Research on the Trade-Off and Synergy Relationship of Ecosystem Services in Major Water Source Basin Under the Influence of Land Use Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors to the Manuscript: sustainability-3784024.

The manuscript entitled: “Research on the Trade-Off and Synergy Relationship of Ecosystem Services in Major Water Source Basin Under the Influence of Land Use Change” is interesting and devoted to an important topic.

 

The aim of the study was to evaluate the coordinated and balanced changes in land use and ecosystem services in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Basin which is the water source area of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project. The analysis covered the years 2012–2022 and included five types of ecosystem services and six related indicators closely linked to land use. The quantitative assessment was performed with the use of inVEST model.

 

The topic of the manuscript is original and relevant to the field. According to Authors, the topic of research addresses a specific gap in the field. Authors have emphasized that the current research on land use change and its impact on ecosystem service trade-offs or synergies focuses on specific regions, employing static analyses at particular time points or dynamic analyses over long time series. Authors have pointed out that available models such as InVEST, SolVES, and ARIES utilize both spatial and statistical analysis as well as scenario simulations to quantitatively assess the effects of land use changes on the value of ecosystem services in watersheds, forests, grassland, and cities. The current research available in the literature is devoted to identification of trade-offs or synergies at different scales, as well as the analysis of the interactions between dynamic changes in ecosystem services and natural resources or human activities. But Authors have pointed out that there is limited research on how changes in land use in major reservoir watersheds affect the ecosystem.

 

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. They refer to the aim and scope of the work. Authors have concluded that during the study period, the cultivated land was the primary land type that was mainly transformed into forest land, water bodies, and built up land. According to Authors the cultivated land, forest land, water bodies, and built-up land are land use types that most significantly influence both trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services in the Danjiangkou Reservoir watershed. Authors have emphasized that both forest land and water bodies are related to synergistic relationships among ecosystem services At the same time, the built-up land and the cultivated land are associated with trade-off relationships. Additionally, Authors have concluded that the forest land has the strongest impact on the ecosystem service functions of water source areas.

 

The references included in the literature review are appropriate.

 

Below are presented specific comments to the Manuscript: sustainability-3784024.

1. In my opinion, the main research question addressed by the study could be more precisely and more strongly formulated in the text of the manuscript (e.g. in the Abstract or in the Introduction).

 

2. It could be beneficial to compare the obtained results (in the section “Discussion”) with the greater number of existing results of studies available in the literature.

 

Below are presented any additional specific comments on the text of manuscript.

• Line 159: Authors can take into account to explain the phrase: hydrological sensitivity (HSSx).
• Line 199: Authors could explain the phrase: half-saturation coefficient.
• Line 216: Please, check carefully the equation 8. Please check whether there should be a minus sign in the numerator of the quotient in parentheses?
• Line 232: Authors write in this line: “E (S) denotes the mean of the data”. Please, check if this phrase is correct? There is not the expression “E (S)” in the equations. Please, check if it should be “(S)” in this case?
• Lines 492 – 495: In these lines Authors write: “Among these, the relatively small decrease in the grassland area had a minimal impact on soil erosion, indicating that the increase in forest land was the primary land type change contributing to the rise in soil erosion during the study period.” This sentence is not clear. This statement implies that increasing forest cover increases soil erosion. Is this statement correct? In general, deforestation causes soil erosion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the constructive feedback provided by the editor and reviewers on our manuscript, which has played a crucial role in improving the quality of work. We have carefully considered all comments and made the necessary revisions on the cover letter and the manuscript. The following provides detailed responses to each of the comments, with the editor's and reviewers' comments presented in black font, our responses in red font, and all revisions in the manuscript are highlighted in red.

Comments 1: [In my opinion, the main research question addressed by the study could be more precisely and more strongly formulated in the text of the manuscript (e.g. in the Abstract or in the Introduction).]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the Abstract and Introduction sections to more clearly and strongly state the primary research question addressed by the study. These modifications will help readers better understand the focus and significance of our work. This change can be found in page 1, line 12-33 and page 2 line 12-33.

Comments 2: [It could be beneficial to compare the obtained results (in the section “Discussion”) with the greater number of existing results of studies available in the literature.]

Response 2: I agree that a more comprehensive comparison of our results with existing studies in the literature would strengthen the discussion. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Discussion section to include additional comparisons with relevant prior works, highlighting key similarities, differences, and potential explanations for any discrepancies. This will provide better context for our findings and their implications within the broader field. This change can be found in page 16, line 519-596.

Comments 3: [Line 159: Authors can take into account to explain the phrase: hydrological sensitivity (HSSx).]

Response 3: Explaination of hydrological sensitivity (HSSx) was added to the article—— HSSx indicates the hydrological sensitivity which refers to the degree to which a hydrological system such as a watershed, river basin, or catchment area responds to changes in external or internal factors. This change can be found in page 6 ,line 197-200.

Comments 4: [Line 199: Authors could explain the phrase: half-saturation coefficient. ]

Response 4: Half-saturation coefficient was added to the article——k represents the half-saturation coefficient, which determines the proportion of a nutrient (e.g., nitrogen or phosphorus) that is retained within the landscape versus the amount that is transported to the stream. This change can be found in page 7 ,line 239-241.

Comments 5: [Line 216: Please, check carefully the equation 8. Please check whether there should be a minus sign in the numerator of the quotient in parentheses? ]

Response 5: Equation 8 was modified to  . This change can be found in page 8 ,line258.

Comments 6: [Line 232: Authors write in this line: “E (S) denotes the mean of the data”. Please, check if this phrase is correct? There is not the expression “E (S)” in the equations. Please, check if it should be “(S)” in this case?]

Response 6: After checking, these two indexes were modified as “S denotes the Mann–Kendall statistic (sum of signs of all pairwise differences); and VAR（S）indicates the variance of the data.” This change can be found in page 8 ,line 274-275.

Comments 7: [Lines 492 – 495: In these lines Authors write: “Among these, the relatively small decrease in the grassland area had a minimal impact on soil erosion, indicating that the increase in forest land was the primary land type change contributing to the rise in soil erosion during the study period.” This sentence is not clear. This statement implies that increasing forest cover increases soil erosion. Is this statement correct? In general, deforestation causes soil erosion.]

Response 7: We have rewritten the Discussion section, and the above issues have been revised as “At the same time, the area of construction land increased, but the areas of forest land and water bodies also increased, while the area of cultivated land decreased. This led to a trade-off relationship between habitat quality and soil erosion and carbon sequestration, but a synergy relationship with water purification and water yield. Soil erosion is mainly related to vegetation such as forest land and grassland.” This change can be found in page 16, line 519-596.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Summary and General Evaluation

This manuskript, which concern the influance of land use chang on the interactions among ecosystem servcies in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Basin—a major source area for China’s South-to-North Water Diversion Project—present a topic that is both practical meaningful and policy-relevant; although the application of InVEST model and the multitype spatial analysiss methods appears methodologically acceptable at a general level, the paper in its current form contains several issue that may prevent it from been fully accepted at this stage for publication in Sustainability journal.

 

2. Section-by-Section Comments

Abstract and Keywords (L11–L32)

• While the abstract attempt to convey the significance of land use changes for ecosystem servcies management, it fail to clarify the exact problem the authors tried to resolve; moreover, the novelty is not easy to grasp because there is no indication of how the findings differ from what is already knwon, thus I suggest more clearer positioning is needed.

• Further, expressions like "ecological environment continues to improve" (L30) may sound too absolute, since such conclusion normally depend on multi-sourced indicators, which in the text was not comprehensively demonstrated.

Introduction (L34–L80)

• The introductory section spend many lines defining basic concepts such as "ecosystem services" (L34–L47), which could be more concisely summarized in one or two sentences; what’s more needed is a clearly logical progression showing: what previous studies did → what they missed → what this paper aim to do to fill that gap.

• The literature revieew, as seen in L49–L66, cited several modeling framework like InVEST, ARIES, SolVES etc., but they are not comparred in a clear methodological way, nor did the author specify why InVEST was selected over others.

• The claimed research gap in L65–L80, especially that "few study focus on reservoir basin", is too vague, because no specific supporting references were given to prove it.

Study Area and Data (L81–L117)

• While the geographical and environmental features of Danjiangkou Basin were described, the ecological linkage was missing; for instance, the forest cover rate, which was said to be about 34%, could be directly tied to potential for carbon sequestrtion or habitat qualty, which author didn't elaborate.

• The satellite imagery data from Landsat (2012) and Sentinel-2 (2022) are of different resolutions (30m and 15m respectively), but no mention is made about how spatial resolution mismatch were corrected, which may affecct classification accuracy—this is a key methodological detail that should not be ommited.

Methods (L118–L248)

• The figure showing methodological framework (Fig.2, L138) was lack of logical flow between modules, and the diagram do not use standard flowchart convention such as arrows or module names; moreover, no time dimension was reflected.

• Though formula are provided for modules such as carbon storage, soil erosion, habitat quality etc., in lines L149–L208, many variable are not defined, and readers who are not familiar with InVEST may not undrestand how they calculated; also, units are missing for key parameters.

• The paper use Spearman correlation to assess trade-offs (L238–L248), however, it ignore spatial autocorelation issue, which could bias the results, especially given that land use and ES data are strongly spatially clustered.

Results (L249–L446)

• Some data is either confusing or probably mispresented, for example, the value “0.2832.625” (L301) is not interpretable, and appears to be a formatting or typographic error, which reflects poor proofreading.

• The figures lack explanations: Figure 3 and Figure 4, which were supposed to show land use and its transfer matrix, are not informative enough without legends, color labels, or units. It is not easy for readers to understand what exactly changed in what area.

• The analysis of ecosystem services correlation (L360–L406) only compare 2012 and 2022, missing temporal trends or evolution, and also fails to explain why certain synergies weakened or tradeoffs increased; numbers alone is not enough to explain mechanisms.

Discussion (L450–L515)

• The discussion mostly rephrased results instead of doing real interpretive thinking; for example, L460–L471 simply state that synergy declined while trade-off increased, but did not explain why, whether due to vegetation change, land planning, or climate policy.

• No attempt is made to relate this finding with previous studies; that means, there is no critical evaluation like "our results confirm/refute [Author X, Year]" or "unlike previous research, this study found…"

• The stated limitations (L507–L514) are too generic and sound more like template-style disclaimer, not based on actual model assumptions or empirical constraints—for instance, InVEST models do not account for land management practices or feedback from socio-economic system, which should be acknowledged.

Conclusion (L516–L542)

• The conclusion mainly repeat earlier results, without forming a synthesis that links findings to broader environmental management implications; it also fail to provide forward-looking perspective on how the results can inform land zoning or watershed restoration.

3. Language and Expression Issues

• Line L301: “0.2832.625” should be corrected to “from 2.625 to 2.507 kg·hm⁻²·a⁻¹”.

• Line L441: Remove subjective adverb “effectively” in “effectively enhancing habitat quality”.

• Lines L149–L248: Excessive formula usage without adequate linking text—suggest balancing equations with interpretation.

Author Response

We appreciate the constructive feedback provided by the editor and reviewers on our manuscript, which has played a crucial role in improving the quality of work. We have carefully considered all comments and made the necessary revisions on the cover letter and the manuscript. The following provides detailed responses to each of the comments, with the editor's and reviewers' comments presented in black font, our responses in red font, and all revisions in the manuscript are highlighted in red.

Comments 1: [Abstract and Keywords (L11–L32)While the abstract attempt to convey the significance of land use changes for ecosystem services management, it fails to clarify the exact problem the authors tried to resolve; moreover, the novelty is not easy to grasp because there is no indication of how the findings differ from what is already known, thus I suggest more clearer positioning is needed. Further, expressions like "ecological environment continues to improve" (L30) may sound too absolute, since such conclusion normally depend on multi-sourced indicators, which in the text was not comprehensively demonstrated.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the Abstract to more clearly and strongly state the primary research question addressed by the study. These modifications will help readers better understand the focus and significance of our work. (See page 1, line 12-33 and page 2 line 12-33).

Comments 2: [Introduction (L34–L80)

The introductory section spends many lines defining basic concepts such as "ecosystem services" (L34–L47), which could be more concisely summarized in one or two sentences; what’s more needed is a clearly logical progression showing: what previous studies did → what they missed → what this paper aim to do to fill that gap.The literature review, as seen in L49–L66, cited several modeling frameworks like InVEST, ARIES, SolVES etc., but they are not compared in a clear methodological way, nor did the author specify why InVEST was selected over others. The claimed research gap in L65–L80, especially that "few study focus on reservoir basin", is too vague, because no specific supporting references were given to prove it.]

Response 2: I rework the introduction according to previous studies did → what they missed → what this paper aims to do to fill that gap. It facilitated readers' comprehension of the research setting and emphasize the significance and imperative nature of this study. (See page 1 to 2, line38-105).

Comments 3: [Study Area and Data (L81–L117)While the geographical and environmental features of Danjiangkou Basin were described, the ecological linkage was missing; for instance, the forest cover rate, which was said to be about 34%, could be directly tied to potential for carbon sequestration or habitat quality, which author didn't elaborate.The satellite imagery data from Landsat (2012) and Sentinel-2 (2022) are of different resolutions (30m and 15m respectively), but no mention is made about how spatial resolution mismatch were corrected, which may affect classification accuracy—this is a key methodological detail that should not be omitted.]

Response 3: The geographical and environmental features link with the ecological was added in the manuscript. The modification content is “The Danjiangkou Reservoir, situated in the upper sections of the Han River, a princi-pal tributary of the Yangtze, holds substantial geographical and ecological importance. Its environmental characteristics, including topography, climate, hydrology, and land cover, play a crucial role in shaping ecosystem services, biodiversity patterns, and human–environment interactions. The Henan Xichuan reservoir area covers 546 km², accounting for 52% of the entire reservoir area 1,022.75 km², making it a typical major lake-type water source (Figure 1). The reservoir officially began its water supply in December 2014, and, by April 2023, it had supplied in excess of 55 billion cubic meters of water to the service re-gion, benefiting more than 85 million people. Enclosed by the Qinling Mountains to the north and the Daba Mountains to the south, the region constitutes a significant natural barrier and displays a markedly diverse topography, with altitudes varying from around 200 to above 2,000 meters above sea level. This complex terrain results in diverse micro-habitats which significantly influence vegetation distribution and soil erosion processes.” (See page 3, line 108-120).

Comments 4: [Methods (L118–L248)

The figure showing methodological framework (Fig.2, L138) was lack of logical flow between modules, and the diagram do not use standard flowchart convention such as arrows or module names; moreover, no time dimension was reflected. Though formula is provided for modules such as carbon storage, soil erosion, habitat quality etc., in lines L149–L208, many variables are not defined, and readers who are not familiar with InVEST may not understand how they calculated; also, units are missing for key parameters. The paper use Spearman correlation to assess trade-offs (L238–L248), however, it ignore spatial autocorrelation issue, which could bias the results, especially given that land use and ES data are strongly spatially clustered. ]

Response 4: Thank you for your detailed review and feedback.I have revised the Methods section to provide aclearer and more detailed description of the experimental procedures. “Methodological framework (Fig.2) was recreated with logical flow between modules, standard flowchart convention such as arrows or module names and time dimension. Many variables and key parameters units have been defined so that readers can familiar how they calculated within InVEST. In this reasearch, Spearman’s rank correlation was used to evaluate trade-offs among ecosystem services. While we acknowledge that this method does not explicitly account for spatial autocorrelation—which may lead to biased results due to the spatial clustering of land use and ecosystem services—the non-parametric nature of Spearman correlation remains robust for ranked data with non-normal distributions. Given current limitations in spatial resolution and modeling scope, incorporating spatially explicit regression methods (e.g., spatial lag models or GWR) was not feasible within the framework of this study. As such, the results are intended to reflect overall trends rather than precise spatial relationships. Future research will aim to incorporate spatially explicit models to address this issue more rigorously.” (See page 7-8, line 188-287).

Comments 5: [Results (L249–L446)

Some data is either confusing or probably mispresented, for example, the value “0.2832.625” (L301) is not interpretable, and appears to be a formatting or typographic error, which reflects poor proofreading. The figures lack explanations: Figure 3 and Figure 4, which were supposed to show land use and its transfer matrix, are not informative enough without legends, color labels, or units. It is not easy for readers to understand what exactly changed in what area. The analysis of ecosystem services correlation (L360–L406) only compare 2012 and 2022, missing temporal trends or evolution, and also fails to explain why certain synergies weakened or tradeoffs increased; numbers alone is not enough to explain mechanisms.]

Response 5: The value “0.2832.625” was modified to decreased from 2.625 kg·hm⁻²·a⁻¹ and 0.283 kg·hm⁻²·a⁻¹ in 2012 to 2.507 kg·hm⁻²·a⁻¹ and 0.265 kg·hm⁻²·a⁻¹ in 2022. Legends, color was added in labels Figure 4. Currently, this study only compares the correlation of ecosystem services from 2012 to 2022. Although it indicated the deterioration of collaborative linkages and the strengthening of trade-off interactions among specific services, it is insufficient to explain their evolutionary tendencies and underlying driving factors. Future research can use multi-period data, along with land use change characteristics and spatial analysis methods, to delve deeply into the stage characteristics and causes of the evolution of various ecosystem service relationships, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interaction relationships between ecosystem services.” (See page 7-12, line 323-405).

Comments 6: [Discussion (L450–L515)

The discussion mostly rephrased results instead of doing real interpretive thinking; for example, L460–L471 simply state that synergy declined while trade-off increased, but did not explain why, whether due to vegetation change, land planning, or climate policy. No attempt is made to relate this finding with previous studies; that means, there is no critical evaluation like "our results confirm/refute [Author X, Year]" or "unlike previous research, this study found…"

The stated limitations (L507–L514) are too generic and sound more like template-style disclaimer, not based on actual model assumptions or empirical constraints—for instance, InVEST models do not account for land management practices or feedback from socio-economic system, which should be acknowledged.]

Response 6: Discussion was reworked,which state that synergy declined while trade-off increased and explain why, whether due to vegetation change, land planning, or climate policy. (See page 16-17, line 519-596).

Comments 7: [The conclusion mainly repeat earlier results, without forming a synthesis that links findings to broader environmental management implications; it also fails to provide forward-looking perspective on how the results can inform land zoning or watershed restoration.]

Response 7: The conclusion was rework easy to form a synthesis that links findings to broader environmental management implications and provide forward-looking perspective on how the results can inform land zoning or watershed restoration. (See page 17-18, line 598-635).

Comments 8: [Language and Expression Issues

Line L301: “0.2832.625” should be corrected to “from 2.625 to 2.507 kg·hm⁻²·a⁻¹”.

Line L441: Remove subjective adverb “effectively” in “effectively enhancing habitat quality”.

Lines L149–L248: Excessive formula usage without adequate linking text—suggest balancing equations with interpretation. ]

Response 8: The value “0.2832.625” was modified to decreased from 2.625 kg·hm⁻²·a⁻¹ and 0.283 kg·hm⁻²·a⁻¹ in 2012 to 2.507 kg·hm⁻²·a⁻¹ and 0.265 kg·hm⁻²·a⁻¹ in 2022. I have removed subjective adverb “effectively” in “effectively enhancing habitat quality and balanced equations with interpretation.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article takes the Danjiangkou Reservoir Basin as the research area and systematically analyzes the impact of land use change on the trade-off and synergy of ecosystem services from 2012 to 2022. A lot of work has been done around the topic of the article. However, at present, there are still some problems and shortcomings in the paper. In order to make the paper more scientific and perfect, the following suggestions are given:

Comment 1: It is suggested in the abstract to supplement the specific variation range of key data, such as "water yield, total carbon storage, and habitat quality showed upward trends", which can clearly indicate the percentage increase or specific numerical range. Make the conclusion more persuasive.

Comment 2: The introduction mentions "there is limited research on how land use changes in major reservoir watersheds..." "affect the ecosystem service trade-offs/synergies", but did not specify the blank spots in the existing studies. It is suggested to supplement the deficiencies of 1-2 related studies to highlight the necessity of this study.

Comment 3: The description of the significance of the Danjiangkou Reservoir could focus more on its connection with the trade-off synergy of ecosystem services. It is suggested that the article emphasize its role as a water source and the direct impact of changes in ecosystem services on water security in the north.

Comment 4: The literature review section mainly lists relevant research methods and models, lacking a systematic review of the research progress on the relationship between "ecosystem service trade-off synergy and land use change". It is suggested that the key research results be summarized in chronological order or by type of research area.

Comment 5: The literature review is only a list of some articles, but does not clarify the main issues, research results, problems and defects of existing research in the academic field. According to the keyword search of " Land use change" and "Ecosystem services", it is suggested that the author read the following literatures:

Measuring ecosystem services based on government intentions for future land use in Hubei Province: Implications for sustainable landscape management. Landscape Ecology 2021, 36, 2025–2042.

Unveiling the dynamics of urbanization and ecosystem services: insights from the Su-Xi-Chang Region, China. npj Urban Sustain 2021, 4, 36.

Comment 6: The application steps of the Il-sen and Mann-Kendall trend analysis methods are described relatively briefly. It is suggested to supplement the specific calculation process and the practical application details of the judgment criteria in this study.

Comment 7: 3.1 Land Use Change Section: The results described in Figures 3 and 4 are rather general. It is suggested to supplement the specific percentage of area change for each land use type and the proportion analysis of each conversion type in the transfer matrix.

Comment 8: Language polishing is recommended to improve the readability and professionalism of the article. Ensure that the logical flow of the article is clear and the connections between the various parts are tight.

Author Response

Comments 1: [It is suggested in the abstract to supplement the specific variation range of key data, such as "water yield, total carbon storage, and habitat quality showed upward trends", which can clearly indicate the percentage increase or specific numerical range. Make the conclusion more persuasive.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have revised the Abstract to supplement the specific variation range of key data, such as "water yield, total carbon storage, and habitat quality showed upward trends. These modifications will help readers better clearly indicate the percentage increase or specific numerical range. (See page 1, line 12-33 and page 2 line 12-33).

Comments 2: [The introduction mentions "there is limited research on how land use changes in major reservoir watersheds..." "affect the ecosystem service trade-offs/synergies" but did not specify the blank spots in the existing studies. It is suggested to supplement the deficiencies of 1-2 related studies to highlight the necessity of this study.]

Response 2: I have reworked and supplemented the deficiencies of 1-2 related studies in the introduction according to highlight the necessity. It facilitated readers' comprehension of the research setting and emphasize the significance and imperative nature of this study. (See page 1 to 2, line38-105).

Comments 3: [The description of the significance of the Danjiangkou Reservoir could focus more on its connection with the trade-off synergy of ecosystem services. It is suggested that the article emphasize its role as a water source and the direct impact of changes in ecosystem services on water security in the north.]

Response 3: The geographical and trade-off synergy of ecosystem services link with the ecological was added in the manuscript. It facilitated readers' comprehension of the research setting and emphasize the significance and imperative nature of this study. (See page 3, line108-120).

Comments 4: [The literature review section mainly lists relevant research methods and models, lacking a systematic review of the research progress on the relationship between "ecosystem service trade-off synergy and land use change". It is suggested that the key research results be summarized in chronological order or by type of research area.]

Response 4: The key research results was summarized in chronological order listed in the introduction. It facilitated readers' comprehension of the research setting and emphasize the significance and imperative nature of this study. (See page 1 to 3, line38-105).

Comments 5: [The literature review is only a list of some articles, but does not clarify the main issues, research results, problems and defects of existing research in the academic field. According to the keyword search of "Land use change" and "Ecosystem services", it is suggested that the author read the following literatures.]

Response 5: I rework the introduction clarify the main issues, research results, problems and defects of existing research in the academic field. It facilitated readers' comprehension of "Land use change" and "Ecosystem services". (See page 1 to 2, line38-105).

Comments 6: [The application steps of the Theil-Sen and Mann-Kendall trend analysis methods are described relatively briefly. It is suggested to supplement the specific calculation process and the practical application details of the judgment criteria in this study.]

Response 6: I have supplemented the specific calculation process and the practical application details of the judgment criteria in this study. (See page 8 - 9, line281-287).

Comments 7: [3.1 Land Use Change Section: The results described in Figures 3 and 4 are rather general. It is suggested to supplement the specific percentage of area change for each land use type and the proportion analysis of each conversion type in the transfer matrix.]

Response 7: Legend sand color labels was supplemented in Figure 4. (See page 10, line320-321).

Comments 8: [Language polishing is recommended to improve the readability and professionalism of the article. Ensure that the logical flow of the article is clear and the connections between the various parts are tight.]

Response 8: The article's readability and professionalism have been improved by the language used throughout, which has been refined to guarantee a clear logical flow and strong linkages between different sections.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is evident that the authors have carefully revised the manuscript in response to my review. After thoroughly reading the latest version, I believe they have fully addressed all the issues I previously raised. I recommend immediate acceptance and publication of the paper. Thank you to the authors for their diligent efforts—congratulations!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ACCEPT.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.