Modelling Ecological Hazards and Causal Factors in the Yellow River Basin’s Key Tributaries: A Case Study of the Kuye River Basin and Its Future Outlook

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Wu et al. manuscript titled ' Modelling Ecological Hazards and Causal Factors of Key Tributaries in the Yellow River Basin and their Future Development Outlook-Taking Kuye River Basin as an example' is an important topic and falls into the scope of journal. The study focuses on the Kuye River Basin, a key tributary within the Yellow River Basin, examining land use and landscape ecological risks from 2000 to 2022 and predicting future trends by 2030. It employs various analytical methods and considers the impacts of both natural and socio-economic factors on ecological hazards. The research also simulates future land use changes under different scenarios to inform policy-making for sustainable development. I would suggest accepting it after the following minor concerns are addressed.

1. Where are the locations of upper Kuye River Basin, the middle of the watershed in P6L274. If you redraw Figure 1, it would be better.

2. P11L422, regarding the Research Methodology section of the article, attention is paid to the Risk detector, Power of Determinant and Interactive detector sections, References should be given.

3. Regarding Figure 9, it is recommended that the author combine the five graphs of the same series of influencing factors, such as rainfall, from 2000 to 2022 into a total graph, making it easier and clearer for readers to understand the content of the graphs.

4. P1L47, “land usetransfer matrix” should be “land use transfer matrix”.

5. P14L535, there is a spelling error in the socioeconomic section of Rapid socieconomic growth is the primary and significant element that directly contributes to the increase of landscape ecological risk in the Kuye River Basin. Please correct it carefully.

6. Conclusions should be rewritten as they are similar results at present.

7. Improved language is necessary. A language editing service is suggested.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improved language is necessary. A language editing service is suggested.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Below is our response based on your feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study uses a wide range of data sources, including remote sensing imagery, ecological and environmental data, and socio-economic data. This extensive data collection strengthens the validity of the findings.The use of the PLUS model and Fragstats software for land use and landscape ecological risk analysis is a notable strength. These tools allow for detailed spatial and temporal analysis.The research framework is well-defined, and the methodology is clearly explained, making the study easy to follow and replicate.The study provides valuable insights into the factors driving landscape ecological risks and offers practical implications for future land use planning and ecological conservation.

The abstract is too lengthy and could be more concise. Consider summarizing the key points and results in a shorter format to improve readability and impact.

While the paper discusses the significance and objectives, these could be highlighted more prominently in the introduction. Clearly stating the importance of the study and its goals at the outset would provide better context for readers.

The conclusion section should include theoretical and practical implications of the findings. Discuss how the results contribute to the broader field of ecological risk assessment and land use planning. Additionally, outline any limitations of the study and suggest areas for future research.

Suggest: Stereotypes and Prejudices as (Non) Attractors for Willingness to Revisit Tourist-Spatial Hotspots in Serbia. Sustainability,15, 5130. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065130

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Below is our response based on your feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors tried to assess the ecological risks for Kuye River Basin, China by using remote sensing and other data sources. The manuscript was in a good structure and the research theme was worthy study. However, the following issues should be clarified.

 

(1) The current title was not that suitable.

(2) The abstract was too long. The findings and conclusions drawn from this study should strive for uniqueness and distinction. It is recommended to reconsider and rephrase the abstract and conclusion sections to ensure that they encapsulate the distinctive contributions of the research.

(3) The data introduction was not clear.  For example, did the authors used existed dataset for Land use or produce the Land use by using initial Landsat series images themselves?

For temperature, is it land surface temperature or air temperature?

(4) Why did the authors set the fishnet as 5km considered the study area was not that large? How about 1km?

(5) For the results part, especially for Figure.6. It seems that there was no spatial-temporal  features for the landscape ecological risks.

(6) Would the authors explain the interesting distribution of population in 2010 which was quite different from other years?

 

Some other concerns:

(1) What’s the meaning of 7.95 in line 27?

(2) There was so many serious mistakes in Figure 1. For example, the scale bar in the yellow river basin was absolutely wrong!

(3) In table1, it should be Envi or ENVI, rather than EnVI.

(4) In figure 10, it is very abnormal to see that the sub-figures were not the same size.They should be in the same size.

(5) It is strongly recommended to proofread the paper thoroughly again. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is strongly recommended to proofread the paper thoroughly again. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Below is our response based on your feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the Kuye River Basin as the study area. Five time nodes, namely 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2022, are selected to assess the ecological risks and drivers of land use and landscape. The aim is to analyze the phenomena, evolutionary processes, driving mechanisms, and future development trends. However, there are several limitations that need to be addressed for further improvement. 

1. Title: The title is long, but it does not reflect the topic of the paper.

2. Figure 1: The location of the Kuye River Basin in China or the world is not well represented in Figure 1.

3. Figure 2: Some of the rectangles in Figure 2 are so small that some words are not fully represented. Moreover, "Driving district" should be "driving factors".

4. Section 2.3.3:  417 square grids were divided in this study. However, different ways of dividing will produce different results. How does the author view the impact of different ways of dividing?

5. The titles of 3.2 and 3.3.2 are exactly the same, which is inappropriate, and it is recommended to modify them. In addition, the titles of 3.4.3 and 3.5.1 are exactly the same.

6. It is recommended that Figure 6 use the same legend for easy comparison.  Similarly, Figure 7 should use the same legend.

7. The innovation of this paper needs further elaboration. For example, what scientific law does this paper actually reveal.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Below is our response based on your feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made better revisions to the paper, and I would like to see the paper published.