[REVIEW]: no_gjen_001_seminaturlig

[linejohansen]

Review checklist

Reviewers, please go though the checklist below and tick the boxes that are fulfilled. If one check is not fulfilled, or requires some more discussion, press the target sign to the right on that line and convert to issue. Follow up the point there. The reviewes may add any additional comments, besides these general checks, as commenst below.

Before you start:

Please add the indicator ID to the title of this issue (replacing the placeholder text that reads "indicatorID"), or check that it is not already there. Also, under lables in the right column, locate and choose the correct indicatorID from the list (if not already chosen).

Conflict of interest

• [ ] I confirm that I have conflict of interest that makes me unsuited to review this indiator. If not, I will convert this checkbox into an issue and declare my conflict there.

Code of Conduct

• [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the code of conduct.

General checks

• [x] Contribution and authorship: Does the author list seem appropriate and complete?
• [x] Meta data: Does the metadata entered for the indicator seem correct, including ECT class and ecosystem type?
• [ ] Introduction and concusion: Is the introduction written so that it sums up the general method and usabillity of the indicator?
• [ ] Legibility and structure: Is the documentation written so that is is easy, or at least possible, to follow the arguments? Is each header and sub-header populated with the appropriate text?
• [x] Images, tables and figures: Does the documentation contain the appropriate amount of tables, figures and images, and do these have high enough quality?
• [x] A statement of uncertaint and needs: Do the authors include the clear description of the different sources of uncertainty or errors for the indicator?
• [x] Validation: Does the documentation include some sort of validation for the precition of the indicator values, and is this validation sufficient?
• [ ] Relevance: Do the reviewers judge that this indicator has relevance as an ecosystem conditio indicator for the given ecosystems?
• [x] Reproducability: Is the documentation sufficient, or seem sufficient enough, to make the results entirely reproducable by the reviewers?
• [x] References: Does the references seem appropriate and do important hyperlinks work?

[linejohansen]

The introduction is very short and could be developed more to give the reader a summary of the method and what it will be used for. Suggest to use the word enchroacment instead of "regrowth". A conclusion is missing.

[linejohansen]

Relevance: Semi-natural meadows in Norway are an endangered habitat and the main reason for this is encroachment. We know that large areas of semi-natural meadows are under heavy encroachment and are in a poor condition, as shown in sources such as Naturindeks and ASO. However, this indicator gives the impression that there is a better condition and less encroachment of semi-natural meadows than is the case. The indicator values are unlikely high.

[linejohansen]

Legability and structure: To understand the text, one must have some prior knowledge of the topic. It is generally difficult to follow all the argumentation. One must be familiar with many of the data sets in order to understand their relevance and how they can contribute to the indicator.

[anders-kolstad]

Very good work so far @linejohansen . I reopened the issue - we can keep it open untill all things are solved.