Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of study entitled “Temporal and Spatial Distribution Changes, Driving Force Analysis and Simulation Prediction of Ecological Vulnerability in Liaoning Province, China” aimed to to formulate the ecological protection and restoration plan in Liaoning Province, to prevent the further ecological degradation in the high-value areas of northwest Liaoning, and to balance the relationship between human development and ecological protection and restoration in metropolitan district. The paper is quite well written in general. However, there are some points that must be better explained.

Major comments:

In the introduction, please add some statement concerned about the ecological security pattern of Liaoning Province, the ecological security of Northeast China and even the whole country and their comparisons and connetions.

Minor comments:

Line 30: delete “keeping”.

Line 32~33: replace “factor” with “factors”.

Line 35: delete “the”.

Line 42: replace “release” with “released”.

Line 51: replace “development layout” with “the development layout”.

Line 98: delete “the”.

Line 124: replace “researches” with “research”.

Line 147: delete “the”.

Line 169: replace “fields” with “field”.

Line 178: replace “employed to” with “employed for”.

Line 210: replace “increasingly” with “increasing”.

Line 230: replace “primary” with “primarily”.

Line535:replace “soasto” with “to”.
Line552:replace“isstronger”with“arestronger”.
Line552:delete“of”.
Line 553:replace “period”with “periods”.
Line 615:replace “is”with “are”.
Line 619:replace “to”with “in”.
Line 635:replace“have low” with “have a low”.
Line 636: replace“of ecological” with “oftheecological”
Line 675: replace “vulnerability”with “vulnerable”
Line 728:replace “other”with “others”

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, the work is interesting and well presented.

In general, I would add a statistical test, if possible, to observe the significant differences between the three years examined. 

Also, why 2010, 2015, and 2020? Why these three years in particular? And why not a continuous period from 2010 to 2020?

Overall, the work can be accepted after minor revisions.

1-Bibliography is not formatted correctly, is all in italics.

2-line 70 delete repetition

3-In the materials and methods section, is it possible to add the extent of the study area?

4-Figures 3 and 4, can the image resolution be improved?

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx