Identification of Ecological Risk “Source-Sink” Landscape Functions of Resource-Based Region: A Case Study in Liaoning Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The author has made good modifications to the article, which is worthy of recognition. The manuscript establishes an ecological risk assessment method based on the "source sink" landscape theory, the response degree of landscape types to ecological risks, and the influencing factors of ecological risk processes, and provides research cases of resource-based cities. This research work is worthy of recognition. However, there are still some issues that need to be modified before publication.

- Tables 6, 7, and 8 in the manuscript have a large range of tables. In order to help readers read the article more clearly, I personally suggest presenting them as attachments.

- Among the keywords, Liaoning Province is recommended to be placed last as the research case site.

- There are many obvious loopholes in the English writing in the manuscript, and the author seems to have not conducted a good inspection and polishing of the manuscript's English. The initial letter of the sentence is not capitalized, as in lines 149-154. Incorrect measurement units and units are inconsistent, as in lines 159 and 177. Such issues are quite common in the entire text, and it is hoped that the author can carefully and carefully revise and polish the English version of the manuscript.

- Did the authors take into account the state of the natural background when proposing ecological regulatory strategies? We must take into account that the natural pattern is formed in a process based on the natural environment and dynamically coupled with social development over a long period of time, and that rough human intervention (planting trees and grasses) in some cases does not make the ecological environment better, and sometimes the result is just the opposite (changing the water and soil circulation and causing the imbalance of ecological processes). Take, for example, the initiative to "convert high-risk 'source' landscapes with steep slopes into forests, grasslands or shrubland." There is little human activity on the steep slopes, is it necessary to do so? Whether the inputs of these similar initiatives have positive externalities remains to be further considered.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Overall comment from reviewer #1:

The author has made good modifications to the article, which is worthy of recognition. The manuscript establishes an ecological risk assessment method based on the "source sink" landscape theory, the response degree of landscape types to ecological risks, and the influencing factors of ecological risk processes, and provides research cases of resource-based cities. This research work is worthy of recognition. However, there are still some issues that need to be modified before publication.

Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for your kind comments. We appreciate your constructive comments, which have provided us with reliable ideas and directions to improve the logic of the article, and we have made corresponding changes to the manuscript, specifically as follows.

 

Comment 1. Tables 6, 7, and 8 in the manuscript have a large range of tables. In order to help readers read the article more clearly, I personally suggest presenting them as attachments.

Response: Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, and tables S1 to S13 of appendix are moved to the supplementary material file. And Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 are renamed to Tables S14, 15, 16, and 17.

 

Comment 2. Among the keywords, Liaoning Province is recommended to be placed last as the research case site.

Response: Liaoning Province have been placed last in the Keywords section.

 

Comment 3. There are many obvious loopholes in the English writing in the manuscript, and the author seems to have not conducted a good inspection and polishing of the manuscript's English. The initial letter of the sentence is not capitalized, as in lines 149-154. Incorrect measurement units and units are inconsistent, as in lines 159 and 177. Such issues are quite common in the entire text, and it is hoped that the author can carefully and carefully revise and polish the English version of the manuscript.

Response: We have modified the question you mentioned. And the article has been undergone moderate English revisions. All revisions to the manuscript were highlighted in red.

Comment 4. Did the authors take into account the state of the natural background when proposing ecological regulatory strategies? We must take into account that the natural pattern is formed in a process based on the natural environment and dynamically coupled with social development over a long period of time, and that rough human intervention (planting trees and grasses) in some cases does not make the ecological environment better, and sometimes the result is just the opposite (changing the water and soil circulation and causing the imbalance of ecological processes). Take, for example, the initiative to "convert high-risk 'source' landscapes with steep slopes into forests, grasslands or shrubland." There is little human activity on the steep slopes, is it necessary to do so? Whether the inputs of these similar initiatives have positive externalities remains to be further considered.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We strongly agree and related strategy principles were added some description. Considering that adding relevant contents to the table of regulation strategy could destroy the integrality of the language, so we didn’t add to the table of regulation strategy, line 667 to line 700.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The revised manuscript has made extensive additions to the content. However, there are still two important issues that have not been clarified.

1.      In the introduction, it is said that ecological risks in resource-based regions are physical and chemical pollution caused by irresponsible resource utilization. The ecological impact of mining activities on soil and water is mainly heavy metal pollution. But there is no analysis of ecological risks in Liaoning regarding chemical pollution or heavy metal pollution.

2.      The main ecological risks of Liaoning are soil erosion, soil wind erosion, mines geological disasters, and cultivated land converted to artificial surface. But land use type converted to artificial surface has also been analyzed as a human activity influence factor of the ecological risks. It will be an endogeneity issue.

In the original manuscript, the English expression is relatively smooth. In the revised manuscript, perhaps due to much modification, the expressing is a bit confusing. Please pay more attention.

Author Response

Overall comment from reviewer #2:

The revised manuscript has made extensive additions to the content. However, there are still two important issues that have not been clarified.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. We greatly appreciate your kind help in the reviewing the manuscript. We have revised our manuscript according to your detailed comments, please see below.

 

Comment 1. In the introduction, it is said that ecological risks in resource-based regions are physical and chemical pollution caused by irresponsible resource utilization. The ecological impact of mining activities on soil and water is mainly heavy metal pollution. But there is no analysis of ecological risks in Liaoning regarding chemical pollution or heavy metal pollution.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Mines geological disasters mainly include collapse, landslide, debris flow, and other disasters caused by mining activities. By establishing the response degree of different landscapes to geological disasters to obtain the mines geological disaster sensitivity of landscapes and the risk occurrence probability of different landscapes, this study quantifies the "source-sink" landscape functions of mines geological disasters of the area. Physical and chemical pollution of mines is mainly caused by the discharge of waste generated by mining activities into soil and water. Because of the lack of local sampling data on heavy metal pollution and water pollution, this study only involves the damage to the landscape caused by mining activities. In the future, the study of the “source-sink” landscape function of soil and water pollution can be conducted. Relevant content has been added to the 4.3 section, line 724 to line 728.

 

Comment 2. The main ecological risks of Liaoning are soil erosion, soil wind erosion, mines geological disasters, and cultivated land converted to artificial surface. But land use type converted to artificial surface has also been analyzed as a human activity influence factor of the ecological risks. It will be an endogeneity issue.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The explanation is as follows: section 4.1.2 discusses the driving effect of human factors on ecological risks. Related studies have shown that land use is a major influencing factor for ecological risk, therefore we consider the factor of land use type converted to artificial surface. This study identifies the cultivated land converted to the artificial surface as an ecological risk. The grid undertaking “sink” landscape function of cultivated land converted to the artificial surface means that there is less or no phenomenon of cultivated land conversion in the area. According to the statistical results of the article (Figure 5(b), Table 5, Figure 6, Table S14, and Table S15), the land use factor is also the main influencing factor for these grids, therefore the results are credible. In the future, the study design can be improved to make the results more accurate.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Thank you for providing the revised version. It was already substantially revised. However, there are still issues with the content:

1. the abstract must be shortened and condensed

2. there is talked about mining impact, however the mining type is not specified. From my point of view, the type of mining has a substantial impact on the “source-sink” landscape functions. Mining performed with chemicals (like for ores) has a much bigger impact than for instance aggregates mining.

3. In the discussion section is written: Returning to our research questions and hypotheses, we initially hypothesized increased risk to intact forest from small-scale agriculture to be lower inside than outside the protected area complex boundaries for both sites. However, I didnt find any hypothesis in the manuscript.

4. The conclusions should be revised in order to provide information that goes beyond China and might make the manuscript interesting also for researchers in the rest of the world

 

Quality of English Language is ok from my point of view

Author Response

Overall comment from reviewer #3:

Thank you for providing the revised version. It was already substantially revised. However, there are still issues with the content:

Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for your kind comments. We appreciate your constructive comments, which have provided us with reliable ideas and directions to improve the logic of the article, and we have made corresponding changes to the manuscript, specifically as follows.

 

Comment 1. The abstract must be shortened and condensed

Response: We have streamlined the abstract in terms of research methods, and conclusions, reducing the number of words from 479 to 380.

 

Comment 2. There is talked about mining impact, however the mining type is not specified. From my point of view, the type of mining has a substantial impact on the “source-sink” landscape functions. Mining performed with chemicals (like for ores) has a much bigger impact than for instance aggregates mining.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Different types of mines have different eco-environmental effects of mining. The metal mines discharge wastewater rich in heavy metals during the mining operation, so the mining activity of metal mines has the most serious influence and largest scope of influence in the mining area and around the mining area. The scope of influence of coal mines is the second. Magnesite, bentonite, and other nonmetallic mines have the smallest scope of influence. Opencast mining generally causes greater disturbance to the surface than underground mining. The scope of influence of production mines always changes, while the scope of influence of abandoned mines remains unchanged. Since there is no confidential information such as mineral types and mining methods in the attribute table of the vector data of mines, we only know that the data is from abandoned mines, so there is no distinction based on different mineral types and mining methods. In the future, the vector data of mines with mineral type and mining methods can be collected to make the results more accurate. Relevant content has been added to the 4.3 section, line 724 to line 728.

 

Comment 3. In the discussion section is written: Returning to our research questions and hypotheses, we initially hypothesized increased risk to intact forest from small-scale agriculture to be lower inside than outside the protected area complex boundaries for both sites. However, I didnt find any hypothesis in the manuscript.

Response: The purpose of this article is to propose a methodological framework of identifying ecological risk "source-sink" landscape functions and come up with a comprehensive regulation strategy based on the level and type of ecological risks and the "source-sink" landscape functions. The discussion section mainly involves the influence of natural factors and socioeconomic development and human activity factors on the ecological risk "source-sink" landscape functions and ecological risk levels. The results have shown that the elevation, Precipitation, and phenomenon of cultivated land converted to artificial surface are the main factors affecting the occurrence probability of soil erosion, soil wind erosion, and cultivated land conversion. The mining activities have changed the land cover, which can easily lead to a series of ecological risks. The results of GeoDetector have shown that the land use factor is the dominant factor affecting ecological risk “source-sink” landscape functions. The influence of road network density is second. GDP and population density have the least driving effect. In the comprehensive regulation strategy section, the principle of “conversion of landscape type”, “inlay sink landscapes”, “delineate of protection areas”, “restrict conversion of landscape type”, “set a vegetative filter or forest belt around the “source” landscape”, and “delineate of protection areas of high quality “sink” landscapes” were proposed. Combining the characteristics of the ecological risks, 24 targeted strategies were proposed. In the article, the first hypothesis is that ecological risks undertake "source" landscape function or "sink" landscape function in different areas based on the "source-sink" landscape theory. The second hypothesis is that landscape types have different degrees of response to ecological risks. therefore, the article may not have the hypothesis of” increased risk to intact forest from small-scale agriculture to be lower inside than outside the protected area complex boundaries for both sites”.

 

Comment 4. The conclusions should be revised in order to provide information that goes beyond China and might make the manuscript interesting also for researchers in the rest of the world.

Response: We have added relevant content in this section, line 739 to line 756. International references were cited in the introduction section to explain the study significance of this article, line 70 to line 93.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

This manuscript (land-2626028) aims to establish the assessment model of ecological risk “source-sink” landscape functions of soil erosion, soil wind erosion, mines geological disasters, and cultivated land converted to artificial surface, four ecological risks “source-sink” landscape functions were integrated with the grid as a unit to get the result of multi ecological risk “source-sink” landscape functions. It is a well-prepared manuscript and fits the aims and scope of the journal topic. Some detailed comments and suggestions are listed as follows:

- 1. From Line 11 to 13: the authors mentioned that: "few studies had characterized the processes of specific ecological risk in regions". I suggest to explain more clearly about this description.

- 2. Some quantitative results should be included in the Abstract. The current abstract is a bit qualitative and lacks some quantitative result descriptions.

- 3. I suggest that the description of the study area (Liaoning Province, China) could be moved to the second section (i.e., Materials and Methods).

- 4. From Line 117 to 129, a number of previous related studies have been mentioned, and I suggest the authors to summarize the limitations and shortcomings of these studies (shown below for examples).

Multifunctional Landscapes Identification and Associated Development Zoning in Mountainous Area. Science of the Total Environment 2019, 660, 765–775.

Restoration and Renewal of Ecological Spatial Network in Mining Cities for the Purpose of Enhancing Carbon Sinks: The Case of Xuzhou, China. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS 2022, 143, 908

- 5. In the figures, for example, Figure 1. location of the study area, I suggest the font size should be enlarged to some extent.

- 6. Table 1. Main data used in this study: I wonder why the other data were collected in 2020, except for the land use data in 2010-2020?

- 7. I wonder why the soil erosion, soil wind erosion, cultivated land converted to artificial surface, and mines geological disasters were taken into account.

- 8. In Section 2.3.1. Classification of ecological risk “source-sink” landscapes: a number of previous studies have used the Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis (MSPA) to identify the "source" patches in the landscape. Please refer to the below article. I think this method should be explained.

Measuring the relationship between morphological spatial pattern of green space and urban heat island using machine learning methods. Building and Environment, 2023, 228, 109910

- 9. In Table. 5. The q values of factors of socioeconomic development and human activity, I suggest the significance values (i.e., p values) should also be provided.

- 10. I wonder whether the proposed method can be reused in some other study areas?

- 11. In the Results Section, I suggest some large and long tables could be moved to the supplementary material file.

- 12. In the Conclusion Section, please provide and discuss the major disadvantages of this current research.

Some minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Overall comment from reviewer #4:

This manuscript (land-2626028) aims to establish the assessment model of ecological risk “source-sink” landscape functions of soil erosion, soil wind erosion, mines geological disasters, and cultivated land converted to artificial surface, four ecological risks “source-sink” landscape functions were integrated with the grid as a unit to get the result of multi ecological risk “source-sink” landscape functions. It is a well-prepared manuscript and fits the aims and scope of the journal topic. Some detailed comments and suggestions are listed as follows:

Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for your kind comments. We appreciate your constructive comments, which have provided us with reliable ideas and directions to improve the logic of the article, and we have made corresponding changes to the manuscript, specifically as follows.

 

Comment 1. From Line 11 to 13: the authors mentioned that: "few studies had characterized the processes of specific ecological risk in regions". I suggest to explain more clearly about this description.

Response: We have rewritten this description: Traditional landscape ecological risk assessment can only estimate the ecological risk level, and its results cannot correspond to ecological risk types, resulting in a lack of targeted regulation methods. line 13 to line 15.

 

Comment 2. Some quantitative results should be included in the Abstract. The current abstract is a bit qualitative and lacks some quantitative result descriptions.

Response: We have added the quantitative result of regulation strategy and ecological level of grids undertaking “source” landscape function and modified the statements of influence of natural factors and risk detector result of human factors. Because of the word limit of the abstract and too much content of the article, we have not added some non-core conclusion.

 

Comment 3. I suggest that the description of the study area (Liaoning Province, China) could be moved to the second section (i.e., Materials and Methods).

Response: We removed the similar statement in the 2.3.1 section, line235 to line 241.. In 2.1 section, we introduced the characteristics of Liaoning Province as a study area, including the characteristics of ecological risks in Liaoning Province, and why were soil erosion, soil wind erosion, cultivated land converted to artificial surface and mins geological disasters selected, and the significance of studying ecological risks in Liaoning Province.

 

Comment 4. From Line 117 to 129, a number of previous related studies have been mentioned, and I suggest the authors to summarize the limitations and shortcomings of these studies (shown below for examples).

Reference: Multifunctional Landscapes Identification and Associated Development Zoning in Mountainous Area. Science of the Total Environment 2019, 660, 765–775.

Restoration and Renewal of Ecological Spatial Network in Mining Cities for the Purpose of Enhancing Carbon Sinks: The Case of Xuzhou, China. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS 2022, 143, 908.

Response: We have added the statement of limitation and shortcomings of previous related studies according to your suggestion, line 124 to line 151.

 

Comment 5. In the figures, for example, Figure 1. location of the study area, I suggest the font size should be enlarged to some extent.

Response: We have changed the word size of legends, coordinates, and annotation in the Figure.1, as follow.

 

Comment 6. Table 1. Main data used in this study: I wonder why the other data were collected in 2020, except for the land use data in 2010-2020?

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. In the previous round of comment set, Reviewer3 raised similar question: The manuscript only collected data on precipitation, temperature, and wind speed in 2020, and the data for 2010 was not collected. What is the reason for this? Is the calculation based on one year's data reliable? Related response we think can answer your question:

This study constructed the methodological framework of identifying different ecological risk “source-sink” landscape functions. The results showed that this method can reflect the spatial distribution characteristics of the ecological risk “source-sink” landscape functions. The indicators involved in the methodological framework mainly reflect static spatial distribution, and do not need to reflect the degree of change. Therefore, different period data were not used for calculation. 

Secondly, the precipitation, temperature, and wind speed data involved in this study are monthly data. However, due to the lack of some monthly data, and considering that some data such as mine vector data are thought 2020 year. We finally decided to use the 2020 data for the study after discussion.

Moreover, relevant studies did not use different periods of data in research and there is no clear indication that all data involved in research have different periods [1–3].

Finally, it was mentioned in "4.3 limitation and future work" that because of the lack of data, the result couldn't be more perfect. As the work of data collection progresses in the future, the data such as the multi-year average value of indicators can be used to make up for this problem.

References:

1. Zhang Xin; Cui Jintian; Liu Yuqi; Wang Lei Geo-Cognitive Computing Method for Identifying “Source-Sink” Landscape Patterns of River Basin Non-Point Source Pollution. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING 2017, 10, 55–68, doi:10.25165/j.ijabe.20171005.3272.
2. Huang, N.; Lin, T.; Guan, J.; Zhang, G.; Qin, X.; Liao, J.; Liu, Q.; Huang, Y. Identification and Regulation of Critical Source Areas of Non-Point Source Pollution in Medium and Small Watersheds Based on Source-Sink Theory. Land 2021, 10, 668.
3. Jiang, M.; Chen, H.; Chen, Q. A Method to Analyze “Source-Sink” Structure of Non-Point Source Pollution Based on Remote Sensing Technology. ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION 2013, 182, 135–140, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.07.006.

 

Comment 7. I wonder why the soil erosion, soil wind erosion, cultivated land converted to artificial surface, and mines geological disasters were taken into account.

Response: Mineral resources plays a considerable role in promoting the rapid development of the Liaoning province ecsonomy and accelerating industrialization. However, mining activities inevitably poses non-negligible threats to the ecological environment. According to the statement of national territory spatial planning of Liaoning Province, in Chaoyang City, Huludao City and Fuxin City in western Liaoning Province, phenomenon of soil erosion and soil wind erosion are serious. According to China’s ecological security pattern character-ized by “two barriers and three belts”, Liaoning Province is located in the key areas of the Northeast Forest Belt and the North Sand Control Belt. In the context of accelerated urbanization, black soil that is an extremely rare cultivated land resource needs to be protected. Until 2035, Liaoning Province has formulated targets that the province's soil conservation rate will reach 80%, and the amount of wind protection and sand fixation will reach 2,600 tons/square kilometer* per year, and the area of ecological restoration will reach 65894 acres, and the Supplementary area of cultivated land will reach 160,000 hectare.

Relevant content is in the 2.1. Study area section, line 172 to line 201.  

 

Comment 8. In Section 2.3.1. Classification of ecological risk “source-sink” landscapes: a number of previous studies have used the Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis (MSPA) to identify the "source" patches in the landscape. Please refer to the below article. I think this method should be explained.

Reference: Measuring the relationship between morphological spatial pattern of green space and urban heat island using machine learning methods. Building and Environment, 2023, 228, 109910.

Response: We have added the statement of research field, technology, and limitation of the MSPA approach in section 2.3.1 according to your suggestion, line 225 to line 234.

 

Comment 9. In Table. 5. The q values of factors of socioeconomic development and human activity, I suggest the significance values (i.e., p values) should also be provided.

Response: significance values of all factors (p values) are all 0.000. The statement of p values is added: p values of all factors are less than 0.05 and pass significant test, line 637 to line 638.

 

 

Comment 10. I wonder whether the proposed method can be reused in some other study areas?

Response: Theoretically, the "source" landscape and the "sink" landscape can be identified, and risk occurrence probability of landscapes can be quantified, and factors that affect the occurrence of ecological risk can be known. Then the methodological framework proposed by our study can be applied to related ecological risk.

Because of different types of ecological sensitivity such as soil erosion sensitivity, land desertification sensitivity, rocky desertification sensitivity, the ecological sensitivity in different areas is also affected by local terrain feature, vegetation, climate and human factors. Therefore, the study of ecological sensitivity may be further studied based on the methodological framework proposed in this article.   

The study of typical areas. The applications of “source-sink” landscape theory mainly concentrates on studies of watersheds, mountainous area or special evaluation unit. Little attention has been paid to urbanized areas and related ecological risks such as water pollution, urban heat islands, and land use conversion.

In the context of carbon neutrality and carbon peaking, the spatial distribution of related ecological risk “source” and “sink landscape functions are paid more attention, and it will help to come up with targeted regulation strategies.

 

Comment 11. In the Results Section, I suggest some large and long tables could be moved to the supplementary material file.

Response: Tables 6, 7, 8, 9 and tables S1 to S13 of appendix are moved to the supplementary material file. And Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 are renamed to Tables S14, 15, 16, and 17.

 

Comment 12. In the Conclusion Section, please provide and discuss the major disadvantages of this current research.

Response: We have added the related statement of disadvantages of previous studies in conclusion, line 726 to line 729.  

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

A number of grammatical errors, typos can be found in the manuscript. A proof reading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality.

A number of grammatical errors, typos can be found in the manuscript. A proof reading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for your kind comments. We have invited a professional institution to polish the manuscript to ensure that it conforms to academic norms. The article has been undergone extensive English revisions. All revisions to the manuscript were highlighted in red and blue. And NATIVE English Editing can be found in the supplementary material file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for providing your manuscript to the Land journal, and it respects Scientific Best Practice of structuring. Moreover, the manuscript is well written and illustrated with graphs.

Hover, there are minor issues that need to be considered. Firstly, the abstract needs to be refined as clear results are missing. Second, the content must be put into an interenational context. Do to the fact that the manuscript is only focused on China, with a minimum of references outside China, there is a limited interested to the scientific community.

In the conclusions, in addition to summarising the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work. In the current version, the conclusions are as general as the abstract, and the reader doesnt get any information from reading both of them.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Human survival and development are often based on the exploitation and utilization of natural resources. Disordered resource development often leads to serious ecological and environmental problems. The frequent occurrence of ecological and environmental risks seriously restricts human sustainable development. Scientific assessment of ecological environmental risks could provide technological support for regional ecological protection and sustainable development decisions. This research has important practical value and application significance. However, many key scientific issues have not been thoroughly considered. It needs to be major revised before considering whether it can be published.

1.      Why should we analyze the ecological risks for resource-based region? What are the main and the key ecological risks of resource-based region? Does the ecological risks of resource-based region have the unique characteristics, unique causes, or serious threats?

2.      What are the characteristics of Liaoning as a resource-based region? What are its typicality and uniqueness? It is necessary to explain why Liaoning was selected as the research area. What experience and reference can it provide for similar resource-based regions around the world?

3.      The main ecological risks of Liaoning are soil erosion, soil wind erosion, cultivated land converted to artificial surface, and mines geological disasters. It is necessary to explain why these four ecological risks are the main risks and how they affect the sustainable development of Liaoning province.

4.      The causes of ecological risks can be divided into natural foundations and human activities. Human activities are generally believed to be the main cause of ecological and environmental problems. However, the influence factor analysis of the ecological risk “source-sink” patterns in Liaoning mainly focuses on natural background, climate change, vegetation, etc., lacking analysis of human activity factors.

5.      The mechanism analysis of ecological risks is the core of proposing ecological risk prevention and control measures. The weak mechanism analysis has led to the proposed regulation strategy only providing guidance direction. It is lack of targeted regulation strategy for sub regions and cities, and unable to guide the regional actual development in future.

The English expression of the manuscript basically meets the requirements.

Reviewer 3 Report

I evaluated the manuscript titled "Identification of the" Source sink "Landscape Function of Ecological Risk in Resource-based Regions: A Case Study of Liaoning Province, China". I think there are significant issues with this manuscript, and personally, I do not recommend publishing it in the Land journal. The reasons are as follows：

l  I don't think the author has clearly stated what scientific issues this research focuses on.

l  The research content has almost no novelty, and the research results have little guiding significance for practice.

There are also some suggestions for you to make modifications and reference.

l  Can Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 be considered together to avoid redundancy?

l  The pixel of figures in the manuscript are too low and the expression effect is very poor.

l  The manuscript only collected data on precipitation, temperature, and wind speed in 2020, and the data for 2010 was not collected. What is the reason for this? Is the calculation based on one year's data reliable?

l  The formulation of regulatory policies should be more targeted, and the issue of management attribution should also be considered.

l  The conclusion also contains discussion parts. Authors should avoid repeating the results of the study or presenting an abstract. The "Conclusions" section has a different meaning from the "Abstract" section. Instead, authors should present the main findings, including those that can contribute to new knowledge. Authors can also suggest possible implications and applications of this knowledge and "pathways" for future work.

The above is just my personal opinion and not a negation of your work.

The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.