Construction of Ecological Security Patterns and Evaluation of Ecological Network Stability under Multi-Scenario Simulation: A Case Study in Desert–Oasis Area of the Yellow River Basin, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider the manuscript to be interesting, and it could be considered for publication. It explores a multi-scenario framework by coupling future land use simulation and minimum cumulative resistance for urban agglomerations along the Yellow River Basin in Ningxia (China). It simulates land use change in 2035 under four development scenarios, identifies ecological security networks, and assesses the stability of network connectivity in each scenario.

However, I believe that the following issues should be addressed first:

- Keywords:  ESP: is already in the title.

-  Keywords: Urban agglomerations along the Yellow River Basin in Ningxia: I believe this text is too large for being a keyword.

- Section 2.1, lines 110-113: each land use type should be carefully explained. Please provide a description of each one, for a better understanding.

-  Section 3.2.2 - Table 4: the assignment of the resistance value, and the Weight, should be explained in detail in the text.

-        - Line 260: the term “mu” must be corrected.

-        - Line 290: replace one “under”

-        - Figure 6: there is a misspelling in the word resistance

-        - Conclusions: this section should be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

We provided a point-by-point response to your comments, and please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for the suggestions, and we have highlighted the modification in corresponding section in the revised version.

Best wishes for you.

Sincerely Yours,

Cai-hong Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This study explores the changes in the ecological security pattern and the connectivity stability of the ecological network in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region under different scenarios. Although the methodology used in this study is not groundbreaking, the structure of the article is clear, the scheme is well designed, and the data analysis and conclusions are well demonstrated, providing readers with a framework that is easy to understand and follow. Overall, this article needs to be further improved and revised：

 

1.While the “introduction“ mentions the reasons for simulating ecological security patterns,  but the title also includes "Evaluation of Connectivity Stability." It is recommended to add the reason for conducting "Evaluation of Connectivity Stability." in “introduction“section

 

2.It is suggested to briefly supplement the details of the FLUS model's working process in section 3.1.

 

3.Explain why the gravity model can be used to assess the importance of ecological corridors.

 

4.It is proposed to add to section 4.1 an analysis of changes in the quantity and spatial distribution of land use under different scenarios, as well as an exploration of possible causes.

 

5.In the conclusion section, the statement " The kappa coefficient of land use change was greater than 85%, indicating that the simulation results had high accuracy." appears to belong in the "3.1.4. Model Validation" section rather than the result analysis section. It is recommended to rephrase this as a conclusion derived from the analysis of land use simulation results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language needs further polishing

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

We provided a point-by-point response to your comments, and please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for the suggestions, and we have highlighted the modification in corresponding section in the revised version.

Best wishes for you.

Sincerely Yours,

Cai-hong Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find this manuscript to be highly publishable because of the relevance of the topic. However, I did identify some areas for improvement, particularly in terms of structure. 

METHODOLOGICAL CONCERN: Why separate sections 2 & 3? Sections 2 & 3 should be linked. Case studies, material and methods are integral to a “Research methodology.” The case study provides a geographical context, the materials present the instrumental aspects, and the methods present the how-to elements. They should be in one section within the frame of this manuscript because they show a more explicit narrative of the research procedure. Therefore, I suggest an integration of sections 2 and 3 into a “Materials and Methods” section or a “Methodology” section that presents the case study, data sources and methods.

RESULTS: The results are well presented, visualised, and explained within a comprehensible frame, and they are linked to the methods presented earlier in the manuscript.

 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The manuscript is well discussed. It discusses the policy implications of the study. It also proposes a “Development Scenario for the Future of Urban Agglomerations along the YRB in Ningxia,” making it a clear novelty. Most importantly, the manuscript acknowledges limitations.

The conclusion could be improved by identifying some clear areas for future research to enable expanding opportunities for improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing level is moderate.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

We provided a point-by-point response to your comments, and please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for the suggestions, and we have highlighted the modification in corresponding section in the revised version.

Best wishes for you.

Sincerely Yours,

Cai-hong Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The workload is full, the graphic analysis is more appropriate, and the topic selection is novel

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the language is good, and it is necessary to further describe scientific problems in academic language