Variations in the Value and Trade-Offs/Synergies of Ecosystem Services on Topographic Gradients in Qinghai Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I am not in the field but I read the paper and I found it interesting, nice work.
Minor comments
I do not understand the use of ecological linked to some other words, such as "ecological civilization" (e.g. line 17), "ecological province" (e.g. line 574), "ecological conservation" (e.g. line 612)...
Line 44: Even if LUCC is well-known to everyone, I suggest adding the meaning of the acronym the first time that you use it.
Lines 574-576: this sentence seems confused and repetitive. I suggest clarifying it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
In general, This study is very interesting and has a scientific topic with a great impact on the field. The manuscript will be suitable for publication after a minor revision.
Detailed comments:
1-The English language and /writing style is fine needs some minor check spelling and grammar check
Abstract
_This section is missing the direct aim of the study. Please state the aim of the study clearly in this section.
Keywords:
-The keywords has been chosen very carefully and accurately .
Introduction
-The introduction doesn’t provide sufficient background and it is missing enough relevant references
-This section needs to be elongated and enriched with more background about this topic.
Materials and Methods
The methods Are ok and stated in details
Results:
The data are very interesting and well presented.
Discussion:
_This section is well written.
Figure 4 needs to be clearly discussed
The author is advised to combine the Results and
Conclusion :
This section is well written and the conclusion is supported by the results of this study and includes the most important findings.
References
This section is well written. And it is up To date .
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled „ Variations in the value and trade-offs/synergies of ecosystem services on topographic gradients in Qinghai Province, China“ presents essential new data about ecological properties of high-altitude areas. Materials and methods used in this study have been sufficiently described. Overal, this is an interesting manuscript that presents the findings of a well designed and executed research.
This is an interesting article about ecological properties of high-altitude areas, but it is surprising why the authors do not use statistical analysis of collected data. In evaluation of changes taking place in ecosystems, the authors use almost exclusively the terms increased or decreased. Some example:
Lines 229-230. „It is worth noting that forest land showed a decreasing trend during the study period, with an average annual decrease of 0.016%“. Is it possible to conclude that forest land showed a decreasing trend when an average annual decrease is 0.016%, only?
Why are obtained data not statistically analysed? The quality of the manuscript would increase significantly after statistical analysis of the data presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
The article is about the variations in the value and trade-offs/synergies of ecosystem services on topographic gradients in Qinghai Province, China. In general, the article is suitable for publication, but requires corrections first.
From the scientific point of view, the article presents the average scientific level. After taking into account the corrections presented for the authors, it is suitable for publication in the journal Sustainability
The paper should be improved namely in some identified aspects:
- the authors should have some extra effort to make the description more easily understandable, more clear to all the readers and more simple to read as the subject seems a kind of too “complicated”.
- figures are not clear enough.
- the achievements presented in the article should be compared more closely with examples from other countries. The article is too review-and-case only.
- there should be more references to existing scientific achievements in the article, because the literature review omits the basic achievements in recent years (examples of achievements were published, among others, in the journal Applied Sciences, Sustainability).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
