Spatiotemporal Variation in Ecosystem Health and Its Driving Factors in Guizhou Province
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article analyzed the dynamic changes of ecosystem health of Guizhou Province between 2010 and 2020 and try to use GD model to identify the driving factors of ecological health. However, the following issues with the manuscript need to be concerned：
1. This abstract contains too much content. The author must introduce key points and innovations, rather than repeat the analysis of results.
2. At the end of the introduction, it is stated that the objective of the study is: research the alteration in ecosystem health between 2010 to 2020, while the abstract does not have any supporting results to show how the ecosystem health changes between 2010 and 2020; the conclusion only shows: in terms of time, the health situation of Guizhou Province improved. The conclusion is too generalized.
3. Specifying in the introduction what is a new achievement of this study in relation to previous works? Development of the introduction.
4. The left map of Figure 1 should contain basic map elements such as scale, latitude and longitude grid, and the names of major cities should be labeled; the aesthetics of the right map of Figure 1 should be improved.
5. If the ecosystem service evaluation matrix in Figure 3. is fully consistent with existing studies, the reason for the reference should be stated and no additional images are needed.
6. In section 4.2, all the contents are analyzed using administrative place names, and it is suggested that all administrative boundaries and names should be added in Figure 7-11, so that readers can read them graphically in comparison.
7. Is there any specific data to support the analysis of the causes of vigor changes in L309-312, L315-316, or do they refer to other literature?
8. L337-339 using landscape evaluation indices to describe how could improve ecosystem organization. In fact, I did not see any landscape index data.
9. It is advised to simplify and summarize Sections 4.2 and 4.3 because they are wordy, do not highlight the results, and contain a lot of discussion.
10. According to the research objectives in the introduction, the results in section 4.4 were used to support the exploration of the variables that effect of ecosystem health, and the results of the study were analyzed for the impact factors in 2010 and 2020 respectively, so can the factors that lead to changes in ecosystem health be summarized?
11. In the discussion section, the literature review is rather thin. It should be further expanded support your research.
12. The conclusion section should reiterate the research goals and objectives, and list the main research results, pointing out the problems and the next research direction. The structure of the author's summary section is not clear enough, and it is suggested to further revise and improve it.
I am no native English speaker and am therefore refraining from specific comments, but I think the language could be improved and I would recommend a thorough proofreading by a native speaker.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Introduction
In my opinion, the status of vigor, organization and resilience themselves mean the capacity for an ecosystem to deliver ecosystem services, so in the framework of V-O-R if it is logical or sound to introduce ecosystem services?
2. Research and materials
The period for collecting data and resolution for data are different, so how processing such heterogeneous database is missing in this section or in section method.
3. Methods
Lines 152-154. vigor, organization and resilience are the indicators for the status of an ecosystem, and ecosystem services also are the property of an ecosystem, how to use them to indicate the effect on an ecosystem heath?
Line 183: a landscape probably includes more than an ecosystem, so how does its diversity indicate an ecosystem structure or spatial organization?
Lines 196-209: I never make sense land use categories can characterize the resilience of an ecosystem and what criterion on which you assigned values to different category?
Line 218: ecosystem services are unnecessarily products.
Line 220: what are the ecosystem service coefficients?
4. Results
Line 290: The construction land area decreased from 642 km2 to 2378 km2?
Lines 307-312: in terms of such statements, if meaning that farmland ecosystem is less vigorous than forest and grassland? Likewise, whether similar statements in lines 330-340 mean organization status for farmland ecosystem is weaker or worse than for forest and grassland? So authors should thoroughly verify the rationality of indicators for vigor and organization.
Lines 347-355: in terms of progressive succession theory, forest community generally is at more superior stage than grassland community, thus is more resilient and stable than grassland community. What damaged forest ecosystem is much difficult to recover in these regions is not necessarily imply less resilient and stable than grassland.
Lines 388-396: how do you evaluate demand for ecosystem services?
Lines 458-491: explanation for factors influencing ecosystem health is too farfetched.
need a native English speeker to edit
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Your article is quite good but needs some more clarifications for readers.
The topic is very welcome because in todays situation we are urged to define landscape change within the implications of ecological recovery. I would just suggest to authors that they should think about site specifics because ecological recovery can be sometimes conflicting with some spatial qualities for example for agriculture, forestry...
Please, ecosystem services needs some more explanation. Therefore, please include more research of defining them by other authors and clarify their benefits for landscape and humans.
Your sentence needs some more explantions:
"Despite some limitations, this study was meaningful and can offer more precise and practical suggestions for the development of Guizhou Province. " Here you can add which practical suggestions, because this will make more benefits from you paper.
Some of the maps are to small so it is quite difficult to follow informations within it.
The figures are a bit small and hard to follow the colors and they need to be improved.
Conclusion needs to be improved by the connection of investigation with site specific development deriving recommendations for further development.
The references are appropriate.
Kind regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper analyzes the ecosystem health and its driving mechanism of Guizhou province, and the results are very valuable. I have a few quick questions:
1. It is suggested that the authors ask experts with strong English expression ability to help polish the text, so as to make the writing more authentic.
2. In the method, why are the years 2010 and 2020 selected?
3. How is the basic data of the evaluation collected?
4. Please supplement the reasons for the 11 drivers selected.
5. Please check whether the author's information is consistent with the author's contribution.
Need polishing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Unfortunately, the revised manuscript did rarely improve in the innovation and other issues I had ever pointed out in last comments. Specific details as follows:
Abstract: In my opinion, there are two bugs for authors’perspectives here: firstly, the ecosystem health status and its influencing factors does not equal to driving mechanisms as authors indicate in manuscript title. Secondly, few studies focused on Guizhou Province does not mean innovation as well. Additionally, what would readers perceive any implications about ecological restoration in Guizhou province from your findings? Forest land predominant land use? ecosystem health index (EHI) ? or the GDP like that factors?
Introduction
What are the issues you intend to solve in this work?
Lines 33-34: authors indicated environmental problems and degraded ecosystem functions caused by increasing industrialization and urbanization, how about agriculture and other factors?
Materials and methods
Some indicator weights have been arbitrarily determined in ecosystem health evaluation.
Discussion
Authors failed to clearly discuss the implications of their findings in this work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
