Oasis Change Characteristics and Influencing Factors in the Shiyang River Basin, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presents Oasis Change Characteristics and Influencing Factors in the Shiyang River Basin and comments are listed as follows.
1 Authors should strengthen the description on contributions of this manuscript.
2 In the first paragraph of conclusions, what’s the meaning of km2?
3 Authors state that “Although ecological protection policies such as returning farmland to forestry has slowed down natural degradation to a certain extent, the effect is not particularly good due to the influence of the food subsidy policy.” Why authors think that food subsidy policy leads to negative effect on ecological protection.
4 In equation 3, authors should give definition of Ai,j,t rather than Aj,t.
5 Authors state that i indicates oasis types. In this case ,authors should describe the corresponding relationship between values of I and type of oasis.
6 As shown in figure 2A, the total oasis area is about 32000 km×km. But in the part of conclusion, it seems that the total oasis area is about 3200 km×km. Authors must explain this confict.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your decision and constructive comments concerning our manuscript. We have carefully considered and addressed each of comments, as detailed below. Overall, we believe these suggestions have helped us greatly improve our paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your decision and constructive comments concerning our manuscript. We have carefully considered and addressed each of comments, as detailed below. Overall, we believe these suggestions have helped us greatly improve our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper aims to explore the changing characteristics and influencing factors of the oasis in the Shiyang River Basin in China by analyzing the relevant data measured from 1980 to 2015 through a series of analysis methods. In my opinion, this is a valuable academic paper. However, there are some shortcomings that need major revision. I put forward some suggestions as follows.
1. The article mentions that the land use patterns in the Shiyang River Basin have undergone earth-shaking changes. Please mention how land use patterns changed.
2. In section 2.2, the data mentioned in the article is relatively messy and there is no classification clearly proposed.
3. In section 2.3, the authors should first explain the methods used, including calculation formula, drawing, etc., and then describe the problems of data explanation, to summarize the changing characteristics of the oasis in the Shiyang River Basin.
4. In section 2.3.3, the study selected nine variables, including natural factors (average annual precipitation, average annual temperature) and human factors (population, GDP, primary industry, secondary industry, tertiary industry, livestock stock, and grain production). Should the natural wind factor be considered? If not, Please give the reason.
5. In the study of the influencing factors of oasis area in the article, is it possible to add the factor of changes in people's awareness of environmental protection?
6. 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 are somewhat out of touch and these two parts should be linked.
7. In the part of the method, the author analyzed the data and got the change of the oasis area, but there was no follow-up explanation of why the area changed.
8. The impact of the artificial oasis mentioned in the article on the natural oasis is not comprehensive. Some specific explanations can be added to explain the positive and negative effects of the expansion of artificial oases on natural oases.
9. The chart format is somewhat chaotic, making the typography confusing.
10. It is mentioned that ecological protection policies such as returning farmland to forests have slowed down the degradation of natural oases to a certain extent, but the effect is not particularly good due to the impact of food subsidy policies. What is the specific contradiction between the two policies?
11. In the discussion part, the further explanation should be made based on the above analysis.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your decision and constructive comments concerning our manuscript. We have carefully considered and addressed each of comments, as detailed below. Overall, we believe these suggestions have helped us greatly improve our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
An oasis is an isolated area with vegetation and water (spring, lake) in the middle of a desert. An oasis is “a point” in the desert above an area where the water table flows shallowly. The name of "oasis" used in the article by the authors is improper. The authors are researching a very large aquifer basin of 41,600 km2, more precisely some lands (raster) suitable for the growth of vegetation and socioeconomic development.
The phrases between lines 36-42 and 86-89 must be reformulated.
The term "hinterland" from line 99 must be explained.
What is the difference in type of use between the lands "unused bareland" and "unused others" from figure 1C.
The data were collected every 5 years and not annually as the authors claim on line 140.
For a better understanding of the article, the readers must be explained in more detail what "total oasis" means (line 141) compared to "natural oasis, and artificial oasis".
Why is the study not updated until present, the authors preferring to stop at the level of 2015? Seven (7) years represents an important period of time in which the described ecosystem could degrade or improve significantly.
The raster is a surface, so the resolution must be expressed in Km2 (line 168, 172).
Figure 5 is a table, this correction must be made. Much more detailed explanations related to this table should be given in the article.
Paragraph 3.3. it must be developed extensively, quantifying and appreciating the importance of each influencing factor on the ecosystem in the area.
In chapter 4, the authors should refer to changes in the ecosystem.
The statements of the authors in subchapter 4.3. are too general. The statements must be supported with concrete values of the influencing factors.
The surfaces are better expressed as follows: 30,990 Km2 or 32,020 Km2 (line 212 and 394).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your decision and constructive comments concerning our manuscript. We have carefully considered and addressed each of comments, as detailed below. Overall, we believe these suggestions have helped us greatly improve our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think this paper has been revised carefully according to the comments from reviewers. This manuscript can be accepted for publication in this version.
Author Response
Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Minor corrections
Author Response
Thank you very much for your help and professional comments on our manuscript. According to your suggestion, we have further revised our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper has been improved significantly.
Some minor revisions are needed.
1. Check the spelling details, such as Water Resour+.
2. The repetition problem exists. For example, 1. Li, F.; Zhu, G.; Guo, C. Shiyang River ecosystem problems and countermeasures. Agricultural Sciences. 2013, 04, 72-78.
3. More recent literature is needed.
Author Response
Thank you again for your valuable suggestions which have greatly helped improve the quality of our manuscript. According to your suggestions, we have made further revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors' motivation for the question: "Why is the study not updated until present, the authors preferring to stop at the level of 2015? Seven (7) years represents an important period of time in which the described ecosystem could degrade or improve significantly." is not convincing. The article must be updated with recent data, as far as possible up to present.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the reviewer’ concern. Here we added further detailed explanation as below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
