Spatiotemporal Evolution of Ecosystem Services in the Wanhe Watershed Based on Cellular Automata (CA)-Markov and InVEST Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript fits well the scope of the Sustainability journal and addresses an important subject. The submission had all the important parts. However, there are some weak points that should be strengthened. Below please find specific comments/ suggestions, which waits for clarification:

 

 

- please do not use acronyms in the title.

 

- In the abstract, authors should also avoid acronyms (e.g., DEM, CA).

 

- there is a lack of better justification for the choice of the case study. Authors should also present a better socio-economic and biophysical characterization of the study area.

 

- the variables presented in subsection “3.1. Data resources and processing” may be presented in a table, in which authors may indicate in columns the following information: variable name, year, source, resolution/original scale, justification for the use of this variable supported by bibliography.

 

- Line 151: Why did you use CA-Markov? You must justify the choice of this model.

 

- Authors should explain how the values/weights in tables 2 and 3 were assigned. I understand it was based on the study by Foresman et al. However, the authors should note that these values were assigned to a different spatial context.

 

- Table 4 is not necessary.

 

- authors must present other validation methods (or complement with other techniques) since the kappa index is not well accepted by many researchers. Additionally, authors must also present the validation not only as an overall result but by land use class.

 

Lines 279-292: This class division should be justified.

 

- Discussion needs to be improved. Authors should compare the results achieved with other studies, demonstrating whether they are similar or different. The authors must also explain the results achieved.

 

- what are the limitations of the study?

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for taking the time to review my paper. Your opinion has made great progress for me. We have carefully considered the suggestion and tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript. And now, I will report my revision work to you. Please refer to the attached document.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read the article and it has an important contribution to the conservation of biodiversity and natural resources. However, the authors need to consider the following point carefully for further process of the article.

1.       In the abstract the clear objective is missing; the parameters or data types are mentioned but they are not clear how can they get and analysed. The method of the abstract is lacking.  

2.       ……(1) The CA-Markov model was highly reliable (the kappa coefficients of all test models were greater than 0.85) in simulating future land use……. This is true, no need to of doing research or mention such kind of sentence

3.       The result of the abstract must not be put in bulletin numbering and the abstract has no conclusion and recommendation (optional)

4.       The authors mentioned the advantage of InVEST model but it has limitations. Therefore, the authors need to mention the limitation and advantages of InVEST habitat quality model over the other model

5.       Line 98-102 seems method, not the introduction

6.       Why this research is done and what is the novelty of this research? The authors need to mention all this in the introduction.

7.       The description of the study area also need not be more elaborate such as hydrological characteristics. Climate, vegetation, socioeconomic etc.

8.       The study area map is not correct and it did not provide any sense. First, draw the China map the follow the region where the watershed has existed and finally the study watershed mapping linking with the region of China and the country China. The map did not have a degree as well. this is not indicated standard map.  

9.       Authors need to see the journal guideline because the heading “2. Study area” must be found under Section of Methods and Materials

10.   The land use image taken in the consequent years must be reasonable. It is 2010, 2015, 2018 and 2018. Why start from 2010 why not 1980? The interval is not similar and I suspect the researcher could not see any change.

11.   The technology found in China is high but the authors used a 30-meter resolution; why not 15 or below this number resolution? If you use a more qualified image then the result that you describe is very good and acceptable.

12.   The remote sensing data information is not seen in the method part such as path and row, date of image obtains and the sensor types, image processing, accuracy basement etc. which software is used to classify the land use?

13.   The prediction for 2026 must be a reasonable date. We recommend more than 2040. Authors need to provide the parameters in spatial forms such as population, distance to road, altitude, slope etc which are used for the prediction of land use/cover

14.   How can you identify the threat as you mentioned they are six but how paddy fields could be a threat to habitat quality? All the threat data are required in spatial form by InVEST model. Therefore, the authors expected to provide the raster mapping or spatial form of the threat data.

15.   Authors need to elaborate clearly on table 2 data such as threat identify, threat maximum effective distance, sensitivity/weight, and decay (linear or exponential). This is the turning point of your research!!!!

16.   Table 3, sensitivity analysis also needs to explain how the authors did it!

17.   InVEST habitat quality model requires CSV data and Half saturation constant but authors fail to show in the method part

18.   Figure 3 seems not good! Image processing seems to take two different periods. Downloading the images have a problem. Authors need to do and download having a similar date. If you take in two different periods the mosaic creates such types of problems.  Overall, there is a problem mosaic of the image in the five maps. Definity, we cannot accept this form. Scientifically we don’t have such types of watersheds having sharp separation or lines dividing into two major divisions. If the classification of the land use has a problem then the prediction of the land use and the habitat quality mapping has distortion and not explain well.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for taking the time to review my paper. Your opinion has made great progress for me. We have carefully considered the suggestion and tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript. And now, I will report my revision work to you. Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors answered all my questions/concerns. Therefore, in my opinion, the manuscript can be published.