Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The paper was not revised strictly using the journal template.

2. Secondly, it is better to use institutional email rather than QQ email. If you do not have a institutional email address consider a foxmail email address. All email addresses should be marked with the appropriate author. Authors are advised to refer to recent journal publications.

3. In the abstract, please add the background of the study.

4. Lines 22-23. Please delete this sentence and rewrite it. This sentence should convey the significance of the research in this article.

5. The introduction is too short, please expand it.

6. The review of the literature does not condense the focus of the research in this manuscript.

7. Figure 1 needs to be supplemented with a legend.

8. The methodology needs to be added.

9. Discussion and conclusion need to be separated. And the discussion should be written first.

10. The discussion needs to cite the literature and compare and analyse the results of this paper with the studies of others to further explore the results and implications of this paper.

11. References should be added to the most recent and high level research from the recent years.

The research methodology of the manuscript is relatively mature and the author does not explore in depth the innovations and implications of this study. I suggest that the manuscript needs to be overhauled.

 

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Full Title: The Ecological Effects of Surface Water Evolution in the Yellow River Delta

Overall evaluation:

This manuscript reports the ecological service and landscape effects of surface water evolution in the Yellow River Delta. Overall, this manuscript needs substantial improvement, especially in the presentation and use of research methods, figures, and the depth of discussion.

 

Abstract: The abstract part needs further refinement and it does not reflect the necessity and innovation of the research. The first and second results can be merged into one. The statement of the conclusion is not clear enough, it is just a stacking of the results.

 

1. Introduction

Line 30: surface water evolution should be further clarified here.

Line 39-40: It mentioned that “posing higher requirements for water resources and surface water”, examples are needed.

Line 41-44: The expression of the research significance is not in-depth, especially the innovation of the research is not fully explained.

 

2. Literature Review

Line 45-77: “Literature Review” can be integrated into the introduction.

Line 47: Only Chinese scholars, how about the foreign scholars?

Line 72-73: you mentioned that “There is a paucity of research on the overall ecological response of a region”, but as far as I know, there are some studies at the regional scale. There is no description of the innovative point of your research and the main research content.

 

3. Study Area

A description of the soil, plants and other information in the study area is needed to enrich the background information.

Line 92-93: What new reservoirs have been built?

The details in Figure 1 are not presented clearly, e.g., what do the yellow line segments and the blue area represent? Legend is missing; the annotation fonts in the figure are too small to read.

 

4. Data and Methods

Line 100-101: What is the basis for determining the year of data selection? Data source citations are not noted.

Line 104-105: There are ten types mentioned in the article, why only six are shown in Figure 2? It's not explained clearly here.

Figure 2 needs further improvement; the legend words are too small to read.

Line 118-134: I suggest reorganizing the methods used to make the presentation more logical, related references should be included here.

 

5. Results

Line 160-161: Why choose 2000 as the gap year for comparison? Is there any special reason?

Line 164: Figure 2, details appeared in the figures are hard to read;

Line 172-175: The data in the result description needs to be refined. It is recommended to select only the most important ones to show.

Line 183-185: Since marine aquaculture and freshwater aquaculture are mentioned, why the output of these were not mentioned in this part?

Line 190-192: why you selected 3A-level and above scenic spots for evaluation? Explain more.

Line 205-206: other factors such as vegetation planting and flood control projects should also be considered.

Line 224-225: Should this conclusion be quantified through attribution analysis? We cannot drawing conclusions only from comparing the changes in statistical yearbook values.

Figure 4 needs to be enlarged and the spacing between the images can be reduced.

 

6. Conclusions and Discussion

It is just a repeat of the results without further discussion and summary. In-depth discussions are recommended, especially regarding the significance and application of this research.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled 'The ecological effects of surface water evolution in the Yellow River Delta' addressesthe ecological service and landscape effects of surface water evolution in the Yellow River Delta from 1986 to 2019. However, the manuscript does not meet the required quality standards to be considered for publication. The reported research results are premature for publication and should be accepted after major revisions. It can be improved by considering the following comments. 

 

1)    The significance of the research and the findings of the article should be elaborated in more detail.

2)    The quality of the figures needs to be improved.

3)    Abstract: Add a few lines on research questions or explain why this study needed to be done.

4)    Literature review should include in the introduction section.

5)    Figure 1: Difficult to see study area. 

a.     Gray color should be enhanced or use different color which is easily to see and understand the figure

6)    Line 109-110: Authors should include the relevant references of the data source. Please, add the all the sources or yearbook of your data.

7)    Fig. 3. It needs to be formatted.

a.     Titles and labels of the figures are too small, and even online they are difficult to see.

b.     Need more explanation in the results section including all the figures.

8)    Section 5.2.1: The authors should include the relevant references of the mentioned data such as line 171-176, 187-188, 198-199, 204-205, 209-211, 213-220.

9)    Line 268: It needs to be formatted.

10) Line 282: It needs to be formatted.  

11) Fig 4. It needs to be formatted. The labels are too small.

12) Conclusions and Discussion: Discussion should be separate from conclusions, or it can be included in the results section. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Please consider the following suggestion:

In the paragraph Sedimentary land reclamation (lines 226-243), various data speak of the general decline of the river sedimentary transport. State, or explain in a little more detail, the reason(s) why there was such a drastic reduction in the sediment content in the runoff during the past years.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction has been well expanded. The following details need to be considered.

1.       Lines 10-11. Delete this sentence. This is because this sentence is duplicated in the latter sentence.

2.       If possible, the map of China used in Figure 1 would be better changed to use the map of China with the review number issued by the Chinese Ministry of Natural Resources (http://bzdt.ch.mnr.gov.cn/).

3.       The font in Figure 5 needs to be more visible.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the great effort that the authors made to improve the manuscript, and I have no further concerns on this work. 

Author Response

Thanks very much for all the efforts that you have made for our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The author's response to my comments was not sufficient. It seems like they only answered half of the comments. Maybe it is because of the system or submission but not sure. They still need to revise the below comments.

1.         Line 138: Authors should include the relevant references of the data source. Please, add all the sources or yearbooks of your data. I did not see it in the references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf