Evaluation of the Importance of Ecological Service Function and Analysis of Influencing Factors in the Hexi Corridor from 2000 to 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is an evaluation of the ecological services of the Hexi corridor, the authors applied a different empirical formalisms to evaluate different aspects of ecological services and they do a hierarchization of the different ecological services.

In general, the manuscript approaches a relevant topic of ecological services and an evaluation in a relevant area, but the introduction does not sufficiently explain the real scope of this research topic as well as the aims and the scientific novelty of the manuscript. The scientific problem should be clearly stated and explained in the introduction.

 In terms of organization of the manuscript, as it has many sub sections is should be some introduction paragraphs in the main sections to orient the reader. For example, section “2.3 Method” is stated and immediately the next sub-order “2.3.1 Water conservation” starts with its explanation. I prefer to have an introductory paragraph in section 2.3 who integrates all its sub-orders and summarize the general methodology. Each methodology should be explained in order to be able to reproduce it by the readers and if wasn’t developed by the authors, a citation should be included.

Each one of the methodologies should have a counterpart in results section. Section 3.1 of land use/cover is presented as a result, but is a characterization of the land, in results you should include just the results of the methodology you applied, in this case is maybe the calculation of changes in land use/cover. The section 3.6 seems to be the counterpart of section 2.3.5 in this case the sub-sections should have the same words or some indication that is the counterpart, you use the word hierarchy in methods and importance in results. Also should be good to have a paragraph who discuses the implications of all the results in a integral way in order to relate all the individual results.

In conclusions section, results or discussion of the results should be avoided. The first sentence says: “A comprehensive analysis of the resource and environmental endowments of the Hexi Corridor region shows that the climate of region is dry and rainfall is scarce, and water resources are scarce, relying mostly on glacial meltwater from the mountainous areas as a source of recharge”, is a result. Also check the redundancy of “the region is dry”, “water resources are scarce”.  Second sentence: “The geomorphological patterns of the region are different, the soil organic matter content is not high, the desert landscape is widespread and the sparse vegetation makes the region's vegetation cover is low, and the area suitable for the growth of vegetation is relatively small.” In this sentence we cannot see any conclusion neither, there are many comparisons or adjectivations like “are different” (to what?), “is not to high” (compared with where?). Which are the implications of what is declared in this sentence?. I can’t see any conclusion of the obtained results in the conclusion, and should be just this. All the characterization of the area should be moved to the section of methods.

Finally, I think you should keep working a bit more in the manuscript and I hope all may suggestions are useful and motivates you to improve your work.

 

Some extra suggestions:

Line 104 to 109: to improve the interpretation of the equations I suggest to describe the variables just after each equation is introduced.

Line 104 and 111: the P in the equation is capitalized and not in the text (L 111)

 

Line 112: I suggest to change the sub-index or the variable X for another symbol to avoid misinterpretations, even if its clear in the text could cause confusion. Also the sub-index should be unique, like one for categories another one for cells.

L 118: cite who developed the reference evapotranspiration equation, same for each equation who wasn’t developed in the present manuscript.

 

L 132 -134: check grammar errors. I give you an example but I’m not sure what exactly you want to say in this sentence and I´m not native English speaker. So, you´ll need to check by yourself try to avoid long sentences and use IA to help yourself to check the spelling and grammar. Example/suggestion for these lines: Soil and water conservation are the process by which ecosystems, through their structures and processes, reduce soil erosion caused by water. The evaluation of this indicator can identify current and future priority areas for soil and water conservation functions.

L 150: use the same symbology for the same concept. Msan =SAN = sand content% so use the same symbol.

L 207: how you calculate the weighting factors? How you arrive to these values.

L 373: check the sentences, make them shorter and avoid the repetition. Keep the sentences short.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In general, I could understand the manuscript, but some sentences are too long and the grammar of the entire manuscripts should be revised. I gave some appreciations in "comments and suggestions for the authors"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some corrections are noted: 

P2 lines 56-57 ‘The entire mountain system is broad in both east and west’

P2 lines 71 – 75 – check, re-write and shorten sentences

P3 line 101 – insert ‘the’ river

P5 154 – 156  ‘Wind erosion control and sand fixation is the role of ecosystems in reducing soil erosion caused by wind erosion through their structures and processes, and identifies the key areas for wind erosion control and sand fixation in the present and the future.’ Check and re-word into better English

P6 190 ‘decision-making’

P8 227 – re-phrase other than ‘tilting’ – maybe ‘shifting’

P2 lines 56-57 ‘The entire mountain system is broad in both east and west’

P2 lines 71 – 75 – check, re-write and shorten sentences

P3 line 101 – insert ‘the’ river

P5 154 – 156  ‘Wind erosion control and sand fixation is the role of ecosystems in reducing soil erosion caused by wind erosion through their structures and processes, and identifies the key areas for wind erosion control and sand fixation in the present and the future.’ Check and re-word into better English

P6 190 ‘decision-making’

P8 227 – re-phrase other than ‘tilting’ – maybe ‘shifting’

Please check throughout for simialr grammatical improvement.  

 

The paper addresses 'habitat qulaity' and 'ecosystem services' but doesn't actually present any ecological information. It would be useful to know more about species of the region and particuarly of any habitat 'indicators' which tell you about quality or sustainability etc. These should be available from regional ecological audits or ground-truthing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above. General checking throughout - and avoid overlong sentences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I can see the improvement in the manuscript, all my suggestions were have been taken into account in the new version, but the introduction is still lacks some contextualization and clarification:

L27-31: Split the sentence into 2.

L22-31: These first sentences are a description of the problem, which is ok.

Then in L31 a new sentence starts with a new topic, I suggest starting a new paragraph where you describe the ES concept and I also suggest expanding the concept to the point where you can establish the relationship with the next sentence about the comprehensive approach. I could guess the relationship but it should be stated in the text.

L 34: The introduction gives you the space to explain the theory needed/used in the manuscript, so “other environmental elements” should be mentioned here or at least an example should be given here. Also, a statement about the novelty of the study and explanation is needed after these sentences. You should state why you have chosen this compressive approach or why this is a novel approach.  Here you should mention the aim of the manuscript as was done in the conclusion section.         

L 36: A new unconnected sentence begins. I don’t understand the sentence: you underscore the “The necessity of ecological protection” to “…ascertain the rationality and sustainability of ecological protection…” may be redundant?

L 38: “This offers technical assistance for optimising the configuration of the principal functional zone, defining the red line of ecological protection and restoration.” What is offering this technical assistance? the underscoring? In this sentence you may been trying to state the aim of the manuscript? You should be clearer, use more lines for the introduction.

Explain the problem, your approach, your aim and the novelty of the manuscript in the way that the reader has enough context.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I don't have any other comments about quality of English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx