Spatial-Temporal Variation and Mechanisms Causing Spatial Differentiation of Ecosystem Services in Ecologically Fragile Regions Based on Value Evaluation: A Case Study of Western Jilin, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper “ Spatial-temporal variation and mechanisms causing spatial differentiation of ecosystem services in ecologically fragile regions based on value evaluation: a case study of Western Jilin” presents interesting results on the analyzes of the spatial distribution and spatial-temporal evolution characteristics of the integrated Ecosystem Service Value in the study area Jilin by constructing an integrated ecosystem service value model.
The paper is well written, and I have some comments that should help improve the presented results and the paper's readability.
In the Introduction, some statements should be supported by citations, and literature dealing with the experience in the presented research area from other countries around the world should also be mentioned and used for discussion in the results part of the study.
The materials section has a very brief description of the data sources, periods of observation, location of stations, e.g. meteorological and climate data, and other data. From Fig. 2, it is visible, due to the used interpolation method (but not mentioned in the paper), that there were very few observation stations, e.g. temperature and precipitation (only 2 for such a large catchment is not representative).
The quality of these inputs can significantly influence the presented results.
The Method section should provide more detailed information about the calculation of e.g. ESV presented in Table 2. and other ESS parameters.
Results are summarised in a lot of graphical outputs. But unfortunately, these Figs. are not good readable see, e.g. Figs. 3, 4, 6.
I propose another form of outputs or redrawing the mapping. These Figs. should be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I congratulate the authors for the very interesting paper. I list below minor comments to improve the quality of the paper.
Please check the acronyms, they must have the first letters as capitalized (e.g. see human activity index), and also the word "earth". Add the acronym of Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (row 46). The authors sometimes use Ecosystem Service Value (ESV) and Ecosystem Service Values (ESVs), please choose which one you want to use throughout the paper.
In row 72 are mentioned the tools for ES estimation, among these, it is important to cite Simulsoil (see the functioning on https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020872). In rows 96-98 can be useful to take a look to this paper on the relationships between ES and vulnerability by flood risk http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2F978-981-15-8748-1_8)
Check the units of measure in the paper (e.g. km2). The name of the cities in Figure 1 are too small to be visualized. Please increase the font dimension
Figure 2 and related legends are too small. You could locate the figure on only one page organizing the maps in couples of two per row. The same for Figures 3, 4, 6, increase the legend.
Rows 168-169, 189-190 check the lack of space.
In rows 318-319, the following references are highly needed
Who are the final users of this ES valuation? It is important to fix this in the text and underline in which context this application could return useful.
Next developments should be further extended to identify promising points of contact with other existing methods to develop multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches, also to promote the prediction of ecological scenarios and aiding the decision-makers and other bodies to intervene in time with specific policies and actions (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143806)
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors addressed all of my comments. However, some minor corrections are necessary before consideration for publication.
- Line 55-56: The referred study was not conducted by a single author. Please revise the sentences.
- Figure 1: please add the unit of DEM in the legend. You should also add the north arrow in the right-most figure because it is a separate entity.
- Figure 2: the legends are not self-explanatory. For example, what are the lowest and highest values of NDVI, temperature etc? Please correct.
- Please follow the numbering format for subsection 2.3.1.
- Please correct section 3.2
- Line 557: please correct section numbering
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
