Uneven Distribution of Ecosystem Services along the Yarlung Zangbo River Basin in Tibet Reveals the Quest for Multi-Target Policies of Rural Development in Less-Favored Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I found the study quite interesting and useful. The method used in the study is appropriate, although some justification can make it more robust. The organization of the contents needs some improvement. The background section needs some relevant supporting references.
Some minor comments/suggestions are below:
Page 1, abstract: the abstract is a bit lengthy, and I would suggest condensing it a bit;
Page 1, keywords: please revise; "trade-offs and synergies'' can be presented as two separate keywords, also avoid any words that are present in the article title;
Page 1-2, line 42-47: provide relevant supporting reference(s);
Page 2, line 54-57: provide relevant supporting reference(s);
Page 2, line 72-75: provide a relevant supporting reference(s);
Page 2, line 83-86: provide relevant supporting reference(s);
Page 3, line 115-117: provide relevant supporting reference(s);
Page 3, line 120-122: provide relevant supporting reference(s);
Page 3, line 122-125: mention and cite any previous studies here;
Page 3, line 132-135: mention any specific reason for selecting this time-frame/range;
Page 3-4, line 142-161: please slit this into two separate section, one on "Study area" and another on "Data sources'', also in the study area section, provide more details of the ecological features of the region, main land-uses, past land cover, biodiversity etc.;
Page 4, line 157-162: as said, put it under a different sub-section - data sources, with more details;
Page 9, Figure 2: provide more details in the figure legend;
Page 11, Figure 3: provide more details in the figure legend;
Page 11, Discussion: line 132-136: please elaborate, is the area is a hotspot of any specific ecosystem services;
Page 12, line 355-356: provide some hints on how ecological restoration can be done;
Page 14, line 467-483: Not appropriate here. This could be part of the methods section, under a sub-heading like ''research limitations'' or similar.;
Author Response
Please see the Attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. the abstract is too long. please limit it to 150 words
2. there should be a separate literature review and hypothesis development so that the introduction can be more concentrated and clean.
3. what is the theoretical guidance for this study? Besides documenting some facts, what should they be in an ideal situation?
4. the quality and readability of the tables and figures should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have had the opportunity to review an earlier version of the manuscript. Although the author(s) have addressed some of the comments and/or suggestions in the revised version, the introduction section (lines 30-44, lines 58-68) still lacks relevant supporting references and needs to be improved. In addition, section 4.4 (Research restrictions) is not suitable in the discussion part, and I would suggest author(s) move that to the Methods section as ''Research limitation'' with necessary modifications. In section 2.1, the study area map should be placed after some text (and reference to Fig. 1).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
thanks for addressing my comments
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript
