Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall this is a well written manuscript. However, there are a few areas where the manuscript can be improved.

1. Lines 30-41: Abbreviations Section is not needed if they included in main text after the expanded version is introduced.
2. A background on how remote sensing observations, biophysical models and socioeconomic statistics are used in quantifying/evaluating ecosystems services is missing.
3. The quality of Figure 1 needs improvement. It is difficult to read the legend.
4. I am confused about the source of the elevation data used. Lines 151-152 says SRTM but Table 1 says ASTER GDEM. 
5. Line 181: Add reference to the Xilingol statistical yearbook.
6. Line 274: What landcover/landuse replaced grassland and barren land?
7. Figures 3, 4. The figure caption is unclear. Clarify what the letters (a, b, c etc.) represent in the caption.
8. Figure 5. Label the subplots (a, b, c, etc.) and include them in figure caption.
9. line 370-371- "The width and orientation of the ellipse represent the correlation coefficient values and positive or negative 370
correlation" Explain in more details for the readers. How is the width and orientation related to correlation coefficient and direction of correlation.
What do the red and blue colors mean?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article  “ Enhanced ecosystem services in China’s Xilingol steppe during 2000-2015: Towards sustainable agropastoralism management “- Huashun Dou, Xiaobing Li *, Jirui Gong, Hong Wang, Yuqiang Tian, Xiaojing Xuan, Kai Wang , is well structured, the methods used proved to be useful in the study and the results are consistent and in correlated with the general design of the research. There was a great effort to process so much information and the article  can be published after some corrections are made:

In general, the article is difficult to read, due to the multitude of abbreviations used by the authors.

The processing of the spatial data must be better explained through a logical scheme, the authors used a lot of images and GIS layers, but the interaction between them is not clearly explained.

All the images are compressed too much and the maps are difficult to read. Also, if n image has more information should be bigger than that that contains only 3 polygons.

All the maps should have a layer with main cities or towns, or river names, in order to transfer mentally the information you provide in a geographical context. Add at least a river and 2 cities….something.

 

Fig.7. In order to understand the scheme is necessary to write the abbreviation under the image, it is difficult to go to the first page to read the explanation of the abbreviation.

The conclusions should be expanded and completed with a spatial reference of the actual results and by this, I think that you should explain where is study area the ES  improved and why …and so one.

Congrats!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all my concerns satisfactory manner.