Distinguishing the Multifactorial Impacts on Ecosystem Services under the Long-Term Ecological Restoration in the Gonghe Basin of China
, Lianyou Liu 1,2,3, Rui Wang 1,2,3, Zeshi Li 1,2,3, Hang Li 1,2,3 and Jifu Liu 1,2,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 29-31: Provide the name of indicator and the values which showed the NDVI greatest impact on ES. How much improvements were observed in ES by the implementation of ecological engineering. Give quantitative analysis rather than greatly improved the ES.
Figure 1: Study area boundary is different in a, b, and c. Why?
Line 133: Define and add some discussion of MVC method.
It is good to provide detailed discussion for calculating SC, SF, CS factors in supplementary material, but I suggest adding some discussion or provide basic reference (having detail about calculations) for calculation of all the factors of SC, Sf, CS.
Figure 2: add vertical axes for each.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
See comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of this work is interesting, however, it is more like a methods practicing process instead of a scientific analysis work. Here are some comments for your reference:
Ø First, in the abstract, I am already confused on the result 3. It is not easy to follow the view that NDVI, soil type and slope have impact on ES. These factors seems to be the basic support elements of ES.
Ø The theme of this work is to distinguish the impact of ecological restoration on ecosystem services in Gonghe Basin of China, however, we have no idea what kind of long-term ecological restoration activities have been implemented in this region exactly, not to mention the implementation region and period of each project. Besides, the overall ecosystem services have been calculated, how to prove these changes are owing to the ecological projects instead of other reasons, for instance, the climate change?
Ø In the figure 1, what dose the land use types of Imperious and Bareen mean? it is better to use standard land use type classification.
Ø In the methods part, you need to explain why you choose these five ecosystem services instead of others.
Ø Section 3.2, what is the meaning to detect the trade-offs among ecosystem services?
Ø Section 3.3, it is important to explain why you choose these impact factors to do the analysis
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for your engaging research and substantial effort. The manuscript is well-written and effectively illustrated, with a careful indication of limitations that provide a logical structure. Congratulations to all involved.
However, the study encompasses numerous ecosystem services, which are inherently complex, as are the large data sources and their integration. I recommend strengthening the methods section to enhance understanding of how each model was calibrated. Detailed information on the input datasets is crucial for verifying the results. I am particularly interested in how sensitivity analysis was conducted in models such as RUSLE, RWEQ, CASA, and InVEST. Providing these aspects would greatly clarify the results, as there are several points that might raise questions or cause wonder.
I recommend revising the manuscript to further increase its value. Below, you will find my detailed comments (attached here).
Thank you again for your diligent work.
Best regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Authors have checked English carefully, I believe!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you very much for your effort to increase the understanding of your diligent work.
The authors have addressed my concerns well. I would be very happy if you could also provide the data input for each model in the appendix whereas possible with constant values.
One more minor observation on Figure 5: Please add more information because this figure should stand alone. It would be helpful if you could briefly provide more information on how it was generated or calculated, as described in the methods section. The abbreviation of RMSD was mentioned in the text body, but it should also be included in the figure legend or at least in the caption.
Normally, it should be in all figures, but it may be too crowded in your case due to the intensive work.
Congratulations to all authors, and thank you very much for your interesting work.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
