Multi-Scale Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Ecosystem Health in the Harbin–Changchun Urban Agglomeration, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Your manuscript is well-written and presents a detailed analysis, which is commendable. However, I believe that certain aspects of the work could be further enhanced to increase its impact and clarity:
Figures: While the current figures contribute effectively to the understanding of your findings, additional visual aids could provide greater clarity. Consider incorporating more detailed or supplementary figures that can help readers visualize the complex spatial and temporal relationships you are discussing.
Methodological Enhancements: Your methodology is robust, but I suggest adding more details regarding the analytical methods used. This would not only strengthen the reproducibility of your study but also provide a clearer understanding of how your conclusions were reached.
Conclusions: Your conclusions are well-founded and insightful. However, expanding this section to discuss broader implications, potential applications of your findings, and suggestions for future research would be beneficial. This could provide a stronger closing argument and highlight the significance of your work in the context of urban ecosystem management.
Overall, your article makes a significant contribution to the field. The minor corrections and enhancements suggested above are intended to further refine and highlight the strengths of your work.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think there are mainly the following problems:
1. Abstract: The introduction is rather vague. Background, questions, knowledge gaps, scientific issues are unclear.
2. The keywords are not focused, and the terms " Ecosystem health assessment " and " Multi-scale assessment " seem to conflict.
3. Introduction: This part did not pose the scientific question very well. The description between lines 79 and 82 is redundant for this study. How to reflect the international significance of the study, rather than limiting it to one urban agglomeration region?
4. L130: “2.2 Subsection”??
5. L131-144: This study used data with different spatial resolutions. How did the authors standardize it to 30 m? What downsampling method was used? Note that this is not a simple resampling, as it can have significant impacts on the results.
6. L205-213: Are the InVEST model outputs verified?
7. L215: Quantifying human activities is too simplistic, only considering farmland and construction land. For example, returning farmland to forests is also a human activity. It is suggested that the authors improve the quantification methods of human activities.
8. Results: Please streamline the results; at present it is too long to highlight the main results.
9. How does this manuscript determine the analytical scale of 10 km pixels? This is a question that needs clarification.
10. Discussion: There is a lack of discussion on key results, especially the universal significance of ecosystem management and restoration. For instance, is there a consistency in the pattern across different scales? If not, what could be the possible causes? This study primarily investigates the temporal-spatial variations, but what could be the potential causes of these changes? Although the manuscript does not involve a driving factors analysis, this topic needs to be discussed. If possible, it is suggested that the author add an analysis of driving factors.
11. Conclusion: It is simply a description and brief summary of the results of the study. It should indicate the current practical implications, the impact on the short and long term, and the direction of future research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments regarding the manuscript „Multi-scale analysis of spatial and temporal assessment of ecosystem health in the Harbin-Changchun urban agglomeration, China”
Generally, the manuscript is well-written and comprehensive. I have only a few comments:
Please explain abbreviations when they appear for the first time in the text (including the abstract!)
Please clearly indicate the purpose of your work in the Introduction
Fig 2. Explain the abbreviations below the figure
Tables 1, 2, and 3. Provide data sources in tables
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the authors including the review suggestions into the new revision of the manuscript. The paper is in fact strengthened greatly in many aspects. But before publishing, there are two issues that need to be addressed by the author. In my opinion, the paper can be suitable for publication only after a minor revision.
(1) Abstract:
L20: “as well as refining and rewriting the abstract to follow the logic of the article”. This sentence should not appear in the summary. Furthermore, the abstract did not summarize the main results and conclusions well. The abstract is crucial for journal readers. Please make significant revisions to the abstract.
(2) Conclusions
The conclusion section is still very long, with unnecessary descriptions; please highlight the key points.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
