Assessment of Uncertainties in Ecological Risk Based on the Prediction of Land Use Change and Ecosystem Service Evolution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction can be improved focus previous studies on China as there are many articles ecologic risk in China recently.  Difference of this study from their perspective can clearly exploit.  Also, ambition of study need to identify strongly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study offers an important methodology to assess the supply of ecological services under different climatic and land use scenarios. Using scenarios and case studies from China, it proposes multiple futuristic supplies of ecological services across regions.

There are multiple double adjectives in sentences which make it difficult to understand. The first sentence has the words "..... increasingly significant". It is unclear what this means. 

The study location is not explicit in the abstract. It is unclear where is Southern Hilly Region is. There is inconsistency in naming of study area "Southern Hilly Region" vs "Southern hilly region."

There is no mention of a larger geographic context in the abstract. Are these cities in China or other countries?

Another confusing word is "spatiotemporal distribution of ESV." Does ESV include the idea of spatiotemporal distribution? Another statement: "If we liken the PLUS model to an archery target, calculating the FOM value is essentially like hitting the bullseye." What does this mean? This seems unnecessary.

What are ecosystem services in this study? There are many definitions and types. The authors should clarify the scope of ecosystem services.

The authors highlighted the role of climate change on ecological services repetitively throughout the introduction. There is extensive body of literature about the urbanization, population changes, and impervious surface growth without sustainability principles being more impactful on ecosystem services. There should be more discussion on how urbanization and growth of impervious surfaces impact ecosystem services and what is the landscape of scholarship and research gaps.

The introduction section has minimal discussion on how the previous scholarship has not covered the analysis of ecological services as this study is proposing. There should be clear indications of research gaps and research questions. Readers also expect some discussion on the structure of the paper in the introduction. The geographic context and annual weather phenomena are unique in this study. Having monsoon dumping rain in a steep slope geographic terrain, combined with urbanization and land use changes, are the primary drivers of the depletion of ecological services. This could be the main thrust in the introduction.

Why did the authors decide to use LEAS of the PLUS model? Why is it more relevant than other applications? Justifications with citations are expected.

The definition of the Sharpe Index is unclear how this can be translated into ecosystem services. Then Why is it higher or lower than zero? What does that mean? Equations 6 and 7 should be better explained for ecological services.

For equations 8 and 9, what does a small area unit mean? Why x and y formula are the same? Further explanation is needed.

In the results, what does this mean? "In the southern hilly region, forests exhibit the highest land use conversion rate, between 56% and 58% across different scenarios from 1990 to 2030?" does it mean that forest areas are growing across all regions? Please rewrite clarifying that.

What do square maps as x and y in Figure 3? Are they zoomed-in examples? Please connect them to the larger maps with insets.

What are the bubbles in Figure 4? Please explain in the text.

The authors should discuss the limitations and future directions of this research.

Writing can be improved by making it more direct and concise. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article by You et al. assesses the effect of Land Use Change (LUC) on ecosystem services in the southern hilly region of China.  They use ecosystems service measures of ESV (Ecosystem Service Value), CICS (cross sensitivity), and ERI (ecological risk index).  I was not previously familiar with these indices, but was interested in seeing an approach that involves a single index or indices to determine the effect of LUC (or anything else for that matter) on ecosystem services.   The LUC scenarios themselves are based on 9 drivers, including elevation, slope, temperature, precipitation, population, GDP, distance to rivers, distance to highways, and railways.  My biggest issue is that the ESV measure seems to be based entirely on something like crop yield – i.e. net profits from the four major crops, rice, wheat, corn, and soybeans.  I understand that crop profit depends on crop yield which is one measure of an ecosystem service.  But, what about other ecosystem services in other land-use types, such as tree biomass or Net Primary Productivity in forest ecosystems?  What ecosystem services are improved by more constructive area?  I think that the paper would benefit from a clear description up front of the different ecosystem services associate with each land-use type (e.g. farmland = food – what else?; forests/grassland– almost everything we define as ecosystem services is covered by forests and some by grasslands; urban – not sure what of the traditional regulating, supporting, provisioning, or cultural (ok – recreation), and water (water runoff, water cycling, freshwater availability).  Then I would like a better justification why just look at net profit of crops is sufficient and how that affects non-crop ecosystems.  The CICS is then a measure of whether or not the land-use transition promote is inhibits ESV.  The ERI needs to be explained better to the non-economist.

Other minor comments:

1.      Line 131:  Need to specify the Southern Hilly Region is in China – and be consistent with the capitalization.

2.      In line with my major comments, the introduction could use more discussion of the implication on ecosystem services of the transition between the different land-use types

3.      Kube 222 – define Kappa and FOM

4.      Figures 1 and 2 are not referenced in the text; I did not check for each so please make sure they are all referenced.

5.      Line 249: “ESV of future spatial … “  shouldn’t this be prior to 2020 and not future?

6.      Figure 4:  There is mention that some changes are not significant – it would help if there can be stippling on the maps to indicate which areas are significant or not

7.      For Figure 5 it might help to just total up the increase and decrease areas and put that in the text so it is immediately obvious the value of each and how each contributes to the net

8.      Line 329: water to farmland ins 2000-2010 is also greater than 0.1

9.      Figure 7: label as ERI

10.  Figure 8:  I generally like the figure, but aren’t these drivers only driving crop profit, or am I misinterpreting it?  I also originally was confused if the angles had any meaning – please explain if the direction has meaning or it is just a matter of distinguishing the different drivers.

11.  Uncertainty discussion: shouldn’t the decrease in cultivated are help with biodiversity, natural vegetation, and soil erosion?

12.  The point about different sensitivities for different land-use conversion is interesting – this could change as climate and CO₂ levels change beyond just this decade.

13.  Line 490:  why is there more high risk (high ERI) in the EPS scenario?  That seems counterintuitive as it is the one meant to protect the environment

I note the language sometimes changes between farmland or cultivated; constructed or urban or built-up land, for example.  Better to be more consistent

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of your manuscript is " Assessment of uncertainties in ecological risk based on the simulation of land use change and ecosystem service evolution,” presents significant interest in the field. However, I have the following comments and questions:

1.            Title: It seems the main objectives of this study do not match the title. The authors may improve the title according to the objective in lines 10-12 by integrating such things as predicting.

2.            Abstract:  The authors should only provide the main objective of the research. We think no need to detail the specific objectives in the abstract.

3.            In addition, the authors should express the numerical results such as percentages, indexes, etc. Please add this study's main policy implications and limitations in the abstract.

4.            Introduction Section: While it provides the necessary background, some disconnects are evident. For example, the introduction fails to present the objectives of the study. This section needs to be improved and summarized, and it should highlight why this study is essential. What is missing? What is needed? Does socio-economic development impact agricultural land and ecosystems, etc?

5.            The author merely enumerates previous works without conducting a thorough analysis of their research to fill the research gap.

6.            The literature review should indicate the relevance of the factors that studies have used in the past and their impact on these previous studies. Including a flow chart or other charts to highlight its relevance would be very important. (Ideally, we recommend speared the literature review from the introduction)

7.            Material and method: As depicted in lines 150-152, the topography influences ecology, so the authors should provide the DEM in Figure 1.

8.            A map with the area's continental, national, and regional locations would be necessary for global readership.

9.            The section is confusing. Therefore, this section needs arrangements and the method section. In other words, the method of land use classification is unclear. Why did the authors choose supervised/unsupervised classification?

10.            Based on the data shown on lines 166-176, how has this data been integrated to estimate the land change in 2030?

11.            According to the study land area, how many Landsat images are collected yearly? It would be suitable to use a table to add the proportion of cloud and collected data, etc.

12.            Results and Discussion: We have not found a difference between the results and the discussion sections. The results are not presented well and need to be summarized.

13.            For the discussion section, they should discuss the main results at the same time. Therefore, it's recommended to explore the results of previous studies and discuss what results they got and why you are getting better/different results.

14.            Conclusion: The conclusion is so long. The conclusion serves as a concise summary of key findings, research aims, and implications. It encapsulates significant findings, reaffirms research objectives, explores practical and theoretical implications, underscores contributions, and provides closure to the study.

15.            What is the theoretical significance of this paper? What is the innovation of the study?

16.            English is not very smooth, and please improve it.

We hope these comments help.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English is not very smooth, and please improve it. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Ecosystem services are a method of processing natural values into the economic environment. Regional assessment in the context of landscape changes has a significant spatial impact on the quality of human life. Ecosystem services are a comprehensive landscape assessment.

Did the authors consider the approved spatial plans (territorial-spatial documentation) of individual files and regions in the concept of new landscape changes?

In the discussion, an integrated approach to country management could be created (For example: DOI 10.3390/su14074238, DOI 10.3390/su11174554, DOI 10.1007/s11625-016-0415-z, DOI 10.2166/wst.2007.541)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf