 65-66. ‘(62%). While in Asia’ should change to ‘(62%), while in Asia’.
Line 88. Please, include a paragraph about the effects of surrounding lands on wetland preservation.
Line 96. Please, add your hypotheses at the end of the Introduction section.
Materials and Methods
Line 106. Delete ‘the’ before ‘wetland’.
Line 121-122. ‘Smaller wetlands or ponds (< 400 m2) were not included in the following delineation process’. Explain why, please.
Line 129. Please, add the author name for the first time you cite every species. Ex. ‘Moliniopsis japonica’.
Lines 135-146. Justify and explain why you choose each wetland characteristic and how they were recorded.
Results
Line 197. ‘Korean peninsula’ should change to ‘Korean Peninsula’.
Line 205. Were these ‘brackish’ wetland intertidal salt marshes? Were you including coastal wetlands in your study? Please, clarify. You are talking about ‘estuaries’ in Line 265…
Lines 240-260. Please add the ‘n’ date to the results of correlation analyses.
Discussion
Lines 288-290.’ Rice paddies were included in the category of wetland types; however, only part of the rice paddies and abandoned fields were included in the current wetland inventory’. Please, explain why.
Line 331. I think it would be worthy to comment of the effects of soil erosion from agricultural bare soils and its effects on wetlands.
Line 358. Please, offer here the most important wetland restoration and preservation measures to carry out in view of your results.
Tables
Table 3. Indicate what ‘β’ is.
Figures
Figure
I have not properly corrected the English writing since it is not my native language, but I think an English editing effort is needed.
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.