Construction and Restoration of Landscape Ecological Network in Urumqi City Based on Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Introduction needs further references on Landscape Ecological Risk Assessments, to be in consistence with the title. So far, the reference is on models. More universal ref. is also needed for landscape ecological networks.
The goal and targets of the research should be further analyzed and clearly described at the end of the section.
Materials and Methods:
p. 132. Construction land is not a proper term. Later on at the manuscript is referred as Built up land. Probably this is an alternative name.
Table 2. Replace Mountainous areas with Mountains without vegetation cover, as described in the main text.
p.139-142. The paragraph should be rephrased since it does not make any sense.
Be careful οn the punctuation marks. In many sentences, dots are missing (e.g. 169,284, etc).
Research Methods:
The authors should rewrite this section and present it in a very clear and structural manner. So far there is a mix of methods and indices without any interrelation to each other. The different stages of the methodology approach (e.g. stage 1: …. stage 2…., etc) should be clearly described.
p. 180. Which literature review method you are referring to?
p. 182. ……finally, According……The sentence does not make any sense. Is it one sentence or two?
p.193. Replace the singular word with plural (Blocks size)
3.4.1. The title Evaluation Unit Division does not really correspond to the text. Apart from one reference at the beginning, the rest are mostly general descriptions without any relation to the title of this paragraph.
All the 3.4 paragraph needs restructure. The authors start with something specific, (3.4.1) then goes back to a more general description (3.4.2) and then to sth specific again (3.4.3).
p.217. Reference is missing
p. 234. Reference to landscape types, but the whole work is mostly on land use types.
Landscape types are sth more complex and should be carefully used.
All the maps should have a better resolution.
Results:
This section should be linked with the section of methodology and probably the paragraphs can follow the same hierarchy.
Discussion:
This section should be linked with the section of methodology and results and probably the paragraphs can follow the same hierarchy.
Future recommendations:
Should include any future research. The authors stays only on the practical application of the case study.
p. 560. To be rephrased, it does not make any sence.
General comments
The research idea of the paper is interesting, but many sections of the paper should be re-written in order to clearly present the originality and value of this research. There is a lack of a clear structure and interrelations of the sections (e.g. Introduction, methodology, results, discussion).
Therefore, majors revisions are needed, in order this paper to be acceptable.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your attention and the reviewers' comments and opinions on our paper, and we have revised the manuscript in detail based on your suggestions. The following is a response to the comments.
Point 1: The Introduction needs further references on Landscape Ecological Risk Assessments, to be in consistence with the title. So far, the reference is on models. More universal ref. is also needed for landscape ecological networks.
The goal and targets of the research should be further analyzed and clearly described at the end of the section.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments. Based on the reviewers' suggestions, we have revised the description of the introduction and added the research framework to this section. Starting from the landscape pattern, we elaborate the influence of landscape pattern on ecological environment (line 62-67), which leads to the method and application of landscape ecological risk assessment (line 68-80), progresses to the construction of landscape ecological network can be helpful for ecological security(line 81-98), and finally, we elaborate the purpose and significance of this study and the reason of choosing Urumqi city as the study area(line 99-125), and make a research framework to represent the whole process(figure 1).
Point 2: Materials and Methods:
- 132. Construction land is not a proper term. Later on at the manuscript is referred as Built up land. Probably this is an alternative name.
Table 2. Replace Mountainous areas with Mountains without vegetation cover, as described in the main text.
p.139-142. The paragraph should be rephrased since it does not make any sense.
Be careful οn the punctuation marks. In many sentences, dots are missing (e.g. 169,284, etc).
Response 2:
(1). Thank you very much for your comment. According to the reviewer's suggestion we have revised all the descriptions of construction land in the text to built-up land, including Figure 2, Table 2, and all other places where land use types are expressed.
(2). Thank you very much for your comments. We have revised the definition of mountainous areas and the revised table is as follows:
Table 2. Land use classification of Urumqi City
|
First-class classification |
Secondary Classification |
|
|
Number |
Type |
|
|
Built-up Land |
11 |
Cities and towns |
|
12 |
Industrial and mining |
|
|
13 |
Transport land |
|
|
14 |
Residential |
|
|
Greenland |
21 |
Woodland |
|
22 |
Grassland |
|
|
23 |
Arable land |
|
|
Water Bodies |
31 |
Reservoirs |
|
32 |
Lakes |
|
|
Bare Ground |
41 |
Mountainous areas without vegetation cover |
|
42 |
Unused land |
|
(3). Thank you very much for your comments. The superfluous description of the random forest classification we have put in the data preprocessing, and considering the structure of the manuscript, we have removed the description of the random forest principle.
(4) Thank you very much for your comments. We have checked the full text and corrected all the punctuation.
Point 3: The authors should rewrite this section and present it in a very clear and structural manner. So far there is a mix of methods and indices without any interrelation to each other. The different stages of the methodology approach (e.g. stage 1: …. stage 2…., etc) should be clearly described.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your comment. We have rewritten this section into three main parts, landscape analysis and ecological network construction, according to the study.
Regarding the research methodology, we wrote it in three parts, considering the whole research framework, divided into stage 1. landscape ecological risk assessment and evolutionary pattern analysis. (line261-343)
Stage 2. future land use prediction. (line345-369)
Stage 3. construction of landscape ecological network. (line371-389)
Point 4: p. 180. Which literature review method you are referring to?
Response 4: Thank you very much for your comment. Regarding the literature review methods mentioned in this section, what we used was to review a large amount of literature in the relevant research directions and refer to the methods and weights used by other scholars for the experiments, which is a part of our expression of confusion and has been modified. See line 362-362 for details.
Point 5: p. 182. ……finally, According……The sentence does not make any sense. Is it one sentence or two?
Response 5: It is our spelling mistake to make corrections and after the language editing service, has been fixed in the manuscript.
Point 6: p.193. Replace the singular word with plural (Blocks size)
Point 7:3.4.1. The title Evaluation Unit Division does not really correspond to the text. Apart from one reference at the beginning, the rest are mostly general descriptions without any relation to the title of this paragraph.
Response 6-7: When we rewrote the section on Research methods, we reordered this section “3.4.1Evaluation Unit Division”, according to the reviewer's comments, and cut the less important parts of this section in consideration of the flow of the structure. Blocks size is also in 3.4.1, so this word has been removed
Point 8: All the 3.4 paragraph needs restructure. The authors start with something specific, (3.4.1) then goes back to a more general description (3.4.2) and then to sth specific again (3.4.3).
Response 8: We have restructured this section into three parts: landscape analysis, simulation prediction, and network construction, so that the original part 3.4 is now part of the landscape analysis section, and the landscape index is explained and illustrated for understanding. For details, see line 263-320.
Point 9: p.217. Reference is missing
Response 9: Added reference No. 40.
Point 10: p. 234. Reference to landscape types, but the whole work is mostly on land use types. Landscape types are sth more complex and should be carefully used.
Response 10: Regarding the expression of landscape types, we used land use data to calculate the landscape pattern index after reading a large amount of relevant literature, and based on this, we conducted landscape ecological risk evaluation, so we used land use types for landscape vulnerability index calculation in this part of the expression.
Point 11: All the maps should have a better resolution.
Response 11: Thanks to your suggestion, I have upgraded all the images in the manuscript to the appropriate resolution. See details inside the manuscript.
Point 12: Results: This section should be linked with the section of methodology and probably the paragraphs can follow the same hierarchy.
Response 12: Thanks to your suggestion, we have rewritten this section of the results to correspond one by one according to the paragraph hierarchy of the research methodology. This section starts with land use and predicts the distribution in 2030, then introduces the landscape pattern analysis and performs the landscape ecological risk assessment, and finally the ecological network is constructed based on this.See line 512-706 for details.
Point 13: Discussion: This section should be linked with the section of methodology and results and probably the paragraphs can follow the same hierarchy.
Response 13:
Thank you very much for your comments. Based on the reviewers' suggestions, we have revised the "Discussion" section.
Firstly, 5.1 discusses the evolution of ecological risk in the Urumqi landscape based on land use.
Line 940-941, add literature 60-61 to confirm that the distribution of land use is consistent with other scholars.
Line 943-949, adding literature 58, 62 elaborate on the reasons for minor differences with other scholars in the content and results of the study.
Line 950-959, adding literature 63-64 to elaborate on the coincidence of the results of ecological risk in the landscape of other study areas within the same province.
Line 960-979, adding literature 65-66 to elaborate on the reasons for the completely opposite peculiarities of ecological risk results in different study areas in the same province due to their particular geographical location.
Secondly 5.2 Discussion on ecological network construction.
Lines 981-986, adding literature 67-69 to validate the same points as other scholars on ecological network construction in Urumqi city.
Lines 986-994, adding literature 0-74 to elaborate on the differences regarding ecological network construction in terms of research data sources, resistance surface correction elements and construction methods.
Finally 5.3 is about the expectations of future work with the limitations and problems of this study.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript analyzes the land use and landscape pattern changes in Urumqi from 2000 to 2020 and explores the spatial and temporal changes in landscape ecological risks along with urban construction. This paper appears very detailed, and the authors' efforts can be seen in the numerous tables and figures. However, this manuscript is not yet ready for publication and requires a major revision before it can be determined.
First, the manuscript was written in a confusing way. The authors seem unclear about what each section of a paper should contain. For example, the INTRODUCTION section lacks research contexts and necessary overviews, the METHODS section is not well organized, and the DISCUSSION section seems insufficiently in-depth.
Second, this study includes arable land in ecological areas, which is debatable. Do arable lands reduce ecological risks in the same way as woodlands and grasslands? Many studies consider that arable land brings ecological risks due to its soil contamination. Therefore, the authors are advised to separate arable land from other ecological areas.
Finally, the article's text and figures are not well organized. Many figures lack scale, and the legends of some figures are too small and hard to be seen. There are grammatical errors in the main text that make many sentences difficult to follow.
In addition, there are several repetitions of sentences and words in the text, e.g., Line 167-170：
"The development of urban transportation system has a certain "traction" effect on urban expansion
The development of the urban transportation system has a certain "pull" effect on urban expansion [49,50]".
The authors have to examine the whole text carefully and modify inappropriate expressions, including grammatical errors, repetition of sentences and words, etc.
Abstract
In general, the ABSTRACT is unorganized and too long and needs to be condensed.
Line 22-34: This part provides an overview of the study findings, yet it is not clear enough. The ABSTRACT is not supposed to be a blow-by-blow description of the study findings but rather a concise summary of the core conclusions that need to be easily understood by the readers.
Introduction
This section requires an introduction to the study contexts and a summary of relevant research advances. On this basis, it is essential to summarize the existing research gaps and propose the objectives and framework of your study. However, your INTRODUCTION does not clearly state the contents mentioned above and is suggested to be revised.
First, the manuscript lacks research contexts and the essential reviews of relevant studies. Second, according to the title, the most critical content should be the landscape ecological network. However, it is only covered in the last paragraph. The first two paragraphs address methods such as landscape pattern indices and land use prediction models, leaving the reader confused about what this study intends to do. Some of the contents would be more appropriate in the METHOD part.
Line 45-46: Studies of landscape patterns are not limited to landscape pattern indices; therefore, a more comprehensive overview is needed.
Line 51-60: This part is inappropriate in the opening paragraph of the INTRODUCTION section. It is recommended that authors introduce the backgrounds of the study and review relevant studies, and then propose your ideas in response to the gaps in existing studies. Therefore, this section is more appropriate for the end of the INTRODUCTION or the METHOD.
Line 61-67, Line 91-94: The review requires an objective statement of the existing studies and a summary of their gaps. In this manuscript, the authors address numerous shortcomings of existing works without reviewing relevant studies, making it doubtful that these comments are comprehensive and objective.
Methods and materials
It is advisable to combine this section with the next one. It is advisable to combine this section with the next one. This part focuses on the study area and data sources; the title METHODS AND MATERIALS is inappropriate.
Study Area: The presentation of the study area can not reflect the research characteristics. The authors are expected to demonstrate the reasons for choosing this city, rather than others, for the study. For example, what are the characteristics of Urumqi's landscape structure, and what are the necessities of choosing this city to investigate landscape ecological risks?
Research methods
In this section, the authors mention various research methods, but they are confusingly organized, making the paper complex and difficult to read. The readers have difficulty clarifying the methods, indicators, and models, as well as the relationships between them. The authors are suggested to add a research framework, give a clear overview of the study, and then go into details about the models and indicator systems.
In addition, this section is supposed to tell how each step was realized, including what formulas and software were applied, what data were used as samples, and how the parameters were set to construct the model. However, this manuscript does not convey the above clearly, and the authors are advised to refer to other papers to learn the writings.
Random Forest Classification Algorithm: This method has already been mentioned in Line 125-133, so why did you write it again in this section? Does it belong to data pre-processing or research methods?
Landscape pattern index analysis method: Line 150-151 and line 157-158 mention two groups of landscape pattern indices; what do they mean, and what are they measured for, respectively? Meanwhile, it is necessary to include the meaning and formulae of each landscape pattern index in the manuscript, which will help the reader to understand the study findings.
FLUS model: The DEM data mentioned by Line 166 is 30 m resolution, while Line 122 states that the resolution is 90 m; what data processing has been done?
Evaluation unit division: The title of this subsection does not match its content, and sentences related to the landscape risk index would be more appropriate in 3.4.2. Line 191-193 require adding references.
Table 3: This table includes not only the indicators involved in equation (1); which part of the manuscript do the other indicators correspond to?
Landscape ecological risk index evaluation: At least three indicator systems have appeared in this paper so far; please clarify what they characterize respectively and how they relate to each other? Again, it is recommended that the authors add a research framework to clarify the relationship between so many steps. Section 3.2 defines abbreviations for some indicators, and it is advisable to present them here in abbreviated form if they are the same indicators.
Results and Analysis
This section presented the study results clearly, but it was difficult to correspond the findings with the methods. That is, it is difficult for the reader to specify which step of methods resulted in findings they are interested in, making it difficult to highlight the values of the research. The authors are advised to revise these sections.
Table 5 and 6: It is recommended that these results be presented as line graphs or other appropriate ways; tables are difficult to visualize changes in ecological risk.
Discussion
The discussion lacks specificity and depth, and the authors are advised to compare the results with other relevant studies in Urumqi, looking for similarities and differences and analyzing the underlying causes. More in-depth mechanisms of ecological risk changes due to land-use changes in Urumqi can also be explored. The manuscript is informative in terms of methods and results. However, the discussion section is not analyzed in depth, making the paper's value not fully reflected.
Ecological risk centroid and standard deviation ellipse analysis: This paragraph seems more appropriate to appear in the RESULTS rather than in the DISCUSSION section.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your attention and the reviewers' comments and opinions on our paper, and we have carefully considered the suggestion of Reviewer and make some changes. The following is a response to the comments.
Point 1: First, the manuscript was written in a confusing way. The authors seem unclear about what each section of a paper should contain. For example, the INTRODUCTION section lacks research contexts and necessary overviews, the METHODS section is not well organized, and the DISCUSSION section seems insufficiently in-depth.
Response1: Thank you very much for your comments. Based on the reviewers' suggestions, we have revised the description of the introduction and added the research framework to this section. Starting from the landscape pattern, we elaborate the influence of landscape pattern on ecological environment (line 62-67), which leads to the method and application of landscape ecological risk assessment (line 68-80), progresses to the construction of landscape ecological network can be helpful for ecological security(line 81-98), and finally, we elaborate the purpose and significance of this study and the reason of choosing Urumqi city as the study area(line 99-125), and make a research framework to represent the whole process(figure 1).
Point 2: Second, this study includes arable land in ecological areas, which is debatable. Do arable lands reduce ecological risks in the same way as woodlands and grasslands? Many studies consider that arable land brings ecological risks due to its soil contamination. Therefore, the authors are advised to separate arable land from other ecological areas.
Response 2: Regarding the classification of land use types, before writing this manuscript, we read a lot of related literature and read a lot of articles about ecology related to Urumqi city, and we found that there are two main types of ecological risk assessment, one is a fine ecological risk assessment for a single land use type, for example, ecological risk assessment of arable land, ecological risk assessment of a certain watershed; The other type is to group several land use types into one broad category for ecological risk assessment, such as the approach used in this manuscript.
We have also considered the reviewer's suggestion to study the ecological risks associated with soil contamination of cropland, which will be one of our future research directions.
Point 3: Finally, the article's text and figures are not well organized. Many figures lack scale, and the legends of some figures are too small and hard to be seen. There are grammatical errors in the main text that make many sentences difficult to follow.
In addition, there are several repetitions of sentences and words in the text, e.g., Line 167-170.
The authors have to examine the whole text carefully and modify inappropriate expressions, including grammatical errors, repetition of sentences and words, etc.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your comments. We have completed the manuscript with language editing services, checked the entire text, corrected inappropriate expressions, including grammatical errors, repetition of sentences and words. Here is the certificate.
Point 4: Abstract:In general, the ABSTRACT is unorganized and too long and needs to be condensed.Line 22-34: This part provides an overview of the study findings, yet it is not clear enough. The ABSTRACT is not supposed to be a blow-by-blow description of the study findings but rather a concise summary of the core conclusions that need to be easily understood by the readers.
Response 4: It first describes the genesis of this manuscript's research, condenses the research content and then summarizes the findings, and finally explains the significance of this manuscript's research. For more details, see line 11-32.
Point 5: Introduction:This section requires an introduction to the study contexts and a summary of relevant research advances. On this basis, it is essential to summarize the existing research gaps and propose the objectives and framework of your study. However, your INTRODUCTION does not clearly state the contents mentioned above and is suggested to be revised.
First, the manuscript lacks research contexts and the essential reviews of relevant studies. Second, according to the title, the most critical content should be the landscape ecological network. However, it is only covered in the last paragraph. The first two paragraphs address methods such as landscape pattern indices and land use prediction models, leaving the reader confused about what this study intends to do. Some of the contents would be more appropriate in the METHOD part.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your comments. Based on the reviewers' suggestions, we have revised the description of the introduction and added the research framework to this section. Starting from the landscape pattern, we elaborate the influence of landscape pattern on ecological environment (line 62-67), which leads to the method and application of landscape ecological risk assessment (line 68-80), progresses to the construction of landscape ecological network can be helpful for ecological security(line 81-98), and finally, we elaborate the purpose and significance of this study and the reason of choosing Urumqi city as the study area(line 99-125), and make a research framework to represent the whole process(figure 1).
Point 6: Line 45-46: Studies of landscape patterns are not limited to landscape pattern indices; therefore, a more comprehensive overview is needed.
Response 6: Regarding the expression of landscape indices, the influence of landscape patterns on ecological environment is briefly described in lines 62-67; later, during the revision process the expression of the meaning of landscape indices is placed in the section on methods, and the meaning, index classification, and calculation level of each landscape index are briefly described (Table 3). For details, see manuscript 263-269.
Point 7: Line 51-60: This part is inappropriate in the opening paragraph of the INTRODUCTION section. It is recommended that authors introduce the backgrounds of the study and review relevant studies, and then propose your ideas in response to the gaps in existing studies. Therefore, this section is more appropriate for the end of the INTRODUCTION or the METHOD.
Response 7: After listening to the reviewers' comments, we have adjusted the introduction section entirely, starting with a review of previous studies, emphasizing the research background (see lines 62-67 for details), and summarizing and comparing existing research methods and results (see lines 68-112 for details), proposing the selection of Urumqi city as the study area, and analyzing its landscape ecological risk evolution pattern and the framework for constructing ecological networks, and emphasizing the significance and purpose of the study at the end of the introduction (see lines 113-125 for details).
Point 8: Line 61-67, Line 91-94: The review requires an objective statement of the existing studies and a summary of their gaps. In this manuscript, the authors address numerous shortcomings of existing works without reviewing relevant studies, making it doubtful that these comments are comprehensive and objective.
Response 8: On this point, we read a large amount of relevant literature and cite it appropriately, as follows:
Lines 70-73, adding literature 6-11, indicating the current research objects, methods, and characteristics of ecological risk assessment, etc.
Lines 90-98, adding literature 15-18, expressing the advantages of the MCR model for constructing ecological networks.
Lines 101-109, adding literature 19-23 to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the FLUS model in terms of the convenience of quantity and spatial distribution.
Point 9: Methods and materials:It is advisable to combine this section with the next one. It is advisable to combine this section with the next one. This part focuses on the study area and data sources; the title METHODS AND MATERIALS is inappropriate.
Point 10: Study Area: The presentation of the study area can not reflect the research characteristics. The authors are expected to demonstrate the reasons for choosing this city, rather than others, for the study. For example, what are the characteristics of Urumqi's landscape structure, and what are the necessities of choosing this city to investigate landscape ecological risks?
Response 9-10：Regarding materials and data sources, we have focused this section on the study area and data sources. We have added the characteristics of natural factors such as precipitation, climate, and topography of Urumqi in the study area overview section, and also added a description of the socioeconomic situation of Urumqi, as detailed in lines 184-196. and added the characteristics of the landscape of Urumqi and the reasons why it was chosen as the study area as per the reviewer's comments, as detailed in lines 197-205.
Point 11: Research methods:In this section, the authors mention various research methods, but they are confusingly organized, making the paper complex and difficult to read. The readers have difficulty clarifying the methods, indicators, and models, as well as the relationships between them. The authors are suggested to add a research framework, give a clear overview of the study, and then go into details about the models and indicator systems.
Point 12: In addition, this section is supposed to tell how each step was realized, including what formulas and software were applied, what data were used as samples, and how the parameters were set to construct the model. However, this manuscript does not convey the above clearly, and the authors are advised to refer to other papers to learn the writings.
Response 11-12: Thank you very much for your comment. Following the reviewers' comments, a research framework was produced to represent the entire process (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Research framework
Regarding the research methodology, we wrote it in three parts, considering the whole research framework, divided into stage 1. landscape ecological risk assessment and evolutionary pattern analysis. (line261-343)
Stage 2. future land use prediction. (line345-369)
Stage 3. construction of landscape ecological network. (line371-389)
Point 13: Random Forest Classification Algorithm: This method has already been mentioned in Line 125-133, so why did you write it again in this section? Does it belong to data pre-processing or research methods?
Response 13: Regarding the application of random forest classification, we have removed this section from the methods and only mentioned it in the data preprocessing (line 232), thank you for your suggestion.
Point 14: Landscape pattern index analysis method: Line 150-151 and line 157-158 mention two groups of landscape pattern indices; what do they mean, and what are they measured for, respectively? Meanwhile, it is necessary to include the meaning and formulae of each landscape pattern index in the manuscript, which will help the reader to understand the study findings.
Response 14: Based on the reviewers' comments, we made the following changes.
In the analysis of the landscape pattern of Urumqi city, we used the moving window method of FRAGSTATS software for the analysis and selected five traditional landscape indices, namely LPI, NP, AI, DIVISION and SHDI to analyze the evolutionary pattern of the landscape pattern of Urumqi city and interpret them as detailed in lines 263-269, and made Table 3 to describe the landscape indices.
Point 15: FLUS model: The DEM data mentioned by Line 166 is 30 m resolution, while Line 122 states that the resolution is 90 m; what data processing has been done?
Response 15: Here is a careless mistake in our writing, we used both DEM and land use data in this study at 30m resolution. For such an error, we have checked the full text and corrected it afterwards.
Point 16：Evaluation unit division: The title of this subsection does not match its content, and sentences related to the landscape risk index would be more appropriate in 3.4.2. Line 191-193 require adding references.
Response 16：The original 3.4.1Evaluation unit division we merged this section into the landscape risk evaluation when reorganizing the structure of the manuscript, see lines 278-282 for details.
Point 17: Table 3: This table includes not only the indicators involved in equation (1); which part of the manuscript do the other indicators correspond to?
Response 17: After reorganizing the manuscript structure, the original Table 3 is the modified Table 4, in which the landscape fragmentation index Fi, landscape separation index Si and landscape fractal dimension index FDi are multiplied by certain weights to form the landscape disturbance index Di;
the landscape vulnerability index Vi is obtained by normalizing the vulnerability degree of each land use type.
The landscape loss index Ri is the product of landscape disturbance index Di and landscape vulnerability index Vi.
This section corresponds to the landscape ecological risk assessment part of this manuscript, and the ERI index is obtained by bringing the landscape loss index Ri into Equation 1.
Point 18: Landscape ecological risk index evaluation: At least three indicator systems have appeared in this paper so far; please clarify what they characterize respectively and how they relate to each other? Again, it is recommended that the authors add a research framework to clarify the relationship between so many steps. Section 3.2 defines abbreviations for some indicators, and it is advisable to present them here in abbreviated form if they are the same indicators.
Response 18: In this manuscript, the landscape index in "3.1.1 landscape pattern index analysis" is based on the FRAGSTATS software and corresponds to the "4.3 landscape pattern index analysis" in the results. landscape pattern index analysis". The landscape index in "3.1.2 Landscape Risk Index Calculation" is a landscape ecological risk assessment based on the mathematical relationship between the traditional landscape index and the area of the land class, which corresponds to "4.4.1 Temporal change of landscape ecological risk", and spatial analysis of landscape ecological risk results, based on which the landscape ecological network is established.
Point 19：Results and Analysis：This section presented the study results clearly, but it was difficult to correspond the findings with the methods. That is, it is difficult for the reader to specify which step of methods resulted in findings they are interested in, making it difficult to highlight the values of the research. The authors are advised to revise these sections.
Table 5 and 6: It is recommended that these results be presented as line graphs or other appropriate ways; tables are difficult to visualize changes in ecological risk.
Response 19：Thanks to your suggestion, we have rewritten this section of the results to correspond one by one according to the paragraph hierarchy of the research methodology. This section starts with land use and predicts the distribution in 2030, then introduces the landscape pattern analysis and performs the landscape ecological risk assessment, and finally the ecological network is constructed based on this.See line 512-706 for details.
Regarding Tables 5 and 6, we have made them into graphs according to the reviewers' comments, as detailed in Figure 10.
Point20：Discussion：(1).The discussion lacks specificity and depth, and the authors are advised to compare the results with other relevant studies in Urumqi, looking for similarities and differences and analyzing the underlying causes. More in-depth mechanisms of ecological risk changes due to land-use changes in Urumqi can also be explored. The manuscript is informative in terms of methods and results. However, the discussion section is not analyzed in depth, making the paper's value not fully reflected.
(2).Ecological risk centroid and standard deviation ellipse analysis: This paragraph seems more appropriate to appear in the RESULTS rather than in the DISCUSSION section.
Response 20：(1).Thank you very much for your comments. Based on the reviewers' suggestions, we have revised the "Discussion" section.
Firstly, 5.1 discusses the evolution of ecological risk in the Urumqi landscape based on land use.
Line 940-941, add literature 60-61 to confirm that the distribution of land use is consistent with other scholars.
Line 943-949, adding literature 58, 62 elaborate on the reasons for minor differences with other scholars in the content and results of the study.
Line 950-959, adding literature 63-64 to elaborate on the coincidence of the results of ecological risk in the landscape of other study areas within the same province.
Line 960-979, adding literature 65-66 to elaborate on the reasons for the completely opposite peculiarities of ecological risk results in different study areas in the same province due to their particular geographical location.
Secondly 5.2 Discussion on ecological network construction.
Lines 981-986, adding literature 67-69 to validate the same points as other scholars on ecological network construction in Urumqi city.
Lines 986-994, adding literature 0-74 to elaborate on the differences regarding ecological network construction in terms of research data sources, resistance surface correction elements and construction methods.
Finally 5.3 is about the expectations of future work with the limitations and problems of this study.
(2). According to the reviewer's comments we have included the ecological risk centroid and standard deviation ellipse analysis in the results "4.4.2 Ecological risk centroid and standard deviation ellipse analysis", see line 653- 664.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been greatly improved and it is acceptable for publication. However, there are minor changes: Line 100: Figure 1 Research Framework to be moved under the diagram. Title in section 3.1.1 To start with a capital letter.
I would like to congradulate the authors for the effort to improve their article.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your attention and the reviewers' comments and opinions on our paper, and we have revised the manuscript in detail based on your suggestions. The following is a response to the comments.
Point 1: Line 100: Figure 1 Research Framework to be moved under the diagram. Title in section 3.1.1 To start with a capital letter.
Response 1: We have carefully checked the position of Figure 1 and the letters of the article, and we thank the reviewers for their patience, as your guidance has made our article better.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript improved significantly after the revision and has become much clearer, especially the INTRODUCTION and METHOD sections. The manuscript is informative and well-structured, ready for publication, thanks to the author's efforts.
There are only a few minor problems with the manuscript, and I believe the authors can deal with them efficiently.
Figure 1: Its name was displaced to Line 100, and the four steps of Figure 1 can be connected with arrows so that the process can be better explained.
Figure 2: The authors are advised to use a point to show the approximate location of Urumqi in China
Author Response
Thank you very much for your attention and the reviewers' comments and opinions on our paper, and we have revised the manuscript in detail based on your suggestions. The following is a response to the comments.
Point 1: Figure 1: Its name was displaced to Line 100, and the four steps of Figure 1 can be connected with arrows so that the process can be better explained.
Response 1: Regarding the research framework in Figure 1, we have added serial numbers to the process to indicate the order in accordance with the reviewers' comments, and the arrows have been directed to indicate the order of the phases
point 2: Figure 2: The authors are advised to use a point to show the approximate location of Urumqi in China
response 2: For Figure 2, we have added icons to indicate the exact location of Urumqi in China, as detailed in the upper left corner of the figure 2.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
