Assessing Ecological Vulnerability under Climate Change and Anthropogenic Influence in the Yangtze River Estuarine Island-Chongming Island, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Abstract: Please give out the full name of “PSR”.
- Keywords: There should be too much keywords.
- Innovations and contributions should be supplemented in the section of Introduction.
- Line 121: The abbreviation "YRD" is enough to use here. The same to the “PSR” in the text.
- Section 2.2.1: The PSR model and its 17 indicators come from other researchers. Can the indicators used by other researchers be directly applied to this study? What are your contributions in your study?
- Equations: Equations and their interpretations should be standardized, including fonts.
- Is the "P" in Eq. (13) the one in Eq. (12)? Equation (12) is an abstract formula. How to get the specific calculation formula of EV. Please give details in the text.
Author Response
We appreciate the feedback and comments / suggestions to improve our manuscript from the reviewer. With regards to further revised comments / suggestions, we respond as follows.
- Abstract: Please give out the full name of “PSR”.
Answer: Thanks for your reminder. The full name of “PSR” has been given. Please see abstract section.
- Keywords: There should be too much keywords.
Answer: Yes, keywords has been shorted. Please see abstract section.
- Innovations and contributions should be supplemented in the section of Introduction.
Answer: We agree, and we added innovations and contributions to clarify this point. Please see introduction section.
- Line 121: The abbreviation "YRD" is enough to use here. The same to the “PSR” in the text.
Answer: We agree, and the text has been modified accordingly. Please see introduction section.
- Section 2.2.1: The PSR model and its 17 indicators come from other researchers. Can the indicators used by other researchers be directly applied to this study? What are your contributions in your study?
Answer: Good question and thanks for your reminder. These indicators selected by a comprehensive understanding of ecological vulnerability for estuarine island based on an amount of relevant research and field research, which considers multiple stresses from climate change, e.g. storm surge, salt water invasion, and human influences combing with multiple state and response indicators. Some indicators, e.g. NDVI could be applied in this study, some indicators and their related model have been modified and improved in our study. Necessary explanation of each indicator for estuarine islands ecological vulnerability assessment has been added to clarify this point, please see method section 2.2.1.
Equations: Equations and their interpretations should be standardized, including fonts.
Answer: We agree, and equations and their interpretations has been standardized. To make it easier for the reader to understand, we placed necessary equations and their interpretations of previous table 2 into each indicators explanation section.
- Is the "P" in Eq. (13) the one in Eq. (12)? Equation (12) is an abstract formula. How to get the specific calculation formula of EV. Please give details in the text.
Answer: Thanks for your reminder. The "P" in previous Eq. (13) is not the one in previous Eq. (12). To clarify the calculation formula of EV, we modified section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. Please see method section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.
Reviewer 2 Report
I found the topic of the study very interesting and in line with the scope of the journal. To improve the overall quality of the manuscript, I have some suggestion/comments as below:
The quality of the figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 may be improved, at least in my pdf they are getting a bit distorted.
Section 2.2.1. The PSR evaluation model is very dense and requires an expert knowledge of the subject. It would be advisable a better explanation.
Need a better explanation in table 2. It is hard to understand it and you should comment and explain on the methods of each indicator for estuarine islands ecological vulnerability assessment and need a better explanation on equations. It is hard to understand it.
A better discussion of Figure 5 is recommended. The results of Chongming Island town clusters based on ecological vulnerability assessment in 2010 and 2015.
English needs to be revised.
Author Response
I found the topic of the study very interesting and in line with the scope of the journal. To improve the overall quality of the manuscript, I have some suggestion/comments as below:
Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer positive feedback. We appreciate the reviewer thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions to help us improve the quality of this manuscript. With regards to further revised comments / suggestions, we respond as follows.
- The quality of the figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 may be improved, at least in my pdf they are getting a bit distorted.
Answer: Yes, the quality of the figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 has been improved, and each figure always use a minimum of 300 dpi in the manuscript of word version. In addition, we submit figures in a separate file in an approved format (MS Office files) with the correct resolution to make sure the quality of figures for further print.
- Section 2.2.1. The PSR evaluation model is very dense and requires an expert knowledge of the subject. It would be advisable a better explanation.
Answer: We agree. To make it easier to understand, the Figure 2 of framework has been reorganized from PSR aspects, and the section 2.2.1 has been modified to clarify this point. Please see method section 2.2.1.
- Need a better explanation in table 2. It is hard to understand it and you should comment and explain on the methods of each indicator for estuarine islands ecological vulnerability assessment and need a better explanation on equations. It is hard to understand it.
Answer: We agree. To make it easier to understand, we placed necessary equations and their interpretations of previous table 2 into each indicators explanation section, and added necessary explanation on the methods of each indicator for estuarine islands ecological vulnerability assessment.
- A better discussion of Figure 5 is recommended. The results of Chongming Island town clusters based on ecological vulnerability assessment in 2010 and 2015.
Answer: We agree, and further discussion related to Figure 5 has been added in the discussion section. Please see discussion section.
- English needs to be revised.
Answer: The language of the full article has been checked and improved.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
