Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

the paper “Understanding spatial-temporal interactions of ecosystem service and their drivers in Chinese wetland city using multi source remote sensing data” introduces an intriguing diachronic analysis concerning the impacts of urbanization on the ecological stability of a valuable and fragile wetland area in China.

The paper is well-written and of huge interest for Remote Sensing readers. However, the enormous quantity of data and statistical analysis makes it a bit difficult to follow. The escamotage of introducing a Supplementary Materials section partially alleviates this issue. In any case, the procedures adopted seem to be appropriate and consistent.

I have a few comments aimed at improving the formal legibility of the manuscript (see the attached pdf), while I think that the use of models to quantify ecosystem services represents a major issue.

Specifically, within the sections Abstract and Methods three models useful to quantify ecosystem services are just named. No explanation was provided about their features and what types of ecosystem services they are used for, except for InVEST model which is limited to the estimation of habitat quality (within the Supplementary Materials).

Authors should specify what model they have used and for which ecosystem service estimation, because the core of their investigations relies on the trade-offs/synergies of ecosystem services.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Only some minor issues, reported in the attached pdf.

Author Response

Thank you for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of this study and providing valuable comments that have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of the manuscript. We have thoroughly reviewed the concerns you raised and addressed each of your questions individually. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in participating in the review of this manuscript. Please refer to the attached document for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Understanding spatial-temporal interactions of ecosystem service and their drivers is interesting and important topic. The manuscript applied multisource remote sensing data and large works to identify these interactions. However, there are a number of shortcomings in the current manuscript should be addressed.

 

 

The main problems is mainly focus on the flowing problems:

1 Your study only applied the Miluo as your study area. It may be not all the case for Chinese wetland cities. And the title should be modified to focus on local area.

 

2 The language and expression should be refined to achieve an easy reading and many figures in this manuscript is not distinct.

 

3 There are many shortcomings during procedure of Land use/cover change (LUCC) classification. The land cover is very important data in your study and its precision directly affects the result and analysis. The Landsat images you applied are fall in growing season and no datasets in no-growing season is used. This may lead to difficult in classing forest, grass land, garden and cropland. In the figure 5, misclassification among grass land and forest is significant. The built-up and wetland also present misclassification. And the figure is vague.

 

4 Supplementary provide the method in water retention (WR), habitat quality (HQ), soil retention (SR), food production (FP), carbon retention (CR), and climate regulation (CE). However, only the equation is provide. More information in your study should be added in supplementary. And the reference of many method is missing.

 

5 The study applied the CASA model in acquire the CR. However, many information is missing.

 

6 How the figure 12 is acquired is confusion. More information in its legend should be added.

 

The language and expression should be refined to achieve an easy reading and many figures in this manuscript is not distinct.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your participation in reviewing this manuscript. Your valuable suggestions and positive comments are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly reviewed each of your suggestions and have provided individual responses to address them. Please refer to the attached document for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

the changes made throughout the manuscript have considerably improved the overall quality of the paper. The more appropriate and detailed description of the models used to estimate ecosystem services and goods makes the text ready for publication.

Best regards

Minor editing

Author Response

Thank you for acknowledging our endeavors and for once again offering valuable suggestions that are crucial for enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We have incorporated your insightful recommendations into the Supplementary Information documentation, specifically refining the content pertaining to ecosystem service estimates. We express our sincere gratitude for your diligent review of this manuscript, as it greatly contributes to its overall improvement. Detailed reponse please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The result of land cover in the study area is confusion. The author claimed that the presence of snow in spring and winter images can significantly increase classification uncertainty. The expression is very strange. For the study area, there are many images uncover with snow in spring and winter. And many experts in LUCC support the opinion that adding the no-growing seasonal images is very important way to improve the accuracy of classification, which is the common sense. What’s more, many grass land converted into forest land from 2000 to 2005 and no explanation put on it. For some area, the built up region was convert into grass which may be misclassification. The wet land and grass land in the Dongting area may be confused. As the water fluctuation, the area conversion among water, wet land and grass land in Dongting area may change a lot. Therefore, it important to charity the classification system you applied.

 In the revision, only the equation and method are provided in supplementary. Detail information of the input layers and output layers are still missing.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for acknowledging our endeavors and for once again offering valuable suggestions that are crucial for enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We have incorporated your insightful recommendations into the Supplementary Information documentation, specifically refining the content pertaining to ecosystem service estimates. We express our sincere gratitude for your diligent review of this manuscript, as it greatly contributes to its overall improvement. Detailed reponse please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf