Evaluation of the Evolution of the Ecological Security of Oases in Arid Regions and Its Driving Forces: A Case Study of Ejina Oasis in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.Do not commonly use "we" in the abstract and, instead use "this paper".
2.The research focus of the article is to construct an indicator system. I suggest that the author needs to provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for selecting the indicator system, as existing research is too simplistic.
3.The methods and indicator systems used by the author are outdated, and I suggest that the author highlight the innovative points of this article.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions, they will go a long way in improving the quality of the paper. We have submitted the changes in the attached word.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYou investigated ecological security (ES) in the Ejina oasis’s in China's N.W. region and intimate that since centralized management of Heihe River’s this has improved. You operationalised ES via a Pressure-State-Response (P-S-R) model, using a range of socio-economic and ecological indicators. You also considered the impact of Land Use Changes (LUCC) on ES. You found that from 2000 2012, the ES index was stable but improved after 2012, driven by fluctuations in population, habitat quality, carbon stock, vegetation cover, industry, and volume water discharge from Wolf Heart Mountain. Before 2012 the system was under pressure but since then became more stable.
Overall, I found article somewhat unbalanced with too much emphasis on the mechanics of the modelling and insufficient critical nuanced analysis of specific site-relevant examples or counter-examples. The basic narrative that government intervention to manage water flows into the Heihe River saved the day seems somewhat optimistic.
A quick scan of the literature found hundreds of articles on the Ejina oasis but few were cited - e.g. Yaobin, W., Qi, F., Jianhua, S. et al. The changes of vegetation cover in Ejina Oasis based on water resources redistribution in Heihe River. Environ Earth Sci 64, 1965–1973 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1013-0
Consider a structured review of the literature?
Table 3 suggests a somewhat alarming rise in 'Impervious' (real estate etc.?) land use from 14.54 to 48.69km2 but seems little discussion around this?
Conclusions seem very vague / unconvincing with little substantive details on specific issues.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions, they will go a long way in improving the quality of the paper. We have submitted the changes in the attached word.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors· This paper evaluates changes in the ecological security of oases in arid zones and analyzes the drivers of ecological security changes. The choice of the Ejina oasis as the object of study reflects the impact of the implementation of the water diversion policy of the Black River on regional environmental changes. Ecological security is vital to national security, so research in this area is fundamental. The ecological security assessment is oriented to nature, society, and the economy, with comprehensive considerations and greater practical significance. This paper is helpful for the management of oases in arid zones with significant changes in water quantity.However, some problems in the article still need to be further modified to meet the requirements of publication.
The following are some suggestions and comments to the authors:
1. Keywords should be sorted according to initial letters A-Z.
2. No references were added to the land use data; it is recommended that they be added.
3. Data from the website suggests adding URLs.
4. Some formulas in the text are not numbered; please add them and process them in the same format.
5. The clarity of Figure 5 is not enough; it is recommended to be improved.
6. The pictures in the text use different font formats; please use a uniform format.
7. The authors didn't mention key driver analysis methods in the abstract, so it is difficult for the reader to directly identify the methods used to analyze the drivers in the article.
8. Please briefly summarize the significance of the evaluation indicators selected in this paper for the evaluation of the ecological security of oases in other arid zones and how the results of this research will improve the sustainability of ecosystems and social benefits.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions, they will go a long way in improving the quality of the paper. We have submitted the changes in the attached word.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of this manuscript is of great significance. The data sources, research methods, and paper structure are generally clear and innovative. The manuscript has certain deficiencies and needs to be improved to improve its quality.The detailed review comments are as follows:
1. With regard to land use types, the descriptions in the data source, the land use types in Figure 3, Table 3 and Table 4 are all different.
2. The quality of charts needs to be improved. The single figure of some histograms is too wide, and it should be noted that the north arrow and graticule are not required to be used at the same time. The map of China in Figure 1 needs to be projected appropriately, and the two maps on the left need to be scaled up. Figure 3 lacks a scale bar; Figure 4 lacks an ordinate axis name; The color of Figure 5 is suggested to be modified to a light tone.
3. The study period of this paper is from 2000 to 2020. However, in Figures 5, 6, and 7, there is a lack of time information. Don't know if this is the mean for the study period? What is the current value in 2020? There needs to be clarification.
4. In Table 2, ecological security is divided into 5 levels and has corresponding codes. However, the analysis and expression of this in the text are weak and need to be clarified and strengthened.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe accuracy and refinement of the language need to be further improved. For example, in lines 60-60, there are two "ands" in a sentence, which makes it difficult to understand the broken sentence. For example, is the "LUC" in line 471 correct? Should it be LUCC? It is necessary to check the redundancy and accuracy of the language in full. In lines 481-482, does the author want to express that "taking 2012 as the time node, the ecological security status of the study area has changed from unsafe to state". But the author's expression seems to need improvement. This conclusion also appears in the abstract, and the author is requested to use the prepared language to avoid ambiguity.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions, they will go a long way in improving the quality of the paper. We have submitted the changes in the attached word.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper formulated an ecological security evaluation index framework to quantified the evolution of the ecological security status of the Ejina Oasis from 2000 to 2020. Meanwhile, the drivers influencing ecological security evolution were explored. This work is valuable to provide scientific reference for future ecological management in arid zone oases. This topic is meaningful and within the scope of the Journal. However, there are still plenty of problems, those could be well improved after careful revision. Some suggestions are put forward as below:
1. Line 23-25, numerous determinants are listed here, but the crucial ones lack clear descriptions.
2. Line 55-58, these two sentences do not align with the core idea of this paragraph and lack logical coherence with the following paragraph.
3. Line 59-83, the literature review on assessment methods in this section is somewhat lengthy and fails to emphasize the shortcomings of existing research and the innovation of this study. Additional information should be supplemented.
4. Figure 1, the scale should be added to each graph for reference.
5. Line 133-144, if there are specific data links or references, please provide and include them. Additionally, the resolution of land cover dataset should be added.
6. Line 183, please explain why habitat degradation degree is categorized as a pressure indicator.
7. Line 252, is it Mi(t)? Line 262, what does ‘n’ represent in the formula?
8. Line 245-277, the ambiguity arising from the mentioned LUC and LUCC in the text. For example, Mi(t) represents the correlation coefficient between LUCC and ecological security (Line 253-254). However, Rij denotes the correlation between LUC and ecological security (Line 263). Please check for clarity.
9. Figure 4, what are the meanings of “ESI”, “PI”, “SI”, and “RI”, respectively? These should be noted in “3.2. Ecological security index changes from 2000 to 2020”.
10. Line 335-339, this paragraph is suggested to integrated into Line 320-325.
11. Figure 5, is it “PI”?
12. Line 396-467, the discussion on the research innovation and results is not sufficiently comprehensive. Furthermore, what about the limitation of your study? the presentation of most of this part of the paper is too brief for clarity. Please expand your discussion and discus/compare them with other results provided by other researches in this field.
13. Line 469-496, the content in the conclusion section is too lengthy. It is suggested to streamline it, including only the key research findings.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The entire language and sentences need to be carefully revised. Specifically, the article contains numerous lengthy sentences. Please use shorter sentences to enhance clarity in conveying the meaning.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions, they will go a long way in improving the quality of the paper. We have submitted the changes in the attached word.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author revised and improved the paper according to the modification opinions, and the quality of the paper has been significantly improved.
Author Response
We are grateful for your suggestions on our paper. Your guidance has played a vital role in improving its quality and professionalism.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFor the concerns and problems raised in the preliminary review, the author has made corresponding explanations and content supplements. The revised manuscript has been modified according to the suggestions. However, for the content of disscuss section, there are not enough references for the discussion section, which should be supplemented. To enhance the relevance of your study, I recommend considering the inclusion of 10.1016/j.watres.2024.121255 as it provides valuable insights into the practices of basin management.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The quality of english lanuage has been improved after the revisions.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions; they will significantly improve the paper's quality. We have attached the revised version in the Word document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
