Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1 Introduction

The logic of the first to second paragraphs of the introduction is very clear, and the relationship between land use and the value of ecosystem services is clearly stated. However, why does the third paragraph directly address the PLUS model? The logic of the third paragraph should be to elaborate on the relationship between future land-use change on the value of ecosystem services before introducing the PLUS model from a methodological perspective. Remember that the focus of your article's research is the impact of land use change on the value of ecosystem services, not the methodology.

2.1

Please add the latitude and longitude information for Figure 1.

2.2

What is the uniform raster resolution of the data used in the paper? Please add details of the soil data, which data set was used, HWSD soil data? What is the resolution? As far as I know there is no soil data for consecutive years, please verify.

3.2.1

What is the value of L162-L174 Ea?

3.2.2

L199-L200 What is the final calculated Ea'? 

3.7

Please add the parameters of the PLUS model as an appendix.

4.1

Only temporal changes in land use have been analyzed, why have their spatial changes not been analyzed?

4.2

Only temporal changes in the value of ecosystem services have been analyzed, why have their spatial changes not been analyzed?

5.1

The lack of spatial analysis of the impacts of land-use change on ecosystem values in 4.1 and 4.2 has led to a lack of discussion of them in 5.1, please add. The impact of future land-use changes on the value of ecosystem services is also discussed in detail.

Table 9 answers the questions of 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, but would be confusing to the reader, so please place Table 9 directly after the 3.2.2 section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the article is interesting and worth publishing. The authors have demonstrated both a recognition of the literature and a familiarity with modern methods of ESV assessment. The work performed is well-documented and presented in a clear manner. The only imperfection I noticed is the personal mode in the summarizing part (lines 539, 545, and 546); I would suggest changing the mode to impersonal. Generally, in my conviction, it is a well-executed piece of work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper explores the response of LULC from 2000 to 2020 in the Tumen River Basin (TRB) to ESV, evaluates the ESV of the TRB, explores the relationship between ESV and various factors and visualizes the spatial evolution of ESV under different land resource management strategies based on GeoDetector method, patch-generating land use simulation (PLUS) and so on. A lot of work has been done around the theme of the paper, which also supports the implementation of the strategy. However, there are still some problems and inadequacy in this paper, which are suggested to be revised.

Comment 1: The abstract lacks the theoretical significance of this paper and the characteristics and innovation of the paper is not prominent. DEM and NDVI do not have a universal description, suggest the author make a supplementary explanation.

Comment 2: In the introduction, the background and significance of the research can be further elaborated. The description of the special geographical position of Tumen River is not detailed enough, and the expression is not consistent and logical, suggest the author refine it. The introduction also lacks the literature review on driving force analysis in the topic, suggest the author to add more about it.

Comment 3: In the overview part of the study area, suggest the author supplement the quantitative expression of the status of ecosystem services in the study area. And it is recommended to add the latitude and longitude or the north pointer.

Comment 4: In the research methods, the description is not concise enough, there is no prominent explanation of important methods, and the focus is not clear. Besides, there is no mention of how to quantify the spatial heterogeneity of different factors in the GeoDetector method.

Comment 5: In the conclusion part, the explanation of PSV etc. is missing, it is recommended to supplement their full names. The description "with RSV and SSV peaking in 2005 and 2015 before starting to decline again" is inconsistent with the Figure 3(a), both peaked only in 2015. In the part of Analysis of Driving Factors of ESV Change, suggest the author supplement specific data when drawing conclusions.

Linking ecosystem services and landscape patterns to assess urban ecosystem health: A case study in Shenzhen City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2015, 143: 56-68.

Measuring ecosystem services based on government intentions for future land use in Hubei Province: Implications for sustainable landscape management. Landscape Ecology 2020

Comment 6: In the discussion, the suggestions put forward by the author are vague, suggest the author refine them to make the conclusions more targeted and realistic.

Comment 7: In the part of conclusions, the innovations points of this paper are not refined enough, suggest the author supplement the innovation point.

Comment 8: Some of the references are incorrectly formatted, suggest the author modify the format.

Comment 9: The language expression should be further refined and improved. It is recommended to pay attention to the accuracy of the words and sentences and the cohesion between the context. Attention should also be paid to the standardization of the journal paper format.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the author for accepting my suggestions and for the careful revisions. The only thing left to do at this point is to congratulate the author.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept