Ecosystem Services Assessment, Trade-Off, and Bundles in the Yellow River Basin, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I feel that the paper is interesting and well written. There are a few suggestions to improve the paper. 1. How about making a diagram about the research process for easy understanding of your research process? 2. Citation format is different from MDPI. Correction is needed. 3. There are the numbers in the legend of figure 2 are different. More explanation of each number and maps are needed. 4. The sizes of the graphs are different in figure 7.Author Response
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Ecosystem services assessment, trade-off and bundles in the Yellow River Basin, China” (manuscript number: diversity-1267591). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made correction. We really hope to meet with your approval. The revised portions are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
Point1:How about making a diagram about the research process for easy understanding of your research process?
Response:1 In the revised manuscript, We provide the framework of the methodological process.
Point2: Citation format is different from MDPI. Correction is needed.
Response2: We modified the citation format according to the requirements of MDPI.
Point3: There are the numbers in the legend of figure 2 are different. More explanation of each number and maps are needed.
Response3: According to your comments, we modified the figure and added more explanations to the manuscript
Point4:Response to comment: The sizes of the graphs are different in figure 7.
Response4: According to your comments, We unified the size of Figure 7.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The focus of the paper is clear and well described in all its steps.
The following suggestions are recommended:
- Figures 2 and 3 are to small and not well readable. They can be enlarged using the page width.
- Check some typos and English style (es. doesn’t, 12 o’ clock, etc.)
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Ecosystem services assessment, trade-off and bundles in the Yellow River Basin, China” (manuscript number: diversity-1267591). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made correction. We really hope to meet with your approval. The revised portions are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
Point1: Figures 2 and 3 are to small and not well readable. They can be enlarged using the page width.
Response1: According to your comments, We enlarged the Figures 2 and 3
Point2: Check some typos and English style (es. doesn’t, 12 o’ clock, etc.)
Response: We have corrected the manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Title:
Ecosystem services assessment, trade-off and bundles in the 1 Yellow River Basin, China.
Diversity - diversity-1267591
This article uses the evaluates the water yield (WY), soil conservation (SC), carbon storage (CS) and habitat quality (HQ), taking the case study in Yellow River Basin as the research site, using the InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade Offs) model. Insights of the the analysis and trade-off of various could be helpful to resource managers and policy makers to develop sustainable strategies to support river basin management.
Title: Title is fine.
Abstract: Abstract is not enough and crisp. Please make clear especially method used and results. Add few lines on the use of the study.
Key words: Key words are repeated with title. For Example: Ecosystem service; Trade-off. Make sure to avoid the repletion.
Introduction: The introduction section is misleading the issues and definition. First paragraph is not clear and not linked with your context. You can refer these references for the background of the paper:
- Impact of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services in a Tropical Forested Landscape
- Global trend of forest ecosystem services valuation–An analysis of publications
- Local users and other stakeholders' perceptions of the identification and prioritization of ecosystem services in fragile mountains: a case study of Chure Region of
- An Ecosystem Services Valuation Research Framework for Policy Integration in Developing Countries: A Case Study from Nepal
Methodology: River Basin can provide many ecosystem services, Why do you choose only five ecosystem services? Please make clear methods and rational for choosing these 2 only. You can consult these papers:
You can consult to:
- Assessing the financial contribution and carbon emission pattern of provisioning ecosystem services in Siwalik forests in Nepal: Valuation from the perspectives of disaggregated users
- Estimating the willingness to pay for regulating and cultural ecosystem services from forested Siwalik landscapes: perspectives of disaggregated users
In addition, why do you choose InVEST model in your study. Please brief in the method section.
Results/Analysis: Good but long one. Please highlights only important and drastic one. The discussion part is weak and there is limited global comparison. Please consult more in the literature..
Conclusion: Looks fine. Add one or 2 lines about the limitation of the study.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Ecosystem services assessment, trade-off and bundles in the Yellow River Basin, China” (manuscript number: diversity-1267591). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made correction. We really hope to meet with your approval. The revised portions are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
Point1: Abstract: Abstract is not enough and crisp. Please make clear especially method used and results. Add few lines on the use of the study.
Response1: We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer's suggestion.
Point2:Response to comment: Key words are repeated with title. For Example: Ecosystem service; Trade-off. Make sure to avoid the repletion.
Response2: We have re-written the key words.
Point3:Response to comment: The introduction section is misleading the issues and definition. First paragraph is not clear and not linked with your context. You can refer these references for the background of the paper:
Response3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions and references. We have revised the background of the manuscript according to these references.
Point4: River Basin can provide many ecosystem services, Why do you choose only five ecosystem services? Please make clear methods and rational for choosing these 2 only. You can consult these papers:
Response4: We explained the reasons for choosing these two approaches.
Point5:Response to comment: Conclusion: Looks fine. Add one or 2 lines about the limitation of the study.
Response5: We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer's suggestion.
