Research on the Trade-Offs and Synergies of Ecosystem Services and Their Impact Factors in the Taohe River Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review comments (sus-2387054)
General comments: The authors explored the spatial and temporal changes of ESs in the Taohe River Basin, and analyzed their trade-offs and synergies and the leading factors to determine relationships among the three ESs. The manuscript has been generally well organized and has High-quality figures, and falls within the scope of Sustainability. However, the article has suffered some weaknesses and has to be major revised to qualify for publication in Sustainability. The following suggestions are provided for the authors in case of re-submission after revision.
1. In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review with a clear and concise state of the art analysis, and not the presentation of research cases.
2. It is important to clarify why NPP, WY and SC were selected to study in the Taohe River Basin.
3. Equation 1 is wrong, n has a different meaning, and different letters should be applied. R should be marked with a lower corner to indicate that the value is for a raster, and if you want to express the entire study area, you only need the total value; In addition, formulas 1 and 2 have repeated letters n in different meanings, which is not recommended. In addition, none of the x, y, z variables in Equation 2 have been explained.
4. The number of driving factors is small and should be increased appropriately. The purpose of the paper is the driving mechanism of the research relationship. The lack of driving factors affects the quality of the paper. And some drivers can be added, such as distance from roads, distance from cultivated land, and some typical ecological and socio-economic indicators characteristic of the study area.
5． MGWR model was chosen for the study, so the advantages of this model compared with GWR model in bandwidth calculation should also be analyzed in result.
6. It is important to explicitly identify the criteria used to choose study periods and to examine how temporal and geographical dynamics affect the trade-off between synergistic effects. Given that extensive ecological restoration was only begun after 2000, it is advised to analyze the changes in synergy between that period and 1980 and 1990 prior to 2000. The inclusion of the research period may increase the article's research significance.
English should be improved
Author Response
We have revised the reviewers' comments, and the details of the revisions can be found in the word file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I am very glad to review this manuscript on “Research on the trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services and their influencing factors in the Taohe River Basin”. The manuscript is well-written data compilation and analysis is also excellent. The paper addresses a topical issue of trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services. To this end, I don’t have major comments on the paper, but the paper could benefit from a final reading to rectify the few editorial errors. Specifically, some sentences are relatively long and hence not easy to read. Kindly shorten them. For example, pg. 2, line 58 and line 74. There are also a few of those sentences that can be shortened further
Some sentences are relatively long and hence not easy to read. Kindly shorten them. For example, pg. 2, line 58 and line 74. There are also a few of those sentences that can be shortened further
Author Response
We have revised the reviewers' comments, and the details of the revisions can be found in the word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Research on the trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services and their influencing factors in the Tahoe River Basin
##Review
Recommendation
We advise the authors to perform minor revisions.
Overview and general recommendation:
The research question presented in the manuscript is compelling, clear and aligned to the general scope of the journal. Evidence shedding lights on the qualitative relationships between different types of ESs, and on the factors influencing such interactions is certainly needed to design sustainable planning projects targeting environmental and human health and well-being.
We advise the authors check the whole manuscript for correct use of the Possessive Case (or Genitive Case). For objects it is best to use the preposition “of”. For example, at L. 107, “Taohe River Basin’s geographical and temporal change” should be rephrased as “the geographical and temporal change of the Taohe River basin”.
The Introduction section clearly states the scope of the study and makes a good overview of the background theoretical context, which contributes to support the validity of the research questions by addressing their relevance for local policy-making.
In lines 79-90 some reference to the methodology applied is given. However, we suggest the Authors shorten this paragraph and delay a more detailed explanation of the methodology to its own section. Not enough details were given to properly frame the methodology, so that it is better to do it later.
At L. 50 replace “population growth” with “resource use” or “resource depletion”, which are the direct causes. At L. 51 replace “in poor condition” with “degraded”.
L. 68: GDP has not presented in full before using the acronym, however it is done later at L. 154: be consistent.
Another relevant aspect to consider in this section, as well as in the rest of the manuscript (including the Abstract), is consistency in the use of terminology, regarding specifically:
- “ESs” (acronym) and “ecosystem services”. The acronym should be introduced in the abstract first (L. 10), and then the authors should not switch back to “ecosystem services” (see for example L. 41, 59 etc.): check the whole manuscript for consistency.
- Impact Factor (L. 71, 87, etc.) vs Influence/Influencing Factor (L. 13, 80, etc.): check the whole manuscript for consistency, especially in relation to the Methods section (e.g. title of subsection 2.4.2).
- Use of NPP-WY and NPP-SC to name relationships rather than “NPP-WY and SC”, as the latter can be misleading, or “NPP-soil conservation” (L. 237).
When different types of ESs are mentioned (L. 37), supply ESs should be referenced as Provisioning Services, and Cultural Services should be mentioned too.
The Methods section is overall well-structured. More details should however be provided to the reader in subsections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3, as the Methodology is complex, and the reader may have difficulties in following along. More specifically, the first terms in equations 3 and 6 should be contextualized in relation to their use to obtained the results presented later on.
In subsection 2.4.1 and Table 1using “image elements” can possibly be misleading, it is better to use “pixels”. In subsection 2.4.2 please specify better you is meant by independent vs dependent variables, by referring to the variables as you correlated them (L. 190-194).
The Results section is complete and well-supported by tabular data. In subsection 2.3 add “InVEST mode suite”. In subsection 3.1 units measures for SC are t/hm2 and not t/hm (L. 215). In subsection 3.2 the word “significant/insignificant” (L. 226, 232, 234) can be misleading: it is better to use an expression in line with the legend of Fig. 3. In subsection 3.4 please explain what “OLS” and “AICc” are, as they were not presented in the Methods section and not mentioned in full in the Results. Also, at L. 271-274 the second term of the relation is missing: please clarify and avoid repetitions.
The Discussion and Conclusion sections are clear and well-organized. There are a couple stand-alone phrases which should be contextualized and complemented with another sentence. See for example L. 314-316; 352-353.
Figures and tables:
Table 1. For WY, in the “Mathematical Algorithms” column, write “actual annual evapotranspiration”, not “annual actual ev.”
Minor editing of English Language required.
Author Response
We have revised the reviewers' comments, and the details of the revisions can be found in the word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
