The Impacts of Land-Use Changes on Ecosystem Service Value in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I read your article with interest and would like to suggest some improvements to make it more attractive and readable:

- I suggest inserting a specific paragraph in the literature review so that an extensive and systematic analysis appears and goes beyond the introduction. In particular, I would have focused on literature related to the quantitative analysis of the impact of land use change on ecosystem service value and on the benefits for regional land space planning and ecological environment protection. Can you mention other geographical areas as well?

-  in the final part of the discussion of the results I would highlight the additional contribution obtained with your paper and extend the content of paragraph 5.4.

-  the conclusions should be rewritten in order to highlight the contribution of the article in light of the analyses conducted and in particular anchoring them to the discussion of the results specifically discussed in the dedicated section.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? The paper focuses on the quantitative analysis of the impact of land use change on ecosystem service value  

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? I think that it is very important because it may help to better planning the land use. Quantitative techniques help to be more rigorous in this field.   

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? This paper identifies an ecological security pattern system and provides indications related to the sustainable development and utilization of land resources.  

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered? They provide a measurement of ecosystem service value by considering the land use dynamic changes. Indications of further interventions are included in the paper and are linked to the results provided in the paper, although they can be improved.  

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? They are consistent but they need to be improved 

6. Are the references appropriate? I think that although the paper is supported by the literature on the topic, there is a necessity to provide a systematic literature review in a paragraph. 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:　

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Impacts of land-use changes on ecosystem service value in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau, China” (Manuscript No: 2700267). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made the correction which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion is marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Question 1: I suggest inserting a specific paragraph in the literature review so that an extensive and systematic analysis appears and goes beyond the introduction. In particular, I would have focused on literature related to the quantitative analysis of the impact of land use change on ecosystem service value and on the benefits for regional land space planning and ecological environment protection. Can you mention other geographical areas as well?

Response: Thanks for your kind suggestions, which is valuable for improving the accuracy of the manuscript. We have added the corresponding literature review content to the introduction part of the revised manuscript (Line 58-82), and more references to support this idea (References No: 28-32). The added content introduces the role and significance of ecosystem service value assessment in different geographic regions for land use planning and ecological policy formulation.

Question 2: In the final part of the discussion of the results I would highlight the additional contribution obtained with your paper and extend the content of paragraph 5.4.

Response: Thanks for your kind suggestions, which is valuable for improving the accuracy of the manuscript. We have added the corresponding content in the paragraph 5.4 (Line 686-699) of the revised manuscript.

Question 3: The conclusions should be rewritten in order to highlight the contribution of the article in light of the analyses conducted and in particular anchoring them to the discussion of the results specifically discussed in the dedicated section.

Response: We have rewritten the conclusions according to the Reviewer’s suggestions. The revised contents can be found on line 716-757.

Question 4: What is the main question addressed by the research? The paper focuses on the quantitative analysis of the impact of land use change on ecosystem service value.

Response: Thanks for your kind suggestions, which is valuable for improving the accuracy of the manuscript. We have rewritten the conclusions according to the Reviewer’s suggestion (Line 716-757).

Question 5: Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? I think that it is very important because it may help to better planning the land use. Quantitative techniques help to be more rigorous in this field.

Response: Thanks for your kind suggestions. We have added the corresponding content in line 751-757 of the conclusion.

Question 6: What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? This paper identifies an ecological security pattern system and provides indications related to the sustainable development and utilization of land resources.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. According to your opinion, we have added the corresponding content in line 751-757 of the conclusion.

Question 7: What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? They provide a measurement of ecosystem service value by considering the land use dynamic changes. Indications of further interventions are included in the paper and are linked to the results provided in the paper, although they can be improved.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the following sentence “In addition, this study did not predict various future scenarios, nor did it quantitatively analyze the impact of natural, social and economic drivers on the profit and loss of ESV. More importantly, due to the lack of spatiotemporal exploration of the interaction between ESV and landscape ecological risk in the study, it is not possible to formulate more detailed ecological policies, which will be the focus of our next work.” in the discussion sections 5.4 (Line 710-714).

Question 8: Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? They are consistent but they need to be improved

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have rewritten the conclusions according to the Reviewer’s suggestion (Line 716-757).

Question 9: Are the references appropriate? I think that although the paper is supported by the literature on the topic, there is a necessity to provide a systematic literature review in a paragraph.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments, and have added corresponding content into the introduction part in the revised manuscript (Line 58-82).

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article titled "Impacts of land-use changes on ecosystem service value in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau, China" investigates the effects of land-use changes on ecosystem service value (ESV) in the Yunnan-Kweichow Plateau. While the study offers valuable insights, there are several comments to consider:

Clarity of Objectives:

The article lacks a clear and concise statement of the research objectives. A more explicit articulation of the study's goals at the beginning would help readers better understand the purpose and focus of the research.

Main hook of the study: I highly recommend modifying the first two statements of the introduction with the addition of given studies [6-9] as “Ecosystem services encompass vital products and functions crucial for sustaining life, derived from the structure, processes, and functions of ecosystems [1-4]. These services include but are not limited to food production, climate regulation, biodiversity, aesthetic landscapes, and more [5], with key implications for the consumption of fossil fuels in production systems [6-9]. This concept can….”

[1] https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21560-9

[2] https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.826838

[3] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118459

[4] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119602

ESV Components:

The article mentions a decrease in total ESV, with the largest decrease in water supply and the largest increase in hydrological regulation. However, the article could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the specific components contributing to these changes and their implications for ecosystem services.

Ecological Contribution Rate:

The negative ecological contribution rate of built-up land is highlighted, but the article does not thoroughly explore the reasons behind this phenomenon. Understanding the specific impacts of built-up land on ecosystem services would be crucial for effective mitigation strategies.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:　

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Impacts of land-use changes on ecosystem service value in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau, China” (Manuscript No: 2700267). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made the correction which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion is marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Question1: The article lacks a clear and concise statement of the research objectives. A more explicit articulation of the study's goals at the beginning would help readers better understand the purpose and focus of the research.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have added corresponding content into the introduction part in the revised manuscript (Line 58-82).

Question2: Main hook of the study: I highly recommend modifying the first two statements of the introduction with the addition of given studies [6-9] as “Ecosystem services encompass vital products and functions crucial for sustaining life, derived from the structure, processes, and functions of ecosystems [1-4]. These services include but are not limited to food production, climate regulation, biodiversity, aesthetic landscapes, and more [5], with key implications for the consumption of fossil fuels in production systems [6-9]. This concept can….”

[1] https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21560-9

[2] https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.826838

[3] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118459

[4] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119602

Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have added corresponding content into the introduction part in the revised manuscript (Line 47-48).

Question3: The article mentions a decrease in total ESV, with the largest decrease in water supply and the largest increase in hydrological regulation. However, the article could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the specific components contributing to these changes and their implications for ecosystem services.

Response: Thanks for your kind suggestions, which is valuable for improving the accuracy of the manuscript. More discussions have been included in the revised manuscript (Line 592-598 and Table 7).

Question4: The negative ecological contribution rate of built-up land is highlighted, but the article does not thoroughly explore the reasons behind this phenomenon. Understanding the specific impacts of built-up land on ecosystem services would be crucial for effective mitigation strategies.

Response: Thanks for your kind suggestions, which is valuable for improving the accuracy of the manuscript. More discussions have been included in the revised manuscript (Line 617-621).

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article ENtitled: Impacts of land-use changes on ecosystem service value in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau, China, presents useful information on ecosystem services value in China. It seems appropriate for the journal; however, it requires some corrections and improvements. Also, it is hard to read; maybe it can be explained more. It also reqires to check for English style.

line:57:to check for latter?

65: Constanza: ref. number?

98: it lacks a verb?

It is required to put the text in the same paragraph, check other articles or instructions to authors.

411:suggests/ add s

Table 1-legend: to add a comma before, respectively.

line: 553: reconstruction of vegetation/This term doesnt fit well. maybe, revegetated site or revegetated vegetation type.

The article ENtitled: Impacts of land-use changes on ecosystem service value in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau, China, presents useful information on ecosystem services value in China. It seems appropriate for the journal; however, it requires some corrections and improvements. Also, it is hard to read; maybe it can be explained more. It also reqires to check for English style.

line:57:to check for latter?

65: Constanza: ref. number?

98: it lacks a verb?

It is required to put the text in the same paragraph, check other articles or instructions to authors.

411:suggests/ add s

Table 1-legend: to add a comma before, respectively.

line: 553: reconstruction of vegetation/This term doesnt fit well. maybe, revegetated site or revegetated vegetation type.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:　

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Impacts of land-use changes on ecosystem service value in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau, China” (Manuscript No: 2700267). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made the correction which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion is marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Question1: line: 57: to check for latter?

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “latter” into “Costanza et al. (1997)” (Line 86).

Question2: 65: Constanza: ref. number?

Response: We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder (Line 95).

Question3: 98: it lacks a verb?

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have made the change. The new sentence reads as follows: “However, it is more crucial to note that there have been limited quantitative analyses on the impact of land use change on ESV and the spatiotemporal variability and regional differences of ESV changes in the Yunnan-Kweichow Plateau. This has hindered the construction and development of a regional ecological security pattern system.” (Line 123-127).

Question4: It is required to put the text in the same paragraph, check other articles or instructions to authors.

Response: Thanks for your careful checks. We have changed (Line 759-766).

Question5: 411: suggests/ add s

Response: We feel sorry for our carelessness. In our resubmitted manuscript, the typo is revised (Line 467). Thanks for your correction.

Question6: Table 1-legend: to add a comma before, respectively.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have made the change.

Question7: line: 553: reconstruction of vegetation/ This term doesn’t fit well. Maybe, revegetated site or revegetated vegetation type.

Response: We agree and have updated (Line 628-631).

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau is a typical karst area. It is of great significance to clarify its ecosystem service value for ecological assessment. The paper has a complete structure, rich data, reasonable methods, and is worth publishing. Provide some suggestions as follows:

(1) In Figure 1, the place name Diqin should be Diqing. It is suggested to change the caption to Location and elevation of the Yunnan Kweichow Plateau

(2) Line 120, revise: about 800 to 2100 mm

(3) In Figure 4, the data for the same year does not seem to correspond. The right end of Figure A is in 1990, and the left end of Figure B is also in 1990, but it doesn't seem to correspond. The same situation also exists in b and c, c and d, d and e.

(4) Suggest adding a new 4.3 subdirectory, including 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, corresponding to the original 4.2.4 and 4.2.5, respectively

(5) In Figure 8, 0% is white, but white does not seem to separate positive and negative colors. For example, brown is present in both positive and negative areas. Can this be adjusted.

(6) Figure 10, it is difficult to understand the meaning of the Y-axis data. Please add names respectively; And, the three indicators only have two Y-axes.

(7) If more quantitative analysis is conducted on the driving factors, the effect will be better.

(8) Some references show an unreasonable format, please check.

(9) There is a Chinese expression, it is recommended to polish the language.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:　

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Impacts of land-use changes on ecosystem service value in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau, China” (Manuscript No: 2700267). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made the correction which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion is marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Question1: In Figure 1, the place name Diqin should be Diqing. It is suggested to change the caption to Location and elevation of the Yunnan Kweichow Plateau.

Response: Thank you for your reminder and suggestions, we were really sorry for our careless mistakes, and have modified the place name Diqin in Fig.1 to Diqing, and changed the caption of Fig.1 to Location and elevation of the Yunnan-Kweichow Plateau (Line 158-160).

Question2: Line 120, revise: about 800 to 2100 mm

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “about 800 and 2100 mm” into “about 800 to 2100 mm” (Line 149).

Question3: In Figure 4, the data for the same year does not seem to correspond. The right end of Figure A is in 1990, and the left end of Figure B is also in 1990, but it doesn't seem to correspond. The same situation also exists in b and c, c and d, d and e.

Response: We are very grateful to the reviewer for raising this question, but after careful checking, we found that the data in Figure 4 did not appear wrong, and the land use area data of the same year pointed out by the reviewer did not seem to be consistent. The main reason is that the land use conversion area between different years represented in Figure 4 does not include the conversion area of the same land type into the calculation. For example, the left side of Figure 4a only represents the area transferred out of a land type in 1980, while the right side only represents the area transferred in of land type in 1990. The same is true for other figures, which do not represent the total area of different land types. Therefore, it will cause ambiguity for readers. We are very sorry, to solve this problem, we have made the corresponding comments in the title of Figure 4 (Line 362-364).

Question4: Suggest adding a new 4.3 subdirectory, including 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, corresponding to the original 4.2.4 and 4.2.5, respectively

Response: Thanks for your kind suggestions, we have made changes as suggested (Line 465-466, 500).

Question5: In Figure 8, 0% is white, but white does not seem to separate positive and negative colors. For example, brown is present in both positive and negative areas. Can this be adjusted?

Response: Thanks for your kind suggestions, we have adjusted the color of Figure 8 (Line 489).

Question6: Figure 10, it is difficult to understand the meaning of the Y-axis data. Please add names respectively; And, the three indicators only have two Y-axes.

Response: Thanks to the reviewer’s opinion, we have modified Figure 10 to make the meaning of the picture clearer (Line 561-565).

Question7: If more quantitative analysis is conducted on the driving factors, the effect will be better.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful suggestion and agree that it would be useful to conduct quantitative analysis on the driving factors; however, such an analysis is beyond the scope of our paper, which aims only to explore the impact of land-use change on ESV. Meanwhile, we did conduct some qualitative analysis on the driving factors in the discussion sections 5.1 and 5.2. Nevertheless, we recognize this limitation should be mentioned in the paper, so we have added the following sentence “In addition, this study did not predict various future scenarios, nor did it quantitatively analyze the impact of natural, social and economic drivers on the profit and loss of ESV. More importantly, due to the lack of spatiotemporal exploration of the interaction between ESV and landscape ecological risk in the study, it is not possible to formulate more detailed ecological policies, which will be the focus of our next work.” in the discussion sections 5.4 (Line 710-714).

Question8: Some references show an unreasonable format, please check.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have checked the references one by one and corrected the errors. And here we did not list the changes but marked in yellow in the revised paper.

Question9: There is a Chinese expression, it is recommended to polish the language.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have tried our best to polish the language in the revised manuscript. And here we did not list the changes but marked in yellow in the revised paper.

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciated the reviewed version of your paper.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:　

Thank you again for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Impacts of land-use changes on ecosystem service value in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau, China” (Manuscript No: 2700267).

Reviewer 2 Report

Satisfied with revisions, and have no further questions.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:　

Thank you again for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Impacts of land-use changes on ecosystem service value in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau, China” (Manuscript No: 2700267).

Reviewer 3 Report

this paper quantitatively analyzes the impact of land use changes on ecosystem services values in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau between 1980 and 2020, plEASE, =CHECK FOR Figures citation in the text. Moreover, check for controls and hypotheses to be stated.

this paper quantitatively analyzes the impact of land use changes on ecosystem services values in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau between 1980 and 2020, plEASE, =CHECK FOR Figures citation in the text. Moreover, check for controls and hypotheses to be stated.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:　

Thank you again for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Impacts of land-use changes on ecosystem service value in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau, China” (Manuscript No: 2700267). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made the correction which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion is marked in blue in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Question1: this paper quantitatively analyzes the impact of land use changes on ecosystem services values in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau between 1980 and 2020, plEASE, =CHECK FOR Figures citation in the text. Moreover, check for controls and hypotheses to be stated.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. Based on your suggestions, we have carefully checked the citation of figures and tables, control variables, and hypothesis statements in the article.

Question2: this paper quantitatively analyzes the impact of land use changes on ecosystem services values in the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau between 1980 and 2020, plEASE, =CHECK FOR Figures citation in the text. Moreover, check for controls and hypotheses to be stated.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. Based on your suggestions, we have carefully checked the citation of figures and tables, control variables, and hypothesis statements in the article.