Ecological and Cultural Understanding as a Basis for Management of a Globally Significant Island Landscape

Reviewer

Response to reviewer comments

Reviewer 1

I believe authors have done a comprehensive and meticulous work for the beautiful K’gari island.

Thank you for the time you took to read and review our paper.

1.   Parts of figure captions could be put on the same pages with associated figures.

The figures and the associated captions will be revised once the paper is in the editing process pre-publication

I agree with the authors that this beautiful island, as a World Heritage property, should put the environment first place. I suggest the authors could also try to imagine how could bring a synergy of the island development and natural protection, and therefore through a perspective of ‘strong’ sustainability and avoid an ‘absurd’ one (the latter one only emphasizes the environmental pillar of sustainability). I understand it is easy to say but hard to do in reality. Anyway, please keep that in mind with any decision-making and make the island better than before.

Thank you

At last, I should congratulate to authors for their excellent work on this paper and in reality.

Thank you

Reviewer 2

The authors of this manuscript seek to integrate indigenous populations into the management of an ecologically sensitive island in Australia. I commend them for this effort as it is something we need to do much more in science.

Thank you and we too look forward to seeing increasing co-management of ecologically sensitive places globally.

 This manuscript is well written, which is nice for a reviewer. I have no personal objections to the content, and I think that this work is worthy of publications. Before that however, I do have some suggestions for its improvement. Most are grammatical or lit-review related.

Thank you, spelling, grammatical and punctuation revised throughout.

Bigger comments:

The map in figure 1 seems to mostly contain English names of places (e.g., bays, islands, points, etc). Are there Butchella names that could be included on this figure in the spirit of your aim to integrate indigenous stakeholders in this ecosystem?

Corrected – Butchulla names added according to Butchulla map.

Can you do a broader job in literature to link your work to efforts done in other areas/islands across the globe? Have they been successful? IF there aren’t a lot of these available to draw on, then that strengthens the importance of your efforts and you should highlight that as a model for other systems to follow! I know that some of us are committed to avoiding “parachute science”, but are there any good success stories in that vein you can highlight? 

There are very few models to draw from. The Small Island literature emphasises the challenges for island communities which are similar to K’gari. Additional text has been added to the Introduction, Discussion and Conclusion in an attempt to cover this point.

What about other efforts to connect ecology to indigenous culture? I imagine there is a lot there with plants due to their use for food/medicinal purposes. Snail shells we also frequently used for ornaments/tools/etc.

We added:

‘The need to actively incorporate Indigenous knowledge systems in conservation management planning is a rising priority globally, but practical applications and successes vary locally and transparent approaches to complimentary knowledges can be enhanced (Carson, 2018, Tengo et al 2014). In the K’gari instance, such complimentary epistemological synthesis in conservation practice needs to be concurrent with strong recognition of the relationship between colonial power, resistance, and ecology in this region as part of emergent truth telling reconciliation imperatives. There is contemporary progress in the process acknowledging Butchulla deep knowledge of and connection with K’gari. The formal reclaiming of the Butchulla name for the island on 19 September 2021 was a result of ‘a decades-long campaign by Butchulla Elders and community members … endorsed by the Queensland government and adopted by the World Heritage Committee’ (Barrowcliffe, 2021).

MINOR COMMENTS: 

Check for places you  left multiple  spaces between  words. (like this sentence)

The whole paper was carefully reviewed with spaces removed.

Ranges of numbers and dates should be separated by an en dash “–“ not a regular dash “-“. This applies in the reference section also.

—      Special character 0151 is an en dash

The whole paper was carefully reviewed with en dashes replacing dashes as applicable.

Numbers less than 10 should be written out (e.g., five instead of 5) 

Corrected

Some in-text citations have errant commas in them). Be sure to police these.

The whole paper was carefully reviewed, and errant commas removed

Re-check all scientific names used in the paper. At least one was incorrect. 

All scientific names checked throughout paper

L69–72. The sentence “Known to…for management” needs some citations to support this conflict.

Change made:

Known to the Butchulla People as ‘K’gari[1] the island has been a site of conflicting views of custodianship, ownership and management which continue today, providing conditions in which ecological sustainability and cultural equity can be explored through efforts in long-term planning for management. Carter, J, A Wardell-Johnson and C Archer-Lean, ‘Butchulla Perspectives on Dingo Displacement and Agency at K’gari-Fraser Island, Australia’ (2017) Geoforum 197

Figure 1: Check the resolution. The coordinates on the margins are fuzzy. Maybe it is due to the ‘reviewer copy’, but MAKE SURE the journal publishes your manuscript with clean figures. I’ve seen some crap slip past the copy editors in these MDPI journals… Figure 2 may have similar transgressions. Also Figure 6, 7, etc. 

Checked and Figure 1 replaced

L163: Should “Mc Niven” be one word?

This typo has been fixed

 L259: You mention Lantana. Why is it bad? (tongue-in-cheek). I know it is introduced in Hawai’i and Galápagos, so might be worth an extra line with citation. E.g. Fernández-Palacios J. M., Kreft H., Irl S. D. H. et al. (2021) Scientists’ warning – the outstanding biodiversity of islands is in peril. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01847.

 Changes made in text and reference added.

L487 and L643 “fresh water” should be one word.

This typo has been fixed

L591: Include the year for Bradstock et al. 

Bradstock, R. A., J. E. Williams and A. Gill editors. 2002. Flammable Australia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

L712: Weird _ at the on the sentence? 

This is on line 712

Fig. 8 K’gari burnt area, October – December 2020 (Office of the Inspector-General Emergency Management 2021). No _ found even with a search

Figure 9 isn’t needed and unfortunately the photo isn’t of great quality. I recommend removing it. 

Photo replaced with a more suitable photo of a dingo. We are happy to remove altogether.

L865: The correct scientific name for the cane toad is Rhinella marina. You also need some a citation or two to support your characterizing of their threat. E.g. Tingley R, Ward-Fear G, Schwarzkopf L, Greenlees MJ, Phillips BL, Brown G, Clulow S, Webb J, Capon R, Sheppard A, Strive T, Tizard M, Shine R (2017) New weapons in the toad toolkit: a review of methods to control and mitigate the biodiversity impacts of invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina). The Quarterly Review of Biology 92(2): 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1086/692167

Thank you for your feedback. Change made and reference added.

Shine R (2015) Reducing the Ecological Impact of Invasive Cane Toads. In: Canning-Clode, J (Ed.) Biological Invasions in Changing Ecosystems: Vectors, Ecological Impacts, Management and Predictions. Warsaw: Walter de Gruyter. Warsaw, 301–317. https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110438666-019

Shine R (2018) Cane Toad Wars. University of California Press, Oakland, 288 pp. https://doi. org/10.1525/9780520967984

Reviewer 3

Synthesize a little more the purposes of the study that are detailed in the introduction. Lines 116 to 129

We appreciate this feedback and the paper is improved as a result. Done and linked more to the discussion and conclusion.

2.       Review the wording, it contradicts itself on the existence or not of various groups of traditional owners. Line 169

Corrected

3.       The second and third paragraphs of the story section don't connect properly.

Corrected

4.       I recommend adjusting the size of the maps, I consider that the information can be seen in a smaller size

We can adjust the maps to the publisher’s requirements.

5.       I recommend adjusting the size of the maps, I consider that the information can be seen in a smaller size

As above

6.       Adjust or synthesize a little more the information analyzed in sections 3 to 10, all the content can be exposed but in a slightly more specific way

This the ecology section of the paper and a very significant part of the paper. Unfortunately, a re-write of these sections is not workable in a 5 day turn around. We have tightened up the manuscript wherever possible in the time frame. We have re-written the discussion and conclusion which now highlight key points from the ecology sections of the paper.

7.       Check format of line 1193

Corrected

8.       The "Discussion" section is uplifting and provides additional information on the topic, but firm conclusions are lacking or not properly organized.

We have re-written the discussion and conclusion

9.       It would be nice to have additional sections such as Implications of your findings, Limitations, and Future Research.

 We have changed headings and incorporated Implications of your findings, Limitations, and Future Research.