A Model for Spatially Explicit Landscape Configuration and Ecosystem Service Performance, ESMAX: Model Description and Explanation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The first time an abbreviation appears, please provide the full name in the abstract.

2. Can the model only decay linearly?

3. How can the average person use your method?

4. Are there any limitations to the method? Please reflect them in the manuscript.

5. What are the future prospects of the method? Please reflect this in the manuscript.

6. Check references and correct them according to the journal format uniformly.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Firstly, thank you very much for your time spent to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses to your comments below. Where appropriate, references are made to  the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted main document and Supplementary Material.

 

1. The first time an abbreviation appears, please provide the full name in the abstract.

• Updated ES (Line 18) and GIS (Line 25) accordingly

2. Can the model only decay linearly?

• ESMAX models linear and nonlinear decay, as clarified in 2.2.1.3 Kernel form (Lines 197-209)

3. How can the average person use your method?

• ESMAX provides a desktop approach for the spatially explicit modelling of regulating ES performance. It is pointed out that the model requires minimal modification of the industry standard GIS platform ArcGIS Pro (Line 770) and that the Python script for these modifications is available upon request (Supp. Mat., Line 15). ESMAX is suitable for beginner / intermediate level ArcGIS Pro users, which is an industry standard GIS platform.

4. Are there any limitations to the method? Please reflect them in the manuscript.

• Noted with thanks. Assumptions and limitations for each ES studied are listed (Lines 367, 430 and 474). In response to this comment, the Discussion has been updated to further highlight the need to address the simplifications made in this initial development of ESMAX to account for anisotropic site conditions such as soil type, topography and presence of landscape features, greater spatial and temporal complexity in the three ES examined here, incorporation of additional ES (Line 572), including accounting for hydrological flows in the computing of ES fields for N retention (Line 714) and highlights the exclusion of SPU composition (Line 728).

5. What are the future prospects of the method? Please reflect this in the manuscript.

• The last paragraph of the Conclusion (Lines 758-770) highlights the potential for ESMAX application by Landscape Ecology and ES Science researchers and details three specific aspects of the model structure that facilitate practical development of the model in the future.

6. Check references and correct them according to the journal format uniformly.

• Noted and revised accordingly. Journal titles have been capitalised as appropriate.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented a model that makes spatially explicit the ES fields of influence radiating from SPUs in an agricultural landscape, which provides a new idea for the model construction and methodology research in the field of ecosystem services. Some minor changes are suggested.

1. Section 1.1, it is recommended to supplement the diagram of the relevant theory (such as the one-dimensional Cartesian graphs).

2. Line 353 and Line 412, chapter numbers are in reverse order.

3. Please add the sample and data source information of the case sites for empirical analysis in the appropriate position of this study, including the specific location, data source year, etc. It is better to add a map to show the spatial layout of the case sites.

4. Three typical regulating ES were selected in this study, it is suggested that the authors make a brief discussion on the applicability of ESMAX after adding other ESs in the discussion section.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Firstly, thank you very much for your time spent to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses to your comments below. Where appropriate, references are made to  the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted main document and Supplementary Material.

 

The authors presented a model that makes spatially explicit the ES fields of influence radiating from SPUs in an agricultural landscape, which provides a new idea for the model construction and methodology research in the field of ecosystem services. Some minor changes are suggested.

1. Section 1.1, it is recommended to supplement the diagram of the relevant theory (such as the one-dimensional Cartesian graphs).

• Noted with thanks. We have included the mathematical formulas generating each of the example kernel forms in the Supplementary Material (Lines 45, 52, 115 and 142). Readers are referred to this material from Figure 5 (line 359).

2. Line 353 and Line 412, chapter numbers are in reverse order.

• Noted with thanks, and corrected

3. Please add the sample and data source information of the case sites for empirical analysis in the appropriate position of this study, including the specific location, data source year, etc. It is better to add a map to show the spatial layout of the case sites.

• Respectfully, this is not applicable to the conceptual model presented, which is not site specific. This issue is addressed in the Discussion (Line 572), where future development of the model should allow for anisotropic, context-specific site conditions such as soil type, topography and presence of landscape features.

4. Three typical regulating ES were selected in this study, it is suggested that the authors make a brief discussion on the applicability of ESMAX after adding other ESs in the discussion section.

• The Conclusion (Line 766) notes the potential application of ESMAX to any flow-based regulating ES, including air filtration, noise abatement, bioremediation, soil erosion control, flood protection and pollination. It is submitted that the appropriate place for this point to be made is in the context of future development of the model.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a description and explanation of a model for spatially explicit landscape configuration and ecosystem service performance. The paper is well written and organized and I think it suitable for publication. I have only two minor comments
ES introduced first in the abstract (line 21) without any definition.
Check the references in the text. Some of them did not numbered.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Firstly, thank you very much for your time spent to review this manuscript. Please find responses to your comments below. Where appropriate, references are made to  the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted main document and Supplementary Material.

The manuscript provides a description and explanation of a model for spatially explicit landscape configuration and ecosystem service performance. The paper is well written and organized and I think it suitable for publication. I have only two minor comments

ES introduced first in the abstract (line 21) without any definition.

Check the references in the text. Some of them did not numbered

• Noted with thanks. Updated ES definition (Line 18) accordingly, and referencing numeration checked and updated. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

The paper titled "A Model for Spatially Explicit Landscape Configuration and Ecosystem Service Performance, ESMAX: Model Description and Explanation" presents the development and implications of a conceptual GIS-based model called ESMAX. The model aims to address the spatial configuration of landscape components and its impact on the production of ecosystem services (ES). The paper introduces the concept of ES fields, which are visualized as radiating into the landscape from their source components, and discusses the model's application in testing hypothetical landscape arrangements for three regulating ES: cooling effect, nitrogen retention, and habitat provision. The findings suggest that the size and arrangement of components are primary and secondary factors, respectively, influencing ES performance.

Overall, the paper provides valuable insights into the relationship between landscape configuration and ES production. The concept of ES fields and the development of the ESMAX model contribute to the understanding of spatial interactions between landscape components. However, there are some areas that require clarification and further development. The following comments are provided to enhance the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper.

Specific Comments:

Introduction:

a. The introduction provides a clear context and motivation for the research topic. However, it would be beneficial to include a brief statement or paragraph outlining the significance and potential applications of the ESMAX model in landscape design and planning.

Methodology:

a. The paper briefly mentions the four steps of the ESMAX model but lacks specific details on the implementation and technical aspects. It is recommended to provide a more comprehensive description of each step, including the data sources, spatial analysis techniques, and algorithms employed in the model. This would enhance the reproducibility and practicality of the model.

Results:

a. The paper mentions the results obtained from testing hypothetical landscape arrangements for three regulating ES. It would be helpful to present these results in a more structured and concise manner, potentially using tables or figures to illustrate the performance of different landscape configurations for each ES. This would facilitate a better understanding of the model's outcomes and comparisons between different scenarios.

Discussion:

a. The discussion section should provide a more thorough interpretation and analysis of the results. It would be valuable to discuss the implications of the findings in relation to existing ES models based on land-cover proxies. Furthermore, the discussion could explore the potential limitations and uncertainties associated with the ESMAX model, as well as avenues for future research and model refinement.

Language and Structure:

a. The paper generally adheres to a clear and concise writing style. However, some sentences or phrases could be further clarified to enhance readability. Additionally, it is recommended to review the paper for consistency in terminology and ensure that all abbreviations are properly defined.

Overall, the paper presents a promising conceptual model for understanding the relationship between landscape configuration and ecosystem service performance. With some improvements in the clarity of the methodology, presentation of results, and depth of discussion, the paper can make a significant contribution to the field of GIS-based landscape modeling and design for ecosystem services.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Firstly, thank you very much for your time spent to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses to your comments below. Where appropriate, references are made to  the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted main document and Supplementary Material.

Methodology:

1. The paper briefly mentions the four steps of the ESMAX model but lacks specific details on the implementation and technical aspects. It is recommended to provide a more comprehensive description of each step, including the data sources, spatial analysis techniques, and algorithms employed in the model. This would enhance the reproducibility and practicality of the model.

• Noted with thanks. The Method section presents data sources for each of the three ES studied (cooling effect at Line 329, Habitat suitability at Line 373 and Nitrogen retention at Line 436). Spatial analysis techniques are detailed in Section 2.2.1 Step 1 - Kernel determination but having reflected on this comment we have expanded the Supplementary Material to include the mathematical formulas generating each of the example kernel forms in the  (Lines 45, 52, 115 and 142 in the Supplementary Material). Readers are referred to this material from Figure 5 (line 359). Other algorithms used in ESMAX are limited to those embedded within the proprietary functions of ArcGIS Pro, which are described in the Supplementary Material (Lines 4 and 18).

Results:

1. The paper mentions the results obtained from testing hypothetical landscape arrangements for three regulating ES. It would be helpful to present these results in a more structured and concise manner, potentially using tables or figures to illustrate the performance of different landscape configurations for each ES. This would facilitate a better understanding of the model's outcomes and comparisons between different scenarios.

• Noted with thanks. The results are illustrated in Figure 6 (Line 488) and Figure 7 (Line 507). Fig. 6 is a graph illustrating the comparative performance of different landscape configurations for each ES. Fig. 7 is a diagram illustrating what the output of the ESMAX model looks like for each of the highest performing landscape configurations for each ES. We have revised the caption wording (Lines 509) to better describe this.

Discussion:

1. The discussion section should provide a more thorough interpretation and analysis of the results. It would be valuable to discuss the implications of the findings in relation to existing ES models based on land-cover proxies. Furthermore, the discussion could explore the potential limitations and uncertainties associated with the ESMAX model, as well as avenues for future research and model refinement.

• Noted with thanks. We have revised the text (Line 548) to underscore the difference between these results and those of existing ES models based on land-cover proxies. Limitations and uncertainties for each of the ES studied are listed (Lines 367, 430 and 474). The Discussion has also been updated to further highlight the need to address the simplifications made in this initial development of ESMAX to account for anisotropic site conditions such as soil type, topography and presence of landscape features, greater spatial and temporal complexity in the three ES examined here, incorporation of additional ES (Line 572), including accounting for hydrological flows in the computing of ES fields for N retention (Line 714) and highlights the exclusion of SPU composition (Line 728).

Language and Structure:

1. The paper generally adheres to a clear and concise writing style. However, some sentences or phrases could be further clarified to enhance readability. Additionally, it is recommended to review the paper for consistency in terminology and ensure that all abbreviations are properly defined.

• Noted with thanks. We have reviewed the document, including definition of abbreviations and consistency of terminology.

Overall, the paper presents a promising conceptual model for understanding the relationship between landscape configuration and ecosystem service performance. With some improvements in the clarity of the methodology, presentation of results, and depth of discussion, the paper can make a significant contribution to the field of GIS-based landscape modelling and design for ecosystem services.