Landscape Ecological Security of the Lijiang River Basin in China: Spatiotemporal Evolution and Pattern Optimization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have minor observations:
1. It is advisable to review how numbers in the text look like. The number format is not standardized. Some numbers show a comma as thousand's delimitation, others do not show any delimitation sign. It is better that all numbers depicting parameter values show a standardized numbering system.
2. In table 1, line 129, the heading of first column is "Exponential name." Why is "Exponential"? This column refers to indicators which is written in the sentence beginning at line 126. You should correct this heading or clarify it.
3. In the same table, regarding indicator VULNERABILITY (row 5 in the table, page 5), it is not clear that this indicator is the same Vi described in the row below for the indicator LOSS DEGREE. If so, please clarify.
4. In the same table 1, regarding ECOLOGICAL RISK INDEX, it is missing the i subindex to W (in the formula)
5. In table 2, line 170, is the column name "Stress factor" corresponds to parameter Dxj? It is recommended that add the parameter the symbol in each parameter within parenthesis to the second and third column (habitat suitability and stress factor). In that way, it is easy to compare what is required in formula 3 with table 2
6. In table 4, line 233, the rows named as "Cultivated land", "construction land", "water bodies", "meadow" and "unutilized" show different values por Ci, Fi, Di, Ei, Vi and Ri for the study period. However, values for LERI and LESI are the same for those landscape types. Are these LERI and LESI values are right or there were repeated by mistake? Please check the calculations. Is it a coincidence? Explain that.
7. In classification of ecological security level (Table 5, line 259), I would understand that "higher" should be above "high", and "lower" should be below "low". Although, you explained fairly in paragraph between lines 261 and 262. I think for the first level of security, it should be written "highest"; and for the last level of security, it should be written "lowest". I recommend that you should check this issue in order to avoid confusions with readers. In addition, the words "low ecological security" is repeated twice in that table (first column)
8. In line 364, I think there is a missing "c" in the word "ultivated".
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript developed a method- 11 logical framework for evaluating ecological security and optimizing ecological security patterns of the Lijiang River Basin (LRB).This study contains some interesting findings and is valuable for the integrated management of the LRB , as well as for the ecological restoration of other regions.
However, the main shortcoming of this study is the lack of explanation for the choice of precision in the evaluation units. Therefore, MAJOR revision is required before this manuscript can be accepted for publication in Sustainability.
Major comments:
1. Line 9: The first sentence of the abstract introduces the background of intensified human activities and climate change. However, this background seems to be absent in the text. I suggest adding the necessary background information in the introduction to match the content of the abstract.
2. Lines 28-39: The introduction thoroughly presents the concept of ecological security, which is excellent. However, it does not provide an introduction to the current global or Chinese background on ecological security. I believe such an introduction is necessary as it would enhance the significance and necessity of your research.
3. Line 125: Why choose 1.5 km units? Such precision selection does not seem common in previous research. I recommend adding text and references to explain this choice.
4. Lines 279-280: The font sizes of the numbers on the x-axis and y-axis in Figure 5 seem inconsistent (e.g., 2020). Please standardize these.
5. Lines 438-479: You propose many strategies for optimizing the ecological security pattern in Section 4.2, which is commendable. However, I suggest you add some references to support your recommendations, making them more persuasive.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
The revision seems properly addressed my recommendations. I have no further suggestions, and the paper can be considered for publishing.
With best regards
The reviewer
