Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The Abstract

(1) The mention of "two screens and three belts" in Abstract(“Located in the northern sand belt of China's "two screens and three belts,"”), without proper contextualization is abrupt and may cause confusion for international readers. To alleviate this issue, it would be beneficial to include a brief explanation in Figure 1 or consider deleting the sentence.

(2) You state, “The region is predominantly characterized by reduced ecological risk levels, with an average proportion exceeding 78%”. Upon verification, this statement contradicts the research findings presented in the text; therefore, it requires rectification.

2. The statements of the Introduction are with slightly poor logics, and the research purposes, research ideas and research innovation are not clear.

(1) The first paragraph of the introduction seems to have little relevance to the main content of this article. Please consider whether it should be deleted or merged with the following paragraph.

(2) You state, “alterations in ecological risk would result in corresponding changes in ecological risk to a certain degree [18]”.You mean ecological risk result in ecological risk?

(3) The academic issues addressed in this article have not been sufficiently condensed. The connotation of the mentioned relationship between ecological risks and the value of ecosystem services needs to be examined. It is important to understand the nature of their relationship and identify the driving processes or influencing mechanisms between them.

(4) What factors make this region a compelling choice for study, and what are the distinctive characteristics and significance of investigating case study areas? How does the mountain-oasis-desert systems described in the article differ from other ecosystems, and why is it specifically worthy of examination?

(5) The current research review is obviously insufficient and the introduction may need to be rewritten. What is the current research progress internationally and in China, what is the difference between the research and previous studies? In Introduction, please states explicitly the topic problem, research thoughts and research innovation. To solve the topic problem, which methods have been adopted and what is the differences and advantages of your method compared with other methods?

(6) Generally speaking, a clear and specific research objective is necessary in the final paragraph of the introduction.

3. Materials and Methods

(1) The article offers sufficient elucidation on the local natural geographical conditions, yet it lacks adequate introduction to the socio-economic background information.

(2) Considering that foreign readers are not familiar with the city of Aksu, it is suggested to clearly label the boundaries of Xinjiang Autonomous Region and Aksu Prefecture in Figure 1. This will help readers gain a deeper understanding of the geographical location and regional overview of this area.

At the same time, in Figure 1, it appears that Aksu City contains several enclaves, therefore it is necessary to provide explanatory explanations in the text and explicit identification of each enclave in Figure 1.

(3) Given the extensive amount of data presented in this paper, it is advisable to incorporate the requisite data sources, e.g., websites. Furthermore, it is recommended to incorporate tables for elucidating the presented data.

(4) The paper encompasses various research methodologies, thus it is recommended to construct a technical roadmap in order to enhance the coherence and comprehensibility of the content.

(5) You state, “Furthermore, the technique of Kriging interpolation was employed ... successfully accomplished the micro-reconstruction of land use data.”Are you suggesting the utilization of the kriging method for spatially interpolating land use data? Is this approach feasible?

4. Results

(1) The labels of the years in each subgraph are inconsistent with the title of Figure 2. Please make corrections.

(2) You mentioned e desert area in the south of Aksu and the pre-mountain desert area in the west,  central part of Aksu and the industrial parks located in the eastern region, city center of Aksu and its adjacent townships, etc, abruptly, without providing any contextual information. As these locations may be unfamiliar to international readers, it is essential to provide necessary explanations.

(3) You state, “The primary ecological service value derived from this area is centered around the provision of food resources.”Where can this conclusion be derived from and why?

(4) The results analysis section contains too much explanation and discussion, such as the content in Lines 341-344. It is recommended to move these contents to the next section Discussion.

(5) Similarly, the content in Lines 366-377 pertains to the section of Materials and Methods and is not appropriate for inclusion within the Results.

5. Discussion

(1) Similarly, the content in Lines 450-455 pertains to the section of Materials and Methods or Introduction, and is not appropriate for inclusion within the Discussion.

(2) The discussion in this paper lacks sufficient depth, and it is recommended to provide a comprehensive analysis of the key findings, compare them with previous studies, address research limitations, explore future prospects and highlight the practical value of the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below：

 (1) The mention of "two screens and three belts" in Abstract(“Located in the northern sand belt of China's "two screens and three belts,"”), without proper contextualization is abrupt and may cause confusion for international readers. To alleviate this issue, it would be beneficial to include a brief explanation in Figure 1 or consider deleting the sentence.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we have removed that section from the summary to prevent confusion for international readers.

(2) You state, “The region is predominantly characterized by reduced ecological risk levels, with an average proportion exceeding 78%”. Upon verification, this statement contradicts the research findings presented in the text; therefore, it requires rectification.

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, we have modified the formulation of the sentence (line27-28).

 

(3) The first paragraph of the introduction seems to have little relevance to the main content of this article. Please consider whether it should be deleted or merged with the following paragraph.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we've merged that paragraph with the next one (line37-52).

 

(4) You state, “alterations in ecological risk would result in corresponding changes in ecological risk to a certain degree [18]”. You mean ecological risk result in ecological risk?

We were really sorry for our careless mistake, we have corrected that statement (line65-66). “Indicating that alterations in ecological risk would result in corresponding changes in ecological services to a certain degree [23].”

 

(5) The academic issues addressed in this article have not been sufficiently condensed. The connotation of the mentioned relationship between ecological risks and the value of ecosystem services needs to be examined. It is important to understand the nature of their relationship and identify the driving processes or influencing mechanisms between them.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we've changed the introductory line (line36-96).

 

(6) What factors make this region a compelling choice for study, and what are the distinctive characteristics and significance of investigating case study areas? How does the mountain-oasis-desert systems described in the article differ from other ecosystems, and why is it specifically worthy of examination?

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we have added to the text the reasons why it is important to study mountain-desert-oasis ecosystems and why the city of Aksu is typical of mountain-desert-oasis ecosystems. The second largest mobile desert in the world in the south and the oasis in the center are the reasons why we set our sights here.

 

(7) The current research review is obviously insufficient and the introduction may need to be rewritten. What is the current research progress internationally and in China, what is the difference between the research and previous studies? In Introduction, please states explicitly the topic problem, research thoughts and research innovation. To solve the topic problem, which methods have been adopted and what is the differences and advantages of your method compared with other methods?

We apologise that we may have misrepresented ourselves. Inside the article, it is written that the current assessment of ecosystems for scientific evaluation is described, while the evaluation of ecosystem services and ecological risk evaluation are important types of evaluation of ecosystems, and the integration of the two from the stage of independence to each other is the main evaluation method at the current stage. The subject problem of this article is how to scientifically evaluate the ecosystems of a region, and the research idea is by combining ecosystem service function evaluation and ecological risk evaluation (line37-70).

 

(8) Generally speaking, a clear and specific research objective is necessary in the final paragraph of the introduction.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we have made our research objectives clear in the last paragraph of the introduction (line87-96).

 

(9) The article offers sufficient elucidation on the local natural geographical conditions, yet it lacks adequate introduction to the socio-economic background information.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, We've added local demographic and economic data (line115-116).

 

(10) Considering that foreign readers are not familiar with the city of Aksu, it is suggested to clearly label the boundaries of Xinjiang Autonomous Region and Aksu Prefecture in Figure 1. This will help readers gain a deeper understanding of the geographical location and regional overview of this area.

At the same time, in Figure 1, it appears that Aksu City contains several enclaves, therefore it is necessary to provide explanatory explanations in the text and explicit identification of each enclave in Figure 1.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we have added the locations of Xinjiang and Aksu Prefecture to the study area map. Several enclaves contained in Aksu City have also been added to the article with relevant content.

 

(11) Given the extensive amount of data presented in this paper, it is advisable to incorporate the requisite data sources, e.g., websites. Furthermore, it is recommended to incorporate tables for elucidating the presented data.

We were really sorry for our careless mistake. All the data sources have been shown in Table 1 (line132).

 

(12) The paper encompasses various research methodologies, thus it is recommended to construct a technical roadmap in order to enhance the coherence and comprehensibility of the content.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have made a work chart placed on line 206 to represent the steps and procedure of our study.

 

(13) You state, “Furthermore, the technique of Kriging interpolation was employed ... successfully accomplished the micro-reconstruction of land use data.”Are you suggesting the utilization of the kriging method for spatially interpolating land use data? Is this approach feasible?

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, We have added relevant citations there (line141).

 

(14) The labels of the years in each subgraph are inconsistent with the title of Figure 2. Please make corrections.

We were really sorry for our careless mistake, we've redrawn the picture, the year labels in each subfigure are already consistent with the captions in Figure 2 (line244).

 

(15) You mentioned e desert area in the south of Aksu and the pre-mountain desert area in the west, central part of Aksu and the industrial parks located in the eastern region, city center of Aksu and its adjacent townships, etc, abruptly, without providing any contextual information. As these locations may be unfamiliar to international readers, it is essential to provide necessary explanations.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added the names of some of the administrative districts to the study area map, as well as the location of the city center of Aksu City.

 

(16) You state, “The primary ecological service value derived from this area is centered around the provision of food resources.” Where can this conclusion be derived from and why?

We're very sorry for the inconvenience. We have added the land use map (Figure 3) and found that the main land use type in the medium value area is arable land, which in turn leads to the conclusion that the main ecological service value of the area is focused on the provision of food resources, based on Table 2 (line 257).

 

(17) The results analysis section contains too much explanation and discussion, such as the content in Lines 341-344. It is recommended to move these contents to the next section Discussion.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have moved the contents of lines 341-344 to lines 523-525 in the discussion section.

 

 

 

(18) Similarly, the content in Lines 450-455 pertains to the section of Materials and Methods or Introduction, and is not appropriate for inclusion within the Discussion.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Lines 450-455 are so repetitive that we have deleted these sentences and proceeded directly to our discussion section.

 

(19) The discussion in this paper lacks sufficient depth, and it is recommended to provide a comprehensive analysis of the key findings, compare them with previous studies, address research limitations, explore future prospects and highlight the practical value of the research.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. In the discussion sector, we have added relevant content, starting from the degree of clustering of ecological service value and ecological riskiness for the development of Aksu, and the region of the relevant references is explained, pointing out the difference between other scholars' research area Aksu City, highlighting the uniqueness of Aksu City.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is timely and well thought out.  Studies on ecosystem services are becoming very important recent time, and the present study show-cased the importance of identifying the ecosystem service and ecological risk index of Aksu region on Northwest China. The authors presented the study very well. However, I have issues with the way the results were presented. The authors kept reversing to what have already be reported in the methodology section in the results section. Further, the discussion to me was a mere regurgitation of what has already be presented in the results section. The authors should tell us the implications of their findings and how that can help better the services provided by the ecosystem for full  our benefit.

The some of the figures presented are not clear, authors should provided clearer figures in the revised manuscript.

Other detailed comments are contained in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor grammar errors should be corrected all through the manuscript.

Author Response

1. The authors kept reversing to what have already be reported in the methodology section in the results section. Further, the discussion to me was a mere regurgitation of what has already be presented in the results section. The authors should tell us the implications of their findings and how that can help better the services provided by the ecosystem for full our benefit.

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful reading. As suggested by the reviewers, we have removed relevant content from the results section and added content on how to help improve ecosystem provisioning in the discussion section.

 

2. Line 15, What do you mean by research object? Do you mean a case study?

We've changed the content to be: using Aksu City as the case study.

 

3. Line 17, These methods were used for what? Please briefly tell us.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we've added what these methods are for in the content.

 

4. Line 20 and 88, superscript please.

We were really sorry for our careless mistake, we've set it as a superscript.

 

5. Line 23, What does (3) stand for? I can't find 2 and 1.

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, we've added (1) and (2) to the front.

 

6. Line 23 and 26, What are the five periods?

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, we have changed the relevant description to read from 2000-2020.

 

7. Line 36, back this statement up with appropriate citations.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we've added the appropriate citations.

 

8. Line 65 and 71, contribute and “,” need to be changed?

We were really sorry for our careless mistake, we've changed contribute to contributing and  commas to periods.

 

9. Line 74, This should be a new paragraph.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we have set lines 74-79 as a new paragraph.

 

10. Line 79-81., Is this not your idea? Why the citation?

This is our idea, we have deleted the citation.

 

13. Line 81-84, Same as the comment above.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we have deleted the same paragraph.

 

14. Line 88. What do you mean by "The city's topography exhibits a high northwest and low southeast orientation."?

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, we've removed the unclear expression

 

15. Line 106. Figure1.

We were really sorry for our careless mistake, We have changed it to the correct expression

 

16. Line 131. Do you Xie et al.?

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we have removed the incorrect expression.

 

17. Line138, Does E standard for average here or I am missing something?

The E here is shorthand for ecology in the context of ecological service value, and we've removed the part that would have been misleading

 

18. line 202 to 210, Please go straight to your findings, you can move this to the methodology section.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we have removed the section and go straight to our findings

 

19. Line 237 to 238, The figures are not visible, please provide clearer figures

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, we've redrawn the picture more clearly.

 

20. 20. Line 242, Is it according to the Table, or your findings? You can say Table 2 shows........ or recast in a different way.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we have removed the paragraph to directly describe our findings.

 

21. Line 316 to 317, This is hard to read, please recast.

We replace the description with: It was found that the area of low ecological risk class areas in the study area gradually decreased between 2000 and 2020, reaching a minimum value of 0.07% in 2020

 

22. Line 370 to 372. Merge these two sentences.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we have merged the two sentences: The coefficients of the ecological service value and ecological risk index, as depicted in Figure 6, did not exhibit a clear normal distribution or linear relationship, instead, they displayed a moderately positive correlation

 

23. Line 372 to 374. I didn't see any report of Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis in your data analysis section, how come they are appearing here?

We were really sorry for our careless mistake, We have removed the relevant content that suddenly appeared here.

 

24. Line 374. I have asked consistently, what are the five periods? Please tell us.

We were very sorry for the mistake we made. We have replaced the sentence: The Spearman's correlation coefficients for the years 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 are 0.366, 0.368, 0.380, 0.366 and 0.364 with a significance level of 0.01 respectively.

 

25. Line 414 to 415. As I mentioned earlier, just go straight to your findings, you have already reported how this analysis was conducted. Please, this applies to all the subsections of your results.

We're sorry we made so many of the same mistakes. We removed that section and described our findings directly.

 

26. Line 450 to 459. Having said this, what is the implication(s) of this findings?

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, we have removed duplicate expressions.

 

27. Line 460 to 462. Having said this, what is the implication(s) of this findings?

It's possible that we may have misrepresented, here we would like to express a description of a general ecological situation in Aksu, indicating that the local ecology has declined, but not to a great extent.

 

28. Line 460 to 462. What do you mean by different from those of other scholar studies? Tell us where those studies were carried out.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, We have already added where other scholars' studies have been conducted: For example, Kang, P. et al. studied the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei coastal plain area [46], Xu, X. et al. studied the Taihu Lake basin [47], and Xing, L. et al. studied Hubei Province, China [48]；and we present other scholars' studies here to point out that the unique ecological characteristics of Aksu City - a large proportion of deserts - lead to insignificant changes in both the value of ecological services and ecological riskiness associated with them.

 

29. Line 486. Please this number is hanging, see how you did that of (1) above.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have supplemented the manuscript with relevant additions.

 

30. Line 501. This statement is hanging, kindly enumerate some of the limitations.

The relevant limitations are already mentioned in the manuscript: In the mountain-oasis-desert ecosystem, protection forests are usually provided within the Cropland in the oasis region, which is usually smaller in size and less continuous, and the area of forested land was not counted in the land classification, which ignores specific conditions in the ecosystem.

 

31.Line547. This statement is hard to read, please recraft.

This sentence is provided in the journal template.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Li et. al., 2024 (Sustainability)

The topic discussed in this paper is an important one and the authors developed it well. Ecosystem services are gaining in reputation in the scientific community and slowly getting into legislation, which is also pointed out in the paper. To improve the paper, I suggest the following major changes:

1)     Why is the study area divided in this way? Explain it, provide proof for such a need, and some supporting photos.

2)     Use the font time and font size on all the figures. Cartographically, make maps clear, and big enough with one table/north arrow/scale bar per figure. Rethink the raster resolution (the scale is small (regional), whereas the raster resolution is visibly in too big blocks.

3)     Put all the results from the Methods section to the Results section. Additionally, provide citations for the sources of the materials and of the methods. All data has its sources.

4)     It would be highly beneficial to add a WORK CHART to the Materials and Methods section. Perhaps graphically present the steps and procedures.

5)     In the METHODS section, explain how the MATERIALS were obtained (sources and citations are missing). You have provided sufficient information to replicate the study, but make it more transparent with the sources for the methods used or studies where those methods had been applied before your study.

6)     In the DISCUSSION, explain the significance of your finding. Elaborate on new insights, and connect them to the Introduction and relevant general literature + regional specifics. Use deduction, what lessons have been learned? Were there any unexpected findings? Relate those findings to similar studies and provide explanations. You may also elaborate on further research.

7)     The CONCLUSION needs to be rewritten. Now it is only a repetition of the results. Follow general IMRAD guidelines for writing conclusions. The conclusion should tell, why your research matters: give a lasting impression, summarize your thoughts, and demonstrate the importance of the ideas. Match it to the objectives and be concise.

8)     There are 12 sources (35%) from the last 5 years, whereas 22 are older. The situation should be vice-versa. Add newer sources and not only from the Chinese scientific environment. Include theoretical and practical studies from elsewhere as well.

 

Additionally, you will find below line-by-line suggestions and comments.

3: A space too many in front of ‘A’ probably.

4: Aksu City

9: What are two screens and three belts? Exclude in the abstract and include somewhere else + explain.

17: no comma at the end of the line

20: The symbol for square kilometer is not written in the right way (up); the same issue reoccurs

20: ESV of the area or what?

23, 26: there are numberings. Erase them. Additionally, provide range; I discourage such explicit results in abstracts.

29: Which human activities? Shorten the results recap and provide an additional sentence on the discussion.

Keywords: I suggest adding Aksu and China

36, 39…: Spacings before the citations are missing several times. Revise it throughout the paper.

38: THE recent decades

39: HENCE (and probably vice versa as well), the scientific evaluation…

41: 4-7 are only Chinese sources. Provide international background.

47: Provide sources for each aspect.

49: I suggest a new paragraph.

71: Full stop instead of a comma before ‘Similarly’.

75: Use ‘research’ instead of ‘investigation’.

76: ‘The study examines’ > ‘The aim of the study is…

87: Add reference to Figure 1 somewhere.

2.1. Sources are missing for all the data.

100-105: It is too poetic for a scientific paper to write ‘renowned for its …’ and ‘earning it the moniker …’ – rephrase everything in this part to make it consistent with the rest of the paper.

Figure 1: Why is the study area dissected into three parts? Provide a reasonable and explicit explanation and justify it. Alternatively, create a round-up study area.

2.2.1. What were the study’s accuracy requirements? Elaborate on that. Cite all the sources (now the citations are missing). Data also has sources.

2.2.2. What were the criteria for these types? Show examples of impervious and bare land types.

122, 124: Provide sources (over the last two decades, interpolation technique)

132-136: Why is the area description here? Move it to the right chapter.

136: What are the criteria for determining salty, sandy and Gobi terrain? I am especially interested in the Gobi one.

149: Source?

151, 152, Table 1: These are results, aren’t they? Move that to the Results section and keep only methods here.

157: From FP onwards, the parameters are not in the table. Why are they in the legend? If they don’t have any function, omit them at this point.

169: There are two formulas > The formulas for the calculation ARE…

172: if it is a continuation of a sentence, start it with lowercase.

178: Which other studies used these methods? Provide citations.

181: Provide sources, who developed the model or where was it used in similar research. The same comment applies to the LISA approach.

188: Perhaps I missed it, but what is W? Check if it is explained.

196-199: Elaborate on the differences between the zones. The methods should be understandable + provide sources for this categorization.

200: I suggest renaming the chapter to ‘Results and Analysis’.

203-204: According to which classification criteria?

206: When mentioning climates, stick to Köppen’s classification. Add sources.

211: Classification criteria for Gobi and other types.

213: I suggest a map of land use.

222: ‘Plays a vital role’ – source?

225: Elaborate on the result and move it to the Results section.

232: Source?

Figure 2: The font size is too small. It isn't easy to distinguish the categories. I suggest zooming in on the rest from bare land. There are not the same categories in the legend and in the figure.

242: Start with ‘The value…’ and omit redundant words in the beginning.

242-266: The text is ok, but can you provide more analysis and less calculations of the results (as in 3.2.2.)?

244: I suggest mentioning Table 2 here.

275: Source of the method?

281: Explain the first part.

282: The phrase is too general. It is the same anywhere in the world. If Aksu is special, provide references and elaborate on that.

299: 2015-2020: Sources?

304: It's really difficult to follow this part. Unclear. Revise it.

313: Any sources for the breakpoint approach?

315-326: Too repetitive; we can see that from the table.

328: Citation necessary after ‘forts’

333: Is this Figure 4?

351-359: ‘Not much, only small’ This is too vague for a scientific paper. How was this ‘much’ measured? Rephrase

Table 3: Put it on one page.

3.4. is very important and well written.

Figure 6 should be placed next to its mentioning (line 371).

Figure 6: Bivariate spatial correlation is mentioned only in the title of Figure 6. Where else can you mention it? Can you make this figure clearer if it is relevant? Namely, the results are similar if looked at this scale.

Figure 7: Make one coherent figure out of all the maps. Spaces are missing between the numberings and years, the font is prolonged upwards, and there are north arrows and scales with every figure. What was the raster resolution? Can you make it similar to other maps?

450: Xinjiang, China

452: What is a typical arid zone mountain-oasis-desert ecosystem? It is nowhere explained.

454: source for salinization and desertification?

457: I suggest the usage of full phrases for ESV and ERI in this case; namely, it is an introduction to the discussion.

459: How? Has there been anything done in this scope so far?

461: were small – in comparison to what?

469: explain what you mean by ‘it is more difficult …’. It is not clear or coherent. It needs some support.

470: what kind of transfer area? What is that?

472-510: add relevant sources everywhere. All these claims cannot be supported by just one citation. Add them after: grain producing area, has become a major…, promoting the …, highlighting…, risk…, disasters…, patterns…, depleting…, declining…, soil salinization phenomena…, activities…, it is important to…, forests are usually…, which is usually smaller… These two paragraphs need to be concrete, and linked to sustainable development goals (e.g. in the last sentence) and other relevant global/regional studies.

524: do such values belong to a conclusion? Rethink it.

Funding: There are brackets outside the full stop at the end.

Source 2: the year should be in bold.

I believe the paper is sound in its argument and the methods are good. After revising it, it shall be an excellent example of high-quality research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English editing is required. The text is readable and understandable. However, some articles are missing (the), and there are several mistakes with spacings.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.

 

1) Why is the study area divided in this way? Explain it, provide proof for such a need, and some supporting photos

The study area is divided in this way due to the influence of local administrative planning; the two blocks to the left and below in the study area are enclaves of the city of Aksu. We've added relevant content to the text.

 

2) Use the font time and font size on all the figures. Cartographically, make maps clear, and big enough with one table/north arrow/scale bar per figure. Rethink the raster resolution (the scale is small (regional), whereas the raster resolution is visibly in too big blocks.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We've redrawn the images within the article and the images are clear enough and each figure has a table/northern arrow/scale bar on it.

 

3) Put all the results from the Methods section to the Results section. Additionally, provide citations for the sources of the materials and of the methods. All data has its sources.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have posted all the results from the Methods section to the Results section and have made a table placed on line 132 to indicate the source of all the data.

 

4) It would be highly beneficial to add a WORK CHART to the Materials and Methods section. Perhaps graphically present the steps and procedures.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have made a work chart placed on line 206 to represent the steps and procedure of our study.

 

5) In the METHODS section, explain how the MATERIALS were obtained (sources and citations are missing). You have provided sufficient information to replicate the study, but make it more transparent with the sources for the methods used or studies where those methods had been applied before your study.

We were very sorry for the mistake we made. We have added relevant sources and citations after the material in the Methods section, and the methods are now cited within the article.

 

6) In the DISCUSSION, explain the significance of your finding. Elaborate on new insights, and connect them to the Introduction and relevant general literature + regional specifics. Use deduction, what lessons have been learned? Were there any unexpected findings? Relate those findings to similar studies and provide explanations. You may also elaborate on further research.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. In the discussion sector, we have added relevant content, starting from the degree of clustering of ecological service value and ecological riskiness for the development of Aksu, and the region of the relevant references is explained, pointing out the difference between other scholars' research area Aksu City, highlighting the uniqueness of Aksu City.

 

7) The CONCLUSION needs to be rewritten. Now it is only a repetition of the results. Follow general IMRAD guidelines for writing conclusions. The conclusion should tell, why your research matters: give a lasting impression, summarize your thoughts, and demonstrate the importance of the ideas. Match it to the objectives and be concise.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have rewritten the conclusions section to point out the importance of our study, and now that section is no longer a repetition of the results.

 

8) There are 12 sources (35%) from the last 5 years, whereas 22 are older. The situation should be vice-versa. Add newer sources and not only from the Chinese scientific environment. Include theoretical and practical studies from elsewhere as well.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have increased the relevant literature, which now totals 65 references, with 46 references (70%) from the last five years, and added theory and practice from the rest of the world.

 

1. Line3. A space too many in front of ‘A’ probably.

We were really sorry for our careless mistake，we have deleted the space in front of ‘A’.

 

2. Line4. Aksu City

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we've changed all the Aksu within the article to Aksu, City.

 

3. Line9. What are two screens and three belts? Exclude in the abstract and include somewhere else + explain.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. In case foreign readers don't understand the three screens and two bands, we've removed that section.

 

4. Line17. No comma at the end of the line

We have removed the comma.

 

5. Line20. The symbol for square kilometer is not written in the right way (up); the same issue reoccurs.

We were really sorry for our careless mistake, we've set it as a superscript.

 

6. Line20. ESV of the area or what?

Thank you for your suggestion, we have changed the wording of the sentence: The total ecological service value (ESV) in the area experienced a decline of 3.41×108 yuan within the study's time frame, exhibiting a decrease rate of 6.73%.

 

7. Line20 and 26. There are numberings. Erase them. Additionally, provide range; I discourage such explicit results in abstracts.

We are sorry for our carelessness, we have added 1 and 2 to the front; and changed the specific numbers to ranges.

 

8. Line29. Which human activities? Shorten the results recap and provide an additional sentence on the discussion.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have briefly added the relevant sentence: The primary factor contributing to the heightened ecological risk in the study region is predominantly attributed to human activities such as urban expansion, agricultural production, and over-grazing.

 

9. Line30. Keywords: I suggest adding Aksu and China

Thank you for your suggestion, we've added Aksu City and China to our keyword list.

 

10. Line 36 and 39… Spacings before the citations are missing several times. Revise it throughout the paper.

We were really sorry for our careless mistake, Spacings before the citations have been added throughout the article.

 

11. Line38. THE recent decades

Thank you for your suggestion, we have changed the sentence to: in the recent decades.

 

12. Line39. HENCE (and probably vice versa as well), the evaluation…

Thank you for your suggestion, we have changed the sentence to: Hence, the scientific evaluation of ecosystems.

 

13. Line 41. 4-7 are only Chinese sources. Provide international background.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have modified the citation to provide some international background.

15. Darvill, R.; Lindo, Z. The Inclusion of Stakeholders and Cultural Ecosystem Services in Land Management Trade-off Decisions Using an Ecosystem Services Approach. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 31, 533–545, doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0260-y.
16. Lautenbach, S.; Kugel, C.; Lausch, A.; Seppelt, R. Analysis of Historic Changes in Regional Ecosystem Service Provisioning Using Land Use Data. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 676–687, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.09.007.
17. Daily, G.C.; Söderqvist, T.; Aniyar, S.; Arrow, K.; Dasgupta, P.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Folke, C.; Jansson, A.; Jansson, B.-O.; Kautsky, N.; et al. The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value. Science 2000, 289, 395–396, doi:10.1126/science.289.5478.395.

 

14. Line47. Provide sources for each aspect.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, we have provided sources for each of aspect: The concept of ecological service function serves as the foundation for decision-making related to ecological protection [12], ecological function zoning [13], and eco-logical compensation [14].

 

15. Line49. I suggest a new paragraph.

Thank you for your suggestion, we've turned this paragraph into a new paragraph.

 

16. Line71. Full stop instead of a comma before ‘Similarly’.

We were really sorry for our careless mistake, this error has been corrected.

 

17. Line75. Use ‘research’ instead of ‘investigation’.

Thank you for your suggestion, this error has been corrected: Given the aforementioned circumstances, this study focuses on Aksu City as the subject of research.

 

 

18. Line76. ‘The study examines’ > ‘The aim of the study is…

Thank you for your suggestion, the relevant content has been rewritten and ‘The aim of the study is’ has been moved to line 90.

 

19. Line87. Add reference to Figure 1 somewhere.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, Figure 1 has been added to line 100.

 

20. Line108. Sources are missing for all the data.

We were really sorry for our careless mistake. All the data sources have been shown in Table 1.

 

21. Line100 to 105. It is too poetic for a scientific paper to write ‘renowned for its …’ and ‘earning it the moniker …’ – rephrase everything in this part to make it consistent with the rest of the paper.

Thank you for your suggestion, The expression has been replaced with: Its production of long-staple cotton constitutes over 90% of the China's total, and it is known as the "the birthplace of long-staple cotton".

 

22. Line 106. Why is the study area dissected into three parts? Provide a reasonable and explicit explanation and justify it. Alternatively, create a round-up study area.

The study area is divided in this way due to the influence of local administrative planning; the two blocks to the left and below in the study area are enclaves of the city of Aksu. We've added relevant content to the text.

 

22. Line 111. What were the study’s accuracy requirements? Elaborate on that. Cite all the sources (now the citations are missing). Data also has sources.

We have removed that section because the data source did not provide accuracy data.

 

23. Line 118. What were the criteria for these types? Show examples of impervious and bare land types.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have added the source of the criteria in the relevant location.

We classified the study area into six different land use types: cropland, forest, grass and shrubland, waterbody, impervious, and bare land [27]

 

24. Line122,124. Provide sources (over the last two decades, interpolation technique)

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, we've added sources in the relevant places.

Over the last two decades, assessment cells [26] have been employed to assess the worth of ecological services and ecological threats within the designated research re-gion. Furthermore, the technique of Kriging interpolation [28] was employed to elucidate the spatial and temporal manifestations of these variables.

25. Line132-136. Why is the area description here? Move it to the right chapter.

Thank you very much for your advice, the area description has been deleted.

 

26. Line136. What are the criteria for determining salty, sandy and Gobi terrain? I am especially interested in the Gobi one.

Specific classification criteria are shown in table 1

Table 1. Classification of bare land

Classifications	Definition
Desert	Refers to land with a sand-covered surface and less than 5 % vegetation cover, including deserts and excluding deserts in water systems.
Gobi	Refers to land with a surface dominated by gravel and with less than 5 % vegetative cover.
Saline soil	Refers to land where saline accumulates on the surface and vegetation is so sparse that only strongly saline-tolerant plants can grow.
Marshland	This refers to land that is flat and low-lying, poorly drained, chronically wet, seasonally waterlogged or perennially waterlogged, and where wet vegetation grows on the surface.
Bare soil	Refers to land with surface soil cover and less than 5% vegetation cover
Bare rock texture	Refers to land with a rocky or gravelly surface that covers >5 % of the land area.

 

27.Line 149. Source?

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, relevant sources have been given in Table 1 (line132).

 

28. Line151,152. Table 1: These are results, aren’t they? Move that to the Results section and keep only methods here.

Thank you for your suggestion, we've moved this table to lines 258 and 259.

 

29. Line 157. From FP onwards, the parameters are not in the table. Why are they in the legend? If they don’t have any function, omit them at this point.

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, from FP onwards, the parameters are in the second column of the Secondary Classification.

 

30. Line 169. There are two formulas > The formulas for the calculation ARE…

Thank you for your suggestion, we've changed the sentence to: The formulas for the calculation are in line 174.

 

 

31. Line172. If it is a continuation of a sentence, start it with lowercase.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have changed it to lowercase at the beginning.

 

32. Line178. Which other studies used these methods? Provide citations.

Thank you for your advice, we've added the relevant citations.

with reference to previous studies [26,27], ?+?+?=1, ?, ?, ? are 0.5, 0.3 and 0.2, respectively.

 

33. Line181. Provide sources, who developed the model or where was it used in similar research. The same comment applies to the LISA approach.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have provided sources, and have similarly added sources in the LISA Methods section.

 

34. Line188. Perhaps I missed it, but what is W? Check if it is explained.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. We have added the meaning of W.  is the spatial weight value

 

35. Line196-199. Elaborate on the differences between the zones. The methods should be understandable + provide sources for this categorization.

Thank you for your suggestion, we've changed the content and added sources.

The study area can be categorised into five groups according to the correlation: high service value-high ecological risk (H-H), low service value-high ecological risk (L-H), high service value-low ecological risk (H-L), low service value-low ecological risk (L-L), and not significant (N) [26].

 

36. Line200. I suggest renaming the chapter to ‘Results and Analysis’.

Thank you for your suggestion, the chapter has been changed to Results and Analysis.

 

37. Line203-204. According to which classification criteria?

Another reviewer said there was redundancy here, and we have removed that sentence.

 

38. Line206. When mentioning climates, stick to Köppen’s classification. Add sources.

Thank you for your suggestion, we've categorised and added sources for Arkansas City's climate according to the Köppen classification.

 

39. Line211. Classification criteria for Gobi and other types.

Classification criteria for Gobi and other type already be given in table 1 of question 26.

 

40. Line213. I suggest a map of land use.

Thank you for your suggestion, we've added the land use map on line 242 as Figure 2.

41. Line222. ‘Plays a vital role’ – source?

Thank you for your suggestion, we have added the source.

The waterbody holds significant ecological value for a desert-dominated metropolis, as water plays a vital role in shaping the city's dynamics [40].

 

42. Line225. Elaborate on the result and move it to the Results section.

We think you've misread this paragraph, which is already in the results section.

 

43. Line232. Source?

Thank you very much for the heads up, we have added the source.

Cropland is the key to maintaining national food security and economic security [41]

 

44. Figure 2: The font size is too small. It isn't easy to distinguish the categories. I suggest zooming in on the rest from bare land. There are not the same categories in the legend and in the figure.

We are sorry for our carelessness, we've enlarged the font and made the legend the same as in the figure.

 

45. Line242. Start with ‘The value…’ and omit redundant words in the beginning.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have changed the sentence to The value of ecosystem services in Aksu (Table 2).

 

46. Line242-266. The text is ok, but can you provide more analysis and less calculations of the results (as in 3.2.2.)?

Thank you for your suggestion, we have removed the partial calculation of the paragraph.

 

47. Line244. I suggest mentioning Table 2 here.

Thank you for your suggestion, Table 2 has been added to line 268.

 

48. Line275. Source of the method?

Thank you very much for the heads up, the source of the method has been added in line 297.

 

49. Line281. Explain the first part

Thank you for your suggestion, we explain this in lines 303-305 in the manuscript: The distribution pattern of ESV in Aksu exhibits a tendency towards "overall dispersion and local staggering" in a general sense, with distinct limits for each class region but a certain regional mixture.

 

50. Line282. The phrase is too general. It is the same anywhere in the world. If Aksu is special, provide references and elaborate on that.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have deleted the sentence.

 

51. Line299. 2015-2020: Sources?

Thank you for your suggestion, we have added the source in line 321: The distribution pattern indicates that the Aksu Industrial Park underwent initial development between 2010 and 2015, followed by gradual expansion and development from 2015 to 2020 [44].

 

52. Line304. It's really difficult to follow this part. Unclear. Revise it.

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, we rewrote the paragraph in lines 327-330: The medium-value zone distribution is relatively concentrated, primarily in the central alluvial plain area. Arable land dominates the area, with the provision of food re-sources serving as its primary ecological service value.

 

53. Line313. Any sources for the breakpoint approach?

Thank you for your suggestion, we added the source of the breakpoint approach: The study area's ecological risk class was categorized into five classes using the natural breakpoint approach [43].

 

54. Line315-326. Too repetitive; we can see that from the table.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have deleted part of the paragraph.

 

 

55. Line328. Citation necessary after ‘forts’

Thank you for your suggestion, we have added the source.

The transformation of grassland and bare land into permanent farmland has occurred as a result of changes in the natural environment and man-made reclamation efforts [45].

 

56. Line333. Is this Figure 4?

We are sorry for our carelessness, Figure 4 has been added to line 349.

 

57. Line351-359. ‘Not much, only small’ This is too vague for a scientific paper. How was this ‘much’ measured? Rephrase

Thank you for your suggestion, we've changed this kind of vague sentence in line 360 to 372.

 

58. Table 3: Put it on one page.

Thank you for your suggestion, Table 3 has been on one page (line374).

 

59. Figure 6 should be placed next to its mentioning (line 371).

Thank you very much for your suggestions, Figure 6 has been placed where it mentioning (line427).

 

60. Figure 6: Bivariate spatial correlation is mentioned only in the title of Figure 6. Where else can you mention it? Can you make this figure clearer if it is relevant? Namely, the results are similar if looked at this scale.

Thank you very much for your suggestions, Bivariate spatial correlation have been made (line427-434).

 

61. Figure 7: Make one coherent figure out of all the maps. Spaces are missing between the numberings and years, the font is prolonged upwards, and there are north arrows and scales with every figure. What was the raster resolution? Can you make it similar to other maps?

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, we have redrawn the diagram so that the layout is similar to the other maps (line461).

 

62. Line450-459.

As suggested by other reviewers, this section is redundant and we have deleted the paragraph.

 

63. Line461. Were small – in comparison to what?

Thank you very much for your suggestions, we have changed the presentation (line466).

 

 

 

64. Line469. Explain what you mean by ‘it is more difficult …’. It is not clear or coherent. It needs some support.

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, we meant to compare the area with the Central Oasis, and we've changed the way we describe it in that regard (line477-480).

 

65. Line470. What kind of transfer area? What is that?

We're very sorry for the inconvenience, we have rewritten the section and the transfer area has been clearly expressed within the text (line477-480).

 

66. Line472-510. add relevant sources everywhere. All these claims cannot be supported by just one citation. Add them after: grain producing area, has become a major…, promoting the …, highlighting…, risk…, disasters…, patterns…, depleting…, declining…, soil salinization phenomena…, activities…, it is important to…, forests are usually…, which is usually smaller… These two paragraphs need to be concrete, and linked to sustainable development goals (e.g. in the last sentence) and other relevant global/regional studies.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. As per your suggestion, we have added to these two paragraphs from a clustering perspective and added the sources cited. Suggestions are given for things to look out for in the local development process. (line485-535).

 

67. Line524. Do such values belong to a conclusion? Rethink it.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have rewritten the discussion section as you suggested (line538-564).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) Similar to the preceding comment, the revised statement “The main characteristic of the region is the elevation in the level of ecological risk, with an average proportion exceeding 78%”, remains incongruous with the research findings presented in the article.

(2) Similar to the preceding comment, the statements of the Introduction are with slightly poor logics, and the research purposes, research ideas and research innovation are not clear.

(3) Similar to the preceding comment, you mentioned the industrial parks, Aksu River, Palace Lake, Dolang Reservoir, etc, abruptly, without providing any contextual information. As these locations may be unfamiliar to international readers, it is essential to provide necessary explanations in 2.1.

(4) The discussion in this paper lacks sufficient depth, you should provide a comprehensive analysis of the key findings and highlight the practical value of the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.

 

(1) Similar to the preceding comment, the revised statement “The main characteristic of the region is the elevation in the level of ecological risk, with an average proportion exceeding 78%”, remains incongruous with the research findings presented in the article.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. We have changed the relevant presentation to prevent misunderstanding by readers (line27-28).

 

(2) Similar to the preceding comment, the statements of the Introduction are with slightly poor logics, and the research purposes, research ideas and research innovation are not clear.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the manuscript. We have added some relevant content about ESV and ERI in the introduction to make the whole introduction more logical, and we have re-subdivided the paragraphs to make the context of the manuscript more fluent.

 

(3) Similar to the preceding comment, you mentioned the industrial parks, Aksu River, Palace Lake, Dolang Reservoir, etc, abruptly, without providing any contextual information. As these locations may be unfamiliar to international readers, it is essential to provide necessary explanations in 2.1.

We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. We've added descriptions of the Aksu River, Palace Lake, Dolang Reservoir, and Industrial Park on lines 120-122, 130-133.

 

(4) The discussion in this paper lacks sufficient depth, you should provide a comprehensive analysis of the key findings and highlight the practical value of the research.

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the manuscript. In the manuscript, we partitioned Aksu City according to the degree of agglomeration of ecological service values and ecological risks, and provided rational recommendations for each area for rational local development.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a great job both textually and cartographically. They followed all my instructions and provided a very good revision. I believe the paper will contribute greatly to the knowledge of the topic and the area. Thank you.

I believe there was a misunderstanding of my opinion ‘Cartographically, make maps clear, and big enough with one table/north arrow/scale bar per figure' (for which I apologise if I was not clear). What I meant is that if there are several maps in one Figure (let us say 5 maps in Figure 6), one legend, one arrow, and one scale bar are enough. However graphically, there are still different font sizes and bold prints among the figures (e.g. 5 and six). Spacings are missing in Figure 5 between specific parts of the figure (e.g. (a)) and the years (e.g. (a)2015). It is the same with many other figures.

Is there a line too many in Table 5? If there is, I suggest erasing it.

I suggest correcting these minor visual thing before publishing the paper so that it will be outstanding in all respects.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.

 

（1）I believe there was a misunderstanding of my opinion ‘Cartographically, make maps clear, and big enough with one table/north arrow/scale bar per figure' (for which I apologise if I was not clear). What I meant is that if there are several maps in one Figure (let us say 5 maps in Figure 6), one legend, one arrow, and one scale bar are enough. However graphically, there are still different font sizes and bold prints among the figures (e.g. 5 and six). Spacings are missing in Figure 5 between specific parts of the figure (e.g. (a)) and the years (e.g. (a)2015). It is the same with many other figures.

We're sorry we misunderstood your suggestion at first, but now we've drawn all the figures according to your request, making sure that all the figures have the same font and weight. And we've added spaces in all specific sections, and we've fixed the little visual problems.

Is there a line too many in Table 5? If there is, I suggest erasing it.

 

（2）Is there a line too many in Table 5? If there is, I suggest erasing it.

We apologize for our carelessness, we accidentally added an extra line when revising the manuscript, and we have added it to remove.