Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found the manuscript to be a careful research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear reviewer,

 

I wanted to express my sincere gratitude for your thorough review and positive feedback on our manuscript. Your careful assessment and recommendation for acceptance are greatly appreciated.

 

Your recognition of the meticulousness and attention to detail in our research has provided us with a tremendous sense of accomplishment. Your constructive comments have undoubtedly improved the quality of our work and strengthened the overall manuscript.

 

Thank you once again for your time and valuable contribution. Wish you a happy life and smooth work!

 

Best regards,

Jiayu Xia

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

This article focusses on a very important topic the conservation of critical ecosystems.

The article is very well written and manages to expose very clear the different elements of this article.

The article uses a complex though comprehensive methodology.

Introduction

The introduction provides a very clear perspective on the relevance of ecosystem conservation and restoration.

However, despite presenting the context, the introduction lacks a clear presentation of the study objectives.

Figure 1 is not mentioned in the introduction would be more suited to the methodology chapter.

Materials

The authors should include a map with the location of the region inside China territory.

Methods

When mentioning: “The guideline considers ecosystem pattern, ecosystem quality, ecosystem services, and ecological stress as the four aspects of identifying and diagnosing eco-logical problems that correspond to the connotation of ecosystem quality”. It is rather unclear how do you assess ecosystem quality using the same ecosystem quality as a reference. Please clarify.

Not clear what GIS Tool was used, the authors should present the software and tools used. When applicable, the authors should refer to valid references regarding the specific tools used.

This article uses many abbreviations (ex. NPP, NDVI, etc) without a clear definition. Although they are well known for most specialists, they may not be understood by some of the readers. Please present the full name on the first reference.

Regarding Table 5, a clear mention should be made to the references for the values used for each parameter.

When calculating the weight Wi’ and Wi’’, it seems unclear if the decision includes any subjective and, if so, how was it determined.

In “In detail, the coefficients of farmland, forest land, grassland, waters, construction land, and unused land were 40, 1, 5, 10, 300, and 100 respectively”, land covers should be organized to provide a gradient from low to high.

Results

Results are mostly clearly explained.

The authors often refer to Figures along the text, however the number of the figures should be mentioned to avoid confusion.

The strategies are comprehensive.

In point “4.3.3. Estimation of Transformation Effects in Key Areas for Restoration” the authors refer to the simulation as an effective situation. However, I feel that they should refrain from this mention and mention that such results are estimates and expectations. In fact, the authors discuss the risks regarding these interpretations during the Discussion.

Discussion and conclusions

This section is comprehensive, realistic and points out the main elements of the study.

Detailed corrections

“This study chooses 8 kinds of data,” use “eight”

“Figure 6. Spatial differentiation of ecosystem service and its indicators. (a) Provisoning service; (b) Regrlation service;” – Regulation

(4.1.4) After statistical analysis, the ecosystem quality in Suide County is mainly categorized as Middle. – Should be “Middle level”

For the overstated reasons I am recomending that this article should be accepted after minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Attached link：

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X22003387?via%3Dihub

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents a case study of ecosystem quality evaluation in Suide County, China. Overall, the authors have conducted a substantial amount of research in the study area. However, the academic contribution and innovation of this paper is not well-decribed. For example, the authors mention that they constructed an ecosystem quality evaluation model based on the "pattern-service-pressure" framework. However, they do not clearly explain what deficiencies exist in existing models related to ecosystem quality evaluation, and how their model addresses these issues. Additionally, based on the methodology used, the methods employed in this paper are generally well-known. Given that the title emphasizes the Fragile Zone of Loess Plateau, it is necessary to analyze the differences between this region and other areas, and design the methodological model based on the region's characteristics and unique ecological problems. However, this paper does not adequately address this aspect.

 

As an academic paper, the authors should not only introduce their research work but also describe the academic contribution and innovation of their research. Therefore, I think there is significant room for improvement in this paper.

 

I recommend that the authors revise their paper to more clearly explain the deficiencies of existing ecosystem quality evaluation models and how their model effectively addresses these issues. Additionally, they should consider the unique characteristics and ecological problems of the Fragile Zone of Loess Plateau when designing the methodological model. Overall, I suggest that they should more clearly and explicitly state the academic contribution and innovation of their research.

 

Based on the points mentioned in the previous review and the current state of the paper, I  recommend rejecting this paper if the authors cannot effectively explain the academic contribution and innovation of their research. The authors should provide clear and compelling arguments for the importance and novelty of their research to support the publication of their paper. If the authors are unable to fulfill these requirements, the paper should be rejected.

The language used in the paper is not polished, and some sentences are difficult to understand. Therefore, the authors should take the time to revise and improve the language used in their paper, so that it meets the required standards for academic writing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I have read this paper (MS) carefully. It is a really well-structured MS that tries to analyze the dynamics of the coexistence of the ecological and anthropogenic environment with the aim of improving the integrity of ecosystems by proposing the restoration of disturbed areas – corridors connecting ecological flows and through its human well-being. This work has made very good use of modern literature and there is a full analysis in the introductory section, but the discussion does not follow a formal structure, with analysis of similar examples in China or elsewhere in the world, but I do not think that this weakness, affect the quality of the MS. Due to the length of the article, perhaps a more extensive discussion would have worked negatively. At the same time, I particularly liked the detailed description of rehabilitation actions in the results section, giving to the MS a value of practical implementation of measures (from a simple theoretical reference to general measures). The paper has some weaknesses – especially in the "Introduction" and "Methodology" sections whose correction will improve the final article.

I suggest being published with major comments. Ι have numbered the rows per page to make my comments easier to find

Main Comments

Comment 1

Title: Ecosystem Quality Assessment in Fragile Zone of Loess Plateau: A Case Study of Suide County, China

 The title of MS does not fully correspond to the article. I would suggest incorporating restoration into it as well.

 Comment 2

 Page 3. The objectives of the MS should be clearer at the end of the paragraph.

 Comment 3

 I really liked Figure 1 (Technical process) and would suggest doing it as a graphical abstract

 Comment 4

 Page 1 – Line 8-9: “Therefore, ecosystems have become a global research hotspot”

 It is not understood at the beginning of the introduction, what this sentence means.

 Comment 5

 Page 4 – Line 14: “Based on the analysis of the current land use map of Suide County in 2020 (Figure 3)”

How were the land cover types calculated? Was estimated from this study (where should the methodology be mentioned) or from another work? It seems the dataset “www.resdc.cn” has been used, so authors should also referred it on this part of the text.

  Comment 6

 In Table 1, the land cover “Unused land” what is meaning?

  Comment 7

 Page 6 – Lines 7- 24. This text does not belong to the Methods section. Most of this text should be moved to the introduction and consolidated with corresponding texts.

Comment 8

Page 9 – Lines 23-25. “Population pressure and industrial pressure are converted into points through the distribution of buildings, industrial land and mining land in land-use patches”

Is there a need for better analysis of the way this analysis has been done? E.g. how were the buildings imprinted?

 

 Comment 9

 Page 9 – Line 32. “Thus, we selected this seemingly contradictory”. 

 It is not contradictory at all. A better explanation is needed for the combined use of drought stress and flash flood stress, or simply not having this text in the MS. Because we are talking about stress, both types of stress are important for a holistic examination of their impact, especially since intense flooding has an effect on increasing erosion and subsequent drought leads to gradual desertification.

 Comment 10

 Page 10 – Line 18. “The topographic undulation degree was calculated based on DEM data”.

 I do not understand what indicator this is and how it has been calculated. He wants more analysis.

  Comment 11

 Page 10. “As for flash floods, we comprehensively overlaid NDVI, K value, topographic undulation degree, elevation, and river network density in Suide County to obtain the spatial distribution of flash flood impacts”.

 How flash floods are calculated is not clear, while in the cited literature the calculation is much more complex, and also I could not find the reference "62. Liu, Y.; Han, J.; Xie, M.; Shang, T.; Zhao, X.; Ge, W. Risk Assessment of Flood Disaster on the Loess Plateau Based on Integration of GIS and AHP. Research of Soil and Water Conservation 2023, 2, 129-134” A more detailed explanation and investigation will be needed if Ref 62 exists.

  Comment 12

 Page 10. 3.2. “The Weight Calculated by AHP-EWM Model”

 This was done to assess Ecosystem Quality; If so, be clearly visible at the beginning of the paragraph

  Comment 13

 Page 12 -Lines 7-9. “In this study, we initially extracted the top 30 ecological sources using the landscape type core and ranked the top 15 ecological sources as first-class ecological sources accord- ing to the probability of connectivity (PC) and the delta of PC (dPC) in the landscape index”

 How did they calculate them? Based on MSPA analysis;

  Comment 14

  Page 13 – Unit “4.1.2.Ecosystem Services”

 How was the total ecosystem value calculated from the three different levels of ecosystem services? The process should be described either here or in the corresponding chapter in the methodology (page 8). The same is needed for 3.1.3. Ecological Stress

 

Minor comments

 Page 12 – Line 44. the "figure" needs number. To be rewritten as “As shown in the figure 5”. Also must be change to other similar units (like page 13 – line 23).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Attached link：

https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=3uoqIhG8C44YLTlOAiTRKibYlV5Vjs7ioT0BO4yQ4m_mOgeS2ml3UKYvh-T2INekYuSHqXayjLiLeGK8kHRMMHfE6y8ZFWbA&uniplatform=NZKPT

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have addressed all my questions.