Landscape Impacts on Ecosystem Service Values Using the Image Fusion Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion the idea of this paper is very useful for life in the region. I would like to see better editing of English language all over the text, but especially paragraph 2.5

I would also like to see a more comprehensive literature review of the statistic indices used at the study.

 

Some more minor notes:

 

line 17--> china

lines 58-59-->format

line 62--> add "spatial" resolution

lines 80-83--> correct syntax

lines 184-186-->correct syntax

lines 188-190-->correct syntax

line  200-->Eqn

lines 184-186-->Higher the land...

line 268-->where, where

lines 623-627-->correct format

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The authors have undertaken a demanding and difficult task. The article presents interesting research that I actually have no major complaints about. The manuscript is well thought out and the layout is clear. The literature is appropriately selected, although there are also many self-citations. I have five general comments.

1. The innovation of the research should be more clearly emphasized in the introduction. What is new that the authors are proposing?

2. The ESV was calculated for rice production, which is grown in Asia. Is the proposed approach intended for application only in China or can it be useful globally, e.g. in Europe?

3. There is no information in the conclusions whether the developed approach has limitations?

4. Please also relate the obtained results to results of existing studies? Are the results consistent with other similar ones?

5. The manuscript describes the involvement of only one author, are the others ghostwriters?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

lines 99-101, "thus the US is modelled to predict the US" - not sure of the meaning, suggest rewording of the sentence.

lines 235 and related LULC table - no classes for sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands or marshes are included.  This would likely be related strong to Ecosystem Services.  Explain why these areas were grouped into other classes or modify results accordingly.

lines 270-272 - LUD index description is not clear.  What is a "grading area or index".  Please clarify.

lines 274-275 - This statement "In general, changes in landuse patterns will affect the process in the ecosystem lacking a sustainable development mechanism, thus ecosystem service value (ESV) is also affected".  A 1 to 1 linkage between ESV and sustainable development mechanism is implied - what does this mean?  Is this even true? (e.g. you could expand farmland and grow food without following sustainable agricultural practices)

line 285 - What is the source of the ESV coefficient of that landscape?  How does it vary by lulc class?

Line 318 - "certain reference data"?  Please note the reference data used and the value.

Figure 3 - use darker fonts for the legend class names and title.  Also, add some depth to the figure caption.  For example, what were the important LULC trends identified.

Figures in general - the captions should be more descriptive with useful information.

Tables you present a lot of information in several tables.  Are all the metrics used really needed and useful?  Highlighting key results in some or all the tables would enable readers to quickly focus on the most important information.  Instead it is easy to get lost in the maze of numbers!

Tables - please check all numbers in tables, some seem to be missing digits.

Line 388 - "The built-up areas generally don’t have any ESV".  How can this be true?  Urban areas are centers for employment and all kinds of services people need to live (grocery stores, recreation areas etc.).  Urban areas are economic hubs!  Please rethink the role of urban areas in your methodology in regards to ESV.

Lines 424 - 427 "The entropy value for Ningxia province in 2005 and 2010 is 0.35 and 0.56 respectively which reveals the presence of fewer aggregated settlements, whereas in 2015 and 2020 entropy value swells by 0.78 and 0.91 respectively shows dispersed settlements with a high level of encroachment along the urban fringes".  Doesn't fewer aggregated settlements indicate more dispersal?  Please rework the sentence for clarity.

Conclusions - Don't restate your methods!  Use this section to succiently describe in short paragraphs and/or with some bulleted text the most important finds from your work.  What do you want to make sure the readers understand from your study?  Answer that question in your conclusions.

Supplemental Information:  Suggest you provide sample calculations for the major quantities you computed to enchance clarity for readers and students that may want to benefit from your work.

 

 

Author Response

We are grateful for giving us the opportunity of improving the manuscript and submit a revised manuscript “Image fusion approach to estimate the landscape changes and their impact on the ecosystem services and economic values” (land-1761396). We would like to thank you very much for the great review assistance on our manuscript. We did our best to address all the constructive remarks made by the reviewers. We appreciate the expertise and all the time dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We think that this new version solves all identified issues. Below, you can find a point-by-point answer to the remarks made and the way these were addressed in the manuscript. All the new changes are highlighted in the track changes document. We hope that this new document meets the quality standards of the journal and that it may be considered for publication. Thank you very much for considering our work. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that the manuscript is now enough improved. English laguage is better and there is a flow, allowing the reader to focus to the objectives of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The introduction needs a clearer statement of the overall objection and motivation.  Is the purpose to evaluate how US has affected agricultural production?

Line 104 - edit to: In this research, LULC changes are evaluated over 15 years for one of the smallest Chinese provinces , Ningxia in the People’s Republic of China, which experiences a semi‐arid climate [20].

Is the value of agricultural productions (e.g. grain price) the basis for all ESV coefficients for each LULC?  More understanding of this is needed to clarify the meaning of the values in tables 8 and 9 (see additional comment below on table 9).

Throughout the manuscript consider the use of "land use"  versus  "land use land cover change".  If you are evaluating all changes on the ground then LULC is correct.  This is the data satellites provide and I believe the appropriate way to describe your analysis throughout the manuscript.  In several instances land use appears to not be the appropriate term (e.g. caption for Fig. 2).

How were the values computed in table 9?  The methods focus on valuation of changes by LULC type - these values are for previously undiscussed and undefined types of ecosytem services?  The linkage of these ESV types to landscapes needs to be explained better too.

No sample calculations in supplemental materials as previously suggested are found.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

First of all, on behalf of my co-authors and myself, I want to thank you very much for all the constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Landscape impacts on ecosystem service values using the image fusion approach” (land-1761396), submitted to Land. We are grateful for giving us the opportunity of improving the manuscript and submit a revised manuscript. All the new changes are highlighted in the “Track Changes” document. Below, you can find a point-by-point answer to the remarks made and the way these were addressed in the manuscript. We hope that this new document meets the quality standards of the journal and that it may be considered for publication. If you have any further questions, please let us know. Thank you very much for considering this submission.

 

- The introduction needs a clearer statement of the overall objection and motivation.  Is the purpose to evaluate how US has affected?

 

»Authors’ response: Thank you for this remark. We added a new statement showing the overall aim of the study in the last paragraph of the introduction (lines 104-106): “Here, we aim to explore how LULC conversions in human-induced landscapes have affected agricultural production, focusing on ES dynamics for regional sustainable development.”

 

- Line 104 - edit to: In this research, LULC changes are evaluated over 15 years for one of the smallest Chinese provinces, Ningxia in the People’s Republic of China, which experiences a semi‐arid climate [20].

 

»Authors’ response: This sentence was rephrased as suggested by the reviewer (lines 90-94). Thank you for this comment.

 

- Throughout the manuscript consider the use of "land use"  versus  "land use land cover change".  If you are evaluating all changes on the ground then LULC is correct.  This is the data satellites provide and I believe the appropriate way to describe your analysis throughout the manuscript.  In several instances land use appears to not be the appropriate term (e.g. caption for Fig. 2).

 

»Authors’ response: Thank you for this remark. We replaced the term "land use" with “LULC” throughout the manuscript, whenever appropriate.

supplemental materials

»Authors’ response:

We have provided transition matrix table in the supplementary section

» Final authors’ remarks: We are very grateful for the general comments on the manuscript and the careful revision of our study. In this new revised version, we also check the English by a native speaker colleague to make the text easier to follow and as clear as possible. We appreciate all the time dedicated to reviewing the manuscript. If you have any further questions, please let us know.