Water Ecological Security Pattern Based on Hydrological Regulation Service: A Case Study of the Upper Hanjiang River

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the paper and made a few suggestions in my report to improve and strengthen the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest that a native speaker thoroughly proofread the paper to correct some grammatical errors that I believe could be from translation.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. General comments Comments 1:The paper has some good interpretations but far too many theoretical and grammatical errors that need to be addressed. I suggest that a native speaker thoroughly proofread the paper. Furthermore, the paper lacks cohesion of ideas, and paragraphs do not follow well. Please could the authors spend more time synthesizing their findings to improve the paper. Otherwise, it makes for an interesting analysis of the region over the seasons. Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the ideological cohesion and logical sequence of the full text in the revised draft. The grammar and theory of the full text have been checked and modified. Finally, the seasonal analysis is also strengthened. Comments 2:The authors need to check the spacing at the end of their sentences when you reference. There are many inconsistencies. Response 2: Agree. We have checked and modified the references. Comments 3:Page 1 seems to have the “Land 2023,12X …” Please double-check the template. Response 3: Agree.We have modified this. Comments 4:Please increase the resolution of all the figures. Response 4: Agree.We have changed most of the images in the article. Comments 5:In my view, I think having only 30 references for such a “ hot” topic, especially in China, maybe too low. I would propose that the authors add a few more references to the manuscript, particularly in the discussion section, to provide some comparisons. Response 5: Agree.We have increased the reference temperature literature, and there are 50 references in the revised draft. Abstract Comments 6: Ln19 – Please check the capitalization of “Therefore” or put a period before the word as the sentence is too long Response 6: Agree. The Abstract has been revised, as has the sentence. Comments 7: The abstract is concluded haphazardly. Please refine the conclusion to provide clear results and perhaps a recommendation. Response 7: Agree. The abstract has been completely revised. Introduction Comments 8:Ln99, I think there is an error in the naming of the “Yangtze River Han River.” Response 8: Agree. "Yangtze River Han River." has been revised to "Yangtse River" and "Hanjiang River". Comments 9: Ln 101 – same as the comment above, “Yellow River Wei River”, Response 9: Agree. The full text has been modified river name. Comments 10: Ln102-107 – The sentence is too long. Please split it. Response 10: Agree. The section has been revised and the sentence has been revised. Comments 11: The authors state a lot of methodological concepts and descriptions of the study area and the climate associated with the region. I think you need to move around certain sections to the methodology and the others to the study area description. Response 11: Agree. We have revised it as suggested. Comments 12: This section does not flow very well. Much information is presented; however, it is not coherent. The reader cannot fully comprehend what is the main aim of the paper. In every paragraph, you also end it with the aim of your study, which can be rather confusing. Response 12: Agree. We have revised the whole introduction. Comments 13: Ln157 – “Rich runoff” I would suggest using “high runoff.” o “Dangerous canyons” to “large canyons” Response 13: Agree. We have revised this section, as well as the related syntax issues Comments 14: Figure 1 – Please increase the resolution and edit the figure, as it is currently confusing. o Please change “water system” to “River.” o Provincial boundaries are not visible. o Rather, put a red border around the study area. o In the bottom image, you state, “The River” Which one are you referring to? Response 14: Agree. Figure 1 has been reworked. See line 188 of the revised draft. Comments 15:Ln171-172 – Grammar and punctuation. Response 15: Agree. We have revised this part. Comments 16: Ln174 – Please write HRU in full, as it is the first time you mention it. Response 16: Agree. HRU has been given its full name when it first appears, see line 20 of the abstract. Comments 17: Figure 2 – Please increase the resolution o Please make the headings of a,b,c,d more clear and punctuate correctly. Response 17: Agree. Figure 2 has been deleted and the interpretation of the input data has been tabulated, as shown in Table 1. Comments 18:Ln184-185 – How is the nitrogen and phosphorus migration and transformation process in the SWAT model shown in Figure 2? I only see terrain features and a soil map Response 18: Agree. The introduction of the N\P transfer process in the SWAT model has been added in the revised draft, see lines 209-228 of the revised draft. Comments 19:Ln202 – Where is Table 2? Where is Table 1表2在哪里?表1为 Response 19: Agree. I am very sorry that Table 1 and Table 2 were not added due to the author's negligence. Table 1 and Table 2 have been added in the modification process. Comments 20:Ln2017 – Is the P factor really up 100% This does not seem corrector contradicts what you mention in Ln218. Please revise Response 20: Agree. What this means is that the standard range of P parameters is 0-100%. The grammatical expression of this sentence has been revised, as shown in the revised version, lines 265-266. Comments 21: Ln 221-222 – Repetition in the explanation of R2 value.Ln 221-222 -重复解释R2值。 Response 21: Agree. This part has been revised and the part with repeated interpretation has been deleted. Comments 22:Figure 3 – This is not referred to in the text at all. Response 22: Agree. We have added an explanation of this figure, as shown in Figure 3 in the revised version, which is explained in lines 213-219. Comments 23: N249 – Grammar “flow …The” Response 23: Agree. We have fixed the related syntax errors. Comments 24: Figure 4 – Please check the caption spacing图4 -请检查标题间距 Response 24: Agree. We don't understand what the title spacing in the figure refers to. See Figure 6 for the revised draft. Results and Discussion Comments 25: Ln252 – Spacing and delete the word “ Discussion” as it is in the next section Response 25: Agree. We have changed the title of this section. Comments 26:Figure 5 – Poor resolution o Would it not be better to use the same scale on the spatial distribution maps across all the seasons for both TP and TN? Response 26: Agree. We have modified the drawing as suggested. Comments 27:Figure 6 - I think the reader should be informed that the 1-12 at the top of the figure refers to the months of the year. Response 27: Agree. We have added month titles at the top of the chart. See Figure 8 in the revised draft. Comments 28: Ln272 – Please make “figure” in capitals请用大写字母填写“数字” Response 28: Agree. We have fixed the problem. Comments 29:Ln273 - “ l/P” should be in capitals. Response 29: Agree. We have fixed the problem. See line 340 of the revised draft. Comments 30:Ln274 – How was the range of poor determined based on the following statement: “The water quality in July is poor” . An explanation of the classification much earlier on rather than later on. Consider moving Ln291-293 earlier in the text. Response 30: Agree. Because the N and P contents are higher in summer than in other seasons, the water quality in July is poor. Water quality classification is used to delimit the safety red line of water quality services. Therefore, water quality standards are used for classification only after the spatial map of water quality spatial content is obtained, which has been sorted out and revised in the revised draft. See lines 353-375 of the revised draft. Comments 31: Figure 8 – What are the units of the y-axis? Also why do the water storage capacity numbers start from 20? Response 31: Agree. After modification, Figure. 8 in the original is Figure. 11 in the revised version, and the Y-axis in Figure. 11 represents the water storage capacity (m³). Since the minimum water storage capacity of the reservoir or lake in the study area is 200,000 m³, 20 is directly taken as the minimum value in Figure. 11. Comments 32:Figure 9 – The same can be said about the scale (As mentioned above in Figure 5) of the infiltration rates Response 32: Agree. We have modified Figure 9 as suggested. See Figure 12 in the revised draft. Comments 33:Ln325 – Please remove “see reference.” Response 33: Agree. We have removed the "see reference." Discussion and Conclusion Comments 34:Lns378 & 380 – Punctuation Response 34: Agree. We have modified this part. Comments 35:Ln402 – The last time you made mention of Arc SWAT was in the abstract. Please have uniformity in what you are naming the model throughout the manuscript. Response 35: Agree. We have revised this issue, see line 527 of the revised draft. Comments 36:Overall, more literature can be added to the three sub-sections of this section to his section to strengthen it and add more meaning to the importance of this study. Response 36: Agree. We have modified this part, and cited 10 references, and made a comparative analysis with the research in this paper, and reached the conclusion of this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author studied the water ecological security pattern in the upper reaches of the Han River in China based on hydrological regulation services. Attempting to provide a scientific basis for water resource protection planning in water source areas. The author put in effort in data collection, regional simulation, and writing. Unfortunately, the current manuscript quality is not suitable for publication. The writing logic of the entire article is poor, and there are significant issues with the introduction, results, and discussion. The description of the research status and significance in the introduction is unclear. The results describe a large number of methods, but lack quantitative descriptions, comparisons, and other content. The discussion was not in-depth enough and there was no analysis or comparison based on the research results. Suggest the author to reorganize the structure and language of the article. The specific opinions are as follows:

1.       Abstract: The main object and scope of the research, as well as the methods used, should not be described in large amounts of text, but should be expressed clearly and concisely. However, there are too few descriptions of research results and important conclusions, and some quantitative data descriptions are lacking. The location of the research area should be specifically stated as the upper reaches of the Hanjiang River in China. The current abstract cannot obtain important and interesting results and needs to be rewritten.

2.       Abbreviations that appear for the first time should provide complete spelling, please check the entire text.

3.       Lines 34-37: The logic is not coherent. Delete 'not only' or complete the sentence.

4.       Lines 31-35: The concept and role of ecological red lines should be clearly defined.

5.       Sustainability is an international journal. The author should take into account that the readers are from different countries and provide clear descriptions when writing. For example, the description of "relevant research abroad" in lines 75-73 is difficult to understand.

6.       Lines 85-113: This section contains too much content and is not suitable for inclusion in the introduction, but should belong to the description of "2.1 Study Site"

7.       Introduction: The current introduction is very poor and should be reorganized. The statement of research status and significance is unclear, and it does not lead to the scientific validity of the author's research. Secondly, the necessity of solving scientific problems is not prominent enough. The current introduction cannot convince readers of the importance of this research. In addition, the language expression is unclear and the logical structure is very chaotic.

8.       Lines 152-164: Missing latitude and longitude range of the study area. The author's research area is located in the upper reaches of the Hanjiang River, and the focus should be on describing this region. Instead of a large amount of text describing the Hanjiang River. It is also unclear how much of the entire Hanjiang River basin the author's research area occupies.

9.       Figure 1 should also show the watershed scope of the Han River and the scope of the study area. Especially the image on page 165

10.     Add a table detailing the sources, types, processing, and purposes of the data used in the manuscript.

11.     When (year) is the model simulating? What is the simulated scenario?

12.     Lines 270-260: Which standard is used to “up to standard” and “not up to standard”?

13.     Lines 278-286: This section should be placed on research methods rather than research results.

14.     Check the legend of Figure 7, do blue and yellow represent the same category?

15.     Lines 301-315, 318-326, 336-339: As above, this section belongs to the method and not to the result.

16.     Result: This part needs to be reorganized. Currently, there are numerous descriptions of methods in the results. There is almost no quantitative description of simulation results, comparison of data from different seasons, spatial distribution, and so on. Lack of objective description through charts and graphs.

17.     Discussion: The discussion should clearly present the research objectives, analyze the research results, compare previous studies, derive conclusions, and propose suggestions for future research directions. At the same time, in the discussion section, possible limitations and uncertainties should also be fully discussed in order for other researchers to better understand and evaluate this study. At present, the manuscript discussion is not in-depth, the content is limited, and there is no further research based on the results.

18.     Few references cited.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

General comments

The author studied the water ecological security pattern in the upper reaches of the Han River in China based on hydrological regulation services. Attempting to provide a scientific basis for water resource protection planning in water source areas. The author put in effort in data collection, regional simulation, and writing. Unfortunately, the current manuscript quality is not suitable for publication. The writing logic of the entire article is poor, and there are significant issues with the introduction, results, and discussion. The description of the research status and significance in the introduction is unclear. The results describe a large number of methods, but lack quantitative descriptions, comparisons, and other content. The discussion was not in-depth enough and there was no analysis or comparison based on the research results. Suggest the author to reorganize the structure and language of the article. The specific opinions are as follows:

Response ：Extensive gratitude is extended to the reviewers for their invaluable suggestions, which have significantly augmented the academic prowess of this paper. We have also undertaken meticulous revisions in accordance with each of your suggestions, and specific responses have been articulated subsequent to each suggestion.

 

Comments 1:  Abstract: The main object and scope of the research, as well as the methods used, should not be described in large amounts of text, but should be expressed clearly and concisely. However, there are too few descriptions of research results and important conclusions, and some quantitative data descriptions are lacking. The location of the research area should be specifically stated as the upper reaches of the Hanjiang River in China. The current abstract cannot obtain important and interesting results and needs to be rewritten.

Response 1: Agree. We have completely rewritten the abstract, modified the text expression, and added the research results and important conclusions as well as quantitative data description.

 

Comments 2.       Abbreviations that appear for the first time should provide complete spelling, please check the entire text.

Response 2: Agree. We have revised this issue, see lines 17 and 20 of the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 3.       Lines 34-37: The logic is not coherent. Delete 'not only' or complete the sentence.

Response 3: Agree. We have revised all the introduction of the article, including logical sorting and language modification. See lines 35-41 of the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 4.       Lines 31-35: The concept and role of ecological red lines should be clearly defined.

Response 4: Agree. We have added the concept of ecological red lines, see lines 43-47 in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 5.       Sustainability is an international journal. The author should take into account that the readers are from different countries and provide clear descriptions when writing. For example, the description of "relevant research abroad" in lines 75-73 is difficult to understand.

Response 5: Agree. We have revised the relevant foreign studies, see page 2 of the revised manuscript, lines 71-98.

 

Comments 6.     Lines 85-113: This section contains too much content and is not suitable for inclusion in the introduction, but should belong to the description of "2.1 Study Site"

Response 6: Agree. We have adjusted the section in the original text to section 2.1 and rewritten it. See lines 161-178 of the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 7.       Introduction: The current introduction is very poor and should be reorganized. The statement of research status and significance is unclear, and it does not lead to the scientific validity of the author's research. Secondly, the necessity of solving scientific problems is not prominent enough. The current introduction cannot convince readers of the importance of this research. In addition, the language expression is unclear and the logical structure is very chaotic.  

Response 7: Agree. We have revised the introduction to clarify the research status and significance as well as the necessity of scientific problems. The language expression and logical structure have also been adjusted. See lines 35-153 of the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 8.       Lines 152-164: Missing latitude and longitude range of the study area. The author's research area is located in the upper reaches of the Hanjiang River, and the focus should be on describing this region. Instead of a large amount of text describing the Hanjiang River. It is also unclear how much of the entire Hanjiang River basin the author's research area occupies.

Response 8: Agree. We have added the latitude and longitude range of the study area, see line 162 of the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 9.      Figure 1 should also show the watershed scope of the Han River and the scope of the study area. Especially the image on page 165

Response 9: Agree. We have revised Figure 1 to add the scope of the Han River Basin main stream and study area. See Figure 1, line 189, in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 10.     Add a table detailing the sources, types, processing, and purposes of the data used in the manuscript.

Response 10: Agree. We have added tables in the revised manuscript to explain data sources, attributes and other information. See Table 1 in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 11.     When (year) is the model simulating? What is the simulated scenario?

Response 11: Agree. We have explained this problem in the revised manuscript，Based on monthly N and P concentration data collected from four water quality stations in the main stream of the Han River from 2012 to 2019, the study designated 2012-2013 as the warm-up period, 2014-2016 as the normal rate period, and 2017-2019 as the verification period. See page 7 of the revised version, lines 260-263.

 

Comments 12.     Lines 270-260: Which standard is used to “up to standard” and “not up to standard”?

Response 12: Agree. We have revised the validation of the model, and the description of the validation result criteria is explained in lines 270-278 of the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 13.     Lines 278-286: This section should be placed on research methods rather than research results.

Response 13: Agree. We have adjusted all the methodological aspects of the results into the research methods section.

 

Comments 14.     Check the legend of Figure 7, do blue and yellow represent the same category?

Response 14: Agree. We have modified Figure 7 in the original text, which is Figure 9 in the revised version. Blue represents the security area in TN.

 

Comments 15.     Lines 301-315, 318-326, 336-339: As above, this section belongs to the method and not to the result.

Response 15: Agree. We have adjusted all the parts of the results that involve methods to the methods section.

     

Comments 16.     Result: This part needs to be reorganized. Currently, there are numerous descriptions of methods in the results. There is almost no quantitative description of simulation results, comparison of data from different seasons, spatial distribution, and so on. Lack of objective description through charts and graphs.

Response 16: Agree. We have completely revised the results section, adding quantitative descriptions of simulation results, data comparison and spatial distribution, and adding interpretation of charts.

 

Comments 17.     Discussion: The discussion should clearly present the research objectives, analyze the research results, compare previous studies, derive conclusions, and propose suggestions for future research directions. At the same time, in the discussion section, possible limitations and uncertainties should also be fully discussed in order for other researchers to better understand and evaluate this study. At present, the manuscript discussion is not in-depth, the content is limited, and there is no further research based on the results.

Response 17: Agree. We have revised the discussion according to the suggestions, clarified the research objectives and results, compared the previous studies, and reached a conclusion.

 

Comments 18.     Few references cited.

Response 18: Agree. Through modification, 50 references are cited in the full text.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

- Lines 10-26: The abstract briefly mentions the findings but lacks specific details on the methodology used. Include a sentence about the use of the SWAT model to simulate hydrological regulation services and the data analysis techniques.

- Lines 30-45: The introduction is too long. Consider subdividing it into subtopics or reducing its length. It lacks scientific references. Incorporate more citations from recent studies. The introduction sets the stage well but needs a more explicit statement of the research question. Clearly articulate the central research question or hypothesis early in the introduction.

- Lines 45-58: The background on China's environmental challenges is pertinent, but additional statistics or specific examples of environmental degradation would strengthen the argument.

- Lines 59-84: The literature review is comprehensive but could include more recent studies on the application of hydrological models like SWAT in other regions and contexts. Discussing recent papers published in the last two years is recommended.

- Lines 169-171: The methodology needs more details about the sample selection process and the input parameters of the SWAT model. Clarify how the final sample was derived, including any exclusion criteria, and provide details on the sources and resolution of the meteorological and hydrological data.

- Lines 192-194: Justify the selection of each control variable and the calibration methods used in the SWAT model. Explain why certain variables are particularly relevant for the study.

- Figure 2 (Line 187): The caption is clear but would be more informative if it included detailed descriptions of each component (DEM, soil, land use, etc.) and the data sources.

- Figure 5 (Line 261): The image quality is low and needs improvement to ensure details are visible. Additionally, include error bars or confidence intervals to illustrate the uncertainty in the simulated values.

- Figure 6 (Line 269): The graphical representation of N/P distribution is clear but could be enhanced by including more granular data points to show variance within the seasons.

- Lines 228-229: The modeling results are robust, but discuss any potential outliers or influential data points that could affect the results.

- Lines 230-231: Explain the potential limitations of the validation methods used in SWAT. Discuss any assumptions made in the selection of these methods.

- Lines 360-362: Explore why certain ecosystem services are more fragile and difficult to recover, as discussed in the discussion section.

- Lines 377-379: Consider including specific data or references to support the statement about climate change and the increase in extreme weather events.

- Lines 399-401: The conclusion summarizes the findings well but could be enhanced by discussing the practical implications in more detail. Suggest specific policies that governments could implement to improve ecological protection.

- Lines 428-429: Highlight the limitations of the study and propose specific areas for future research. Discuss the need for longitudinal studies to assess the long-term impact of water protection initiatives.

 

Specific Comments

- Figure 2 (Line 187): The caption is clear but would benefit from a brief comparison with other hydrological modeling systems (e.g., HEC-HMS, MIKE SHE).

- Figure 3 (Line 228): The explanation of robustness checks is thorough, but it could be clarified how the parameters were adjusted and why they are deemed appropriate. Explaining the potential limitations of these parameters would enhance transparency.

- Figure 5 (Line 261): The image quality is low and needs improvement to ensure details are visible.

- Figure 6 (Line 269): The graphical representation of N/P distribution is clear but could be enhanced by including more granular data points to show variance within the seasons.

- Figure 7 (Line 296): The discussion about the safety patterns of water purification services is compelling. Including case studies or examples of regions that successfully implemented these practices could enrich this section and provide practical insights.

- Figure 10 (Line 356): The conclusion correctly emphasizes practical implications but should also address potential challenges in implementing these recommendations, especially for regions with limited resources. Discussing potential solutions or support mechanisms for these challenges would be beneficial.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language in the manuscript is generally good but requires some improvements for clarity and readability. There are instances of awkward phrasing and minor grammatical errors that need to be addressed. Moderate editing is required to enhance the overall flow and coherence of the text. Specific attention should be given to sentence structure and the use of technical terminology to ensure that the content is easily understandable for a broader audience.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

Comments 1:- Lines 10-26: The abstract briefly mentions the findings but lacks specific details on the methodology used. Include a sentence about the use of the SWAT model to simulate hydrological regulation services and the data analysis techniques.

Response 1:Agree. We have added the details of the usage method in the abstract, and also analyzed and summarized the simulation results. See lines 16-25 of the abstract in the revised draft.

Comments 2:- Lines 30-45: The introduction is too long. Consider subdividing it into subtopics or reducing its length. It lacks scientific references. Incorporate more citations from recent studies. The introduction sets the stage well but needs a more explicit statement of the research question. Clearly articulate the central research question or hypothesis early in the introduction.

Response 2:Agree. We have rewritten the introduction. In the revision, citations have been added and research questions have been clarified. For details, see lines 99-153 of the revised draft.

Comments 3:- Lines 45-58: The background on China's environmental challenges is pertinent, but additional statistics or specific examples of environmental degradation would strengthen the argument.

Response 3:Agree. We have added corresponding references to this background, but this paper pays more attention to the protection of water ecology in water source area. Therefore, based on the ecological red line, the red line of water ecological space protection is proposed.

Comments 4:- Lines 59-84: The literature review is comprehensive but could include more recent studies on the application of hydrological models like SWAT in other regions and contexts. Discussing recent papers published in the last two years is recommended. Response 4:Agree. We have added the most recent literature to the review, see revised References 8-22.

Comments 5:- Lines 169-171: The methodology needs more details about the sample selection process and the input parameters of the SWAT model. Clarify how the final sample was derived, including any exclusion criteria, and provide details on the sources and resolution of the meteorological and hydrological data.

Response 5:Agree.We have rewritten the method section, adding the details of the model input parameters and the model process principles. See section 2.2 of the revised draft.

Comments 6:- Lines 192-194: Justify the selection of each control variable and the calibration methods used in the SWAT model. Explain why certain variables are particularly relevant for the study.

Response 6:Agree. We have added the name and range of each sensitivity parameter in the revised draft, as shown in Table 2. Table 2 explains the name of each parameter, which is related to runoff and water quality. So these parameters are used. The importance of sensitivity parameters is also explained.

Comments 7:- Figure 2 (Line 187): The caption is clear but would be more informative if it included detailed descriptions of each component (DEM, soil, land use, etc.) and the data sources.

Response 7:Agree. We have removed Figure 2 from the original text and added Table 1, which lists the details of each input data.

Comments 8:- Figure 5 (Line 261): The image quality is low and needs improvement to ensure details are visible. Additionally, include error bars or confidence intervals to illustrate the uncertainty in the simulated values.

Response 8:Agree. We've changed all the pictures.

Comments 9:- Figure 6 (Line 269): The graphical representation of N/P distribution is clear but could be enhanced by including more granular data points to show variance within the seasons.

Response 9:Agree. We have followed the other suggestions to unify the legend of the chart, also indicate the season in the chart, and use color to indicate the value. The pictures are explained in detail in the text.

Comments 10:- Lines 228-229: The modeling results are robust, but discuss any potential outliers or influential data points that could affect the results.

Response 10:Agree. We have added Figure 3 to illustrate the verification of the measured values of each site against the simulated values. Due to the large input data of this model, the model principle process is relatively complete, and the data preparation requirements are also high, no potential outliers or influential data points that may affect the results of water quality simulation have been found.

Comments 11:- Lines 230-231: Explain the potential limitations of the validation methods used in SWAT. Discuss any assumptions made in the selection of these methods.

Response 11:Agree. We have revised the part of model verification, see revised draft 2.2.2, which introduces the process of model verification in detail.

Comments 12:- Lines 360-362: Explore why certain ecosystem services are more fragile and difficult to recover, as discussed in the discussion section. 

Response 12:Agree. We have revised the discussion section and reworked the language and logic. This sentence has been deleted in the revision.

Comments 13:- Lines 377-379: Consider including specific data or references to support the statement about climate change and the increase in extreme weather events.

Response 13:Agree. We have amended the full text, so the sentence has also been deleted. References have also been added where appropriate.

Comments 14:- Lines 399-401: The conclusion summarizes the findings well but could be enhanced by discussing the practical implications in more detail. Suggest specific policies that governments could implement to improve ecological protection.

Response 14:Agree. We have revised the conclusion part, summarized the findings in the paper, and enhanced its practical significance. Some suggestions are also put forward for the government's ecological protection and management.

Comments 15:- Lines 428-429: Highlight the limitations of the study and propose specific areas for future research. Discuss the need for longitudinal studies to assess the long-term impact of water protection initiatives.

Response 15:Agree. We have added the direction of future research and the comparison of similar studies in the revised draft, see section 4.3 of the revised draft discussion.

Specific Comments

Comments 16:- Figure 2 (Line 187): The caption is clear but would benefit from a brief comparison with other hydrological modeling systems (e.g., HEC-HMS, MIKE SHE).

Response 16:Agree. We describe the SWAT model in detail in 2.2.1 of the Methods section.

Comments 17:- Figure 3 (Line 228): The explanation of robustness checks is thorough, but it could be clarified how the parameters were adjusted and why they are deemed appropriate. Explaining the potential limitations of these parameters would enhance transparency.

Response 17:Agree. We have explained the adjustment and selection of parameters in the revised draft, page 7, paragraph 2, lines 259-266.

Comments 18:- Figure 5 (Line 261): The image quality is low and needs improvement to ensure details are visible.

Response 18:Agree. We have made changes to the picture.

Comments 19:- Figure 6 (Line 269): The graphical representation of N/P distribution is clear but could be enhanced by including more granular data points to show variance within the seasons.

Response 19:Agree. We have followed the other suggestions to unify the legend of the chart, also indicate the season in the chart, and use color to indicate the value. The pictures are explained in detail in the text.

Comments 20:- Figure 7 (Line 296): The discussion about the safety patterns of water purification services is compelling. Including case studies or examples of regions that successfully implemented these practices could enrich this section and provide practical insights.

Response 20:Agree. We have added relevant cases, which can be seen in Reference 9-11.

Comments 21:- Figure 10 (Line 356): The conclusion correctly emphasizes practical implications but should also address potential challenges in implementing these recommendations, especially for regions with limited resources. Discussing potential solutions or support mechanisms for these challenges would be beneficial.

Response 21:Agree. We have explained the significance of this method in Discussion 4.1, and the applicability of this model in 4.3. The results show that the model may not be as effective in simulating river basins in some arid regions as it is in simulating rivers in wet regions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done on revising the manuscript. Please have a final read over and correct a few minor grammatical and typo errors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily answered all my suggestions. Therefore, I recommend this paper to be accepted in present form.