Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors propose "Analysis of water conservation trends and drivers in Qilian Mountains from 2000 to 2020 based on land use ". The topic is very interesting, and the paper is, in general, well-written. I, however, have the following comments: 

1. Authors were missing and didn’t explain important research works conducted in the other parts of the world which discussed about the water conservation trends and drivers and its relation with other parameters (precipitation, land cover, temperature etc.)

2.   Authors should explain in detail about validation results in the paper.

3. How did the authors deal with unbalanced dataset. Need to explain it a bit more detail.

4. Authors also need to check the sentence structure and typos more carefully

 

This paper requires minor editing of English language 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report of “Analysis of water conservation trends and drivers in Qilian Mountains from 2000 to 2020 based on land use”

The manuscript used the InVEST model to evaluate the temporal fluctuation and geographical distribution of water conservation (WC) in the Qilian Mountains (QLM. The manuscript of this investigation used trend analysis, partial correlation analysis, and contribution analysis. The study results confirmed the following:

1.     The predicted water content of the QLM based on the InVEST model's water yield module has a relative inaccuracy of 5.96%

2.     From 2000 to 2020, the multi-year water content found in the QLM is approximately 78.08 × 10⁸ m³.

3.     The water content slightly increases over time with a change rate of 0.565mm·a^-1.

4.     A spatial distribution pattern characterized by "more in the east than in the west" aligns with the annual precipitation trend.

5.     Precipitation rather than potential evaporation and surface temperature emerge as the primary influencing factor on water content, contributing approximately 58.50% of the variation and exhibiting a significant positive correlation.

The topic provides a theoretical foundation for the next stage of rational water resource distribution in the QLM area, and Figure 2 was very useful in providing a detailed framework.

General Opinion:  The research methods are standard, and the procedure is fairly described and reproducible. However, I have observed some points described below that must be considered before publication. Appropriate revisions to the following points should be undertaken to justify the recommendation for publication.

For instance, the overall presentation in the introduction section and conclusion lacks synergy and exists in bits and pieces in a few cases. For example, the authors have identified the research gaps in the literature, but this section needs to be more streamlined while coming toward the problem statement. This section needs slight rework and restructuring.

·       There is a need to clearly state the objective(s) of the study towards the end of the introduction.

·       Since there was no validation for the selected datasets, I expected the authors to justify the selection of the datasets used in the study. For example, there is abundant work on using datasets that have been used in China or other parts of China. The authors may justify the selection of the datasets by highlighting those studies.

·       Line 168: Delete Figure 1b. The DEM is empty and shows nothing. I am wondering why the authors presented that. Alternatively, they would prefer to use DEM for the entire China and land use map.

·        in the conclusion sections, I would prefer this section to be objective based and in bullets as the discussion was rigorous.

·       Citation and References: (1) Provide space between words and citations throughout the manuscript. (2) Old references need to be updated with recent ones. (3) cross-check and provide original citations for all the datasets used in the study.

I recommend a minor language editing at this stage.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

However, there are some issues that need to be improved or revised.

1. Abstract

(1) The background situation of Qilian Mountains is overemphasized in the abstract. Will the research of this paper provide scientific reference for ecological environment protection in other similar regions? So, is it appropriate to write something like this in the abstract?

(2) The research method is not mentioned in the Abstract, and the research innovation is not prominent. The main methods used in this paper, such as MK, PCA, HURST, etc., should also be mentioned in the abstract. Re-write the Abstract clearer and more objective.

(3) It is best to divide the results into 1,2,3, and present them in a coherent and clear way.

2. The statements of the Introduction is with slightly poor logics, and the research purposes, research ideas and research innovation are not clear.

(1) The first paragraph is too verbose and not closely related to the main idea of the article, it is recommended to delete or put after the second paragraph.

(2) The main methods to be used in this article are not reviewed. In Introduction, please states explicitly the research thoughts and research innovation. To solve the topic problem, which methods have been adopted and what is the differences and advantages of your method compared with other methods?

(3) The statements of the last paragraph of the Introduction are with slightly poor logics. There are some very similar words like " The objectives of the study", " this research endeavors to achieve" and " The purpose of this study" in the introduction, so I don't know what the purpose of this research is. Maybe you need to rewrite this paragraph.

 

3. Materials and Methods.

(1) The study area includes major prefecture-level cities including Baiyin, Jinchang, Jiuquan, Lanzhou, Wuwei, Zhangye, Haibei Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, as well as the Haidong, Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Haixi Mongolian Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, and Xining. Foreign readers are not familiar with this background knowledge. Where are these places in the Figure 1?

(2) Table 1 can be further refined.

4. In Results:

(1) The result analysis is full of content and heavy workload, but whether the method is a little complicated and the theme is not prominent enough. What is the research idea and research focus of this article, still need to be further condensed and focused?

(2) The Xining City, Jiuquan City, Haixi Mongolian and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, mentioned in the paper are not introduced in this paper. It is difficult for foreign readers to know where their spatial positions are. I have looked carefully, and it seems that the division of regions is not introduced elsewhere in the whole paper.

(3) Why is the study period divided into fourth phases and whether the division of these phases (2000-2007, 2007-2013, 2013-2019, and 2019-2020) is reasonable?

5. In Discussion:

(1) In 5.1, you stated “Consequently, this dataset is better suited for research and analysis within the Qilian Mountains region”, and whether this reasoning is sufficient？

(2) Section 5.5 belong to the Results or discussion？

(3) What are the findings and recommendations of this study, and what measures should we take?

6. In Conclusions:

According to the general rules of the paper, no references appear in the conclusion section, perhaps it should be moved to the discussion.

Language at some places is problematic and lacks precision. The article should be read by an English expert.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

We can see the revised Manuscript have been a more appropriate and meaningful topic.

However, there are some issues that need to be improved.

1. The statements of the Introduction is with slightly poor logics, and the research purposes, research ideas and research innovation are not clear.

(1) As I said before, “The main methods to be used in this article are not reviewed. In Introduction, please states explicitly the research thoughts and research innovation. To solve the topic problem, which methods have been adopted and what is the differences and advantages of your method compared with other methods?”，consider if you need give more detailed explanation about this.

 

(2) As I said before, consider if you need give more detailed explanation about the last paragraph of the introduction.

2. Materials.

 (1) Table 1 must be further refined.

3. Methods.

 (1) Maybe you can put precision evaluation ahead of trend analysis in Line 182 and in Figure 2.

(2) Consider if you need give more detailed explanation about Overall research framework in Line 174-185.

(3) Flowchart of constructing temporal land classification datasets in Figure 3 was not explained in depth in Line 204-213.

4. Results.

(1) Table 5 must be further refined.

(2) Whether the legend in Figure 10 can be placed in the picture box.

(3) As I said before, why is the study period divided into fourth phases (2000-2007, 2007-2013, 2013-2019, and 2019-2020) in Figure 10 and whether the division of these phases is reasonable?

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf