Spatial and Temporal Distribution of the Ecosystem Provisioning Service and Its Correlation with Food Production in the Songhua River Basin, Northeastern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract needs to be rewritten and supplemented with quantitative findings.

2. The data of land use change and ecosystem service value calculation results in the manuscript are used confusingly in the full text, i.e. there are inconsistencies between the values in the table and the data in the manuscript. It is recommended that the authors revise the data in the whole text after careful verification.

3. It is recommended that the source of basic data in the text be supplemented with the year; secondly, the names of the seven different land use types in the text should be harmonized in the text.

4. The discussion part of the text lacks depth, and it is suggested that the authors add the quantitative analysis of the driving mechanism of the change of ecological service value.

5. The quality of the thematic pictures provided in the figure is poor. It is suggested that the authors provide thematic pictures with higher resolution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting article concerning current and important topic / environmental problem - changes and evaluation of ecosystem services in urban areas, with special emphasis on provisioning ecosystem services and their correlation with food production; case study Songhua River Basin in China.

Authors proposed and implemented an interesting and partly innovative methodical approach to recognise ecosystem services: changes and volume, putting attention on such provisioning ecostystem services, as: food supply, raw materials supply and water supply services. It is a bit puzzling why Authors did not link stronger biodiversity supply to mentioned services. Ecosystem services are strictly and strongly connected with the level of biodiversity (strong dependence: direct proportion). Why do the Aurhors state that bare land givs no provisionig ecosystem services (Table 1)? no water supply (water retention) and no raw materials supply? Although, the paper presents interesting - well planned and well-elaborated research. The paper brings something new to the methodology. The results confirmed that problem of assessment of ecological services is difficult, but implemented methodical apprach brings us closer to this.      

Detailed notes / suggestions:

Ad ABSTRACT - the aim of research is not clearly and directly formulated.

Ad KEYWORDS - suggestion to change to: "provisioning ecosystems services"

Line 24 and 26 - change to: "spatially correlated"

Ad the whole paper - more references to green infrasructure / biodiversity plannng. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is OK (one mistake found - line 24 ad 26)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

 

I was in China and I know the agricultural reality of your country. It impresses me - and this is an example for the world - the high level of resources that the Chinese invest in science and technology, as tools for overcoming their social and environmental challenges. That manuscript - Spatial and temporal distribution of ecosystem provisioning service and its correlation with food production in the Songhua River basin, northeastern China - is an interesting result of the Chinese nation's scientific efforts. There are, however, some flaws that must be corrected for the manuscript to reach Land's quality standard.

 

My recommendations are as follows:

 

>>> the title is monotonous, i.e., it does not explain the content of the article and does not arouse readers' curiosity. I suggest a title in the form of a newspaper headline, where the correlation between ecosystem provisioning service and food production is explicit.

 

>>> Add more keywords. They help readers understand the content of the paper. Furthermore, keywords make the article more visible to search engines such as Google Scholar.

 

>>> It seems to me that there are significant environmental impacts occurring in the Songhua River basin, and they are not only bad news for biodiversity, but also for farmers - for example, water shortages. I am a Brazilian scientist and small-scale farmer, and I see very clearly the importance of involving farmers in the conservation of biodiversity and its services - which are essential for agricultural production. How could farmers in the Songhua River basin collaborate to conserve ecosystem services? Please add a paragraph or two about this.

 

>>> Accelerated urbanization is a problem in Songhua River basin (lines 190-191). What do the authors propose to solve it?

 

>>> The figures are illegible and must be improved.

 

>>> Finally, please make abundant use of any graphic elements - photos, maps, infographics, drawings to broaden readers' understanding of the various important information and messages in this manuscript. Willian Zinsser, in the excellent On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction, says that the writer's task is to make life easier for readers - so images are very welcome in this paper!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author explored the temporal and spatial characteristics of grain supply and ecosystem services in China's important grain production bases using quantitative analysis methods, as well as the coupling relationship between the two, which is of great significance. However, the depth of the research analysis is insufficient. The following suggestions are proposed:

1. The analysis of the impact mechanisms and driving forces of grain supply and grain ecosystem services is inadequate. It is recommended to further strengthen the analysis of the mechanisms at play.

2. It is suggested that the author propose feasible strategies and measures to improve the grain supply capacity and ecosystem services in the research area based on the results of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) It is suggested that in the introduction section, the gaps of the current research as well as the innovations of this study should be added. In addition, the references in the introduction section are old, with a low percentage of literature from the last three years. It is recommended that the literature be re-searched to cite the most recent literature.

 

(2) The accuracy of land-use data is poor, which can affect the accuracy of the assessment results. In addition, it is recommended that food production be analysed at the county scale if the data on yield and sown area of each crop are available at the county scale. In addition, the methodology adopted by the authors for valuing ecosystem services lacks innovation.

 

（3）The authors have assessed food supply services and calculated food production for each crop. There is a clear homogeneity between the two, what is the significance of exploring the correlation between the two, please explain. Moreover, the correlation between food production and food supply services for each crop in Table 5 is very low. Is this not closely related to the methodology adopted and the precision of the data, which would raise questions about the results of the study.

 

（4）The low clarity of Figure 4 makes it difficult to understand what the figure is trying to convey.

 

（5）Explanation of the reasons for the correlation between the yields of each food crop and the provision of ecosystem services is lacking in the discussion section. It is suggested that this be added.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1、The practice of using equivalence factor parameters based only on 2020 data to calculate the ecological service value for the years 2000 and 2010 is not rigorous enough. This approach introduces significant errors and uncertainties, which reduce the reliability of the conclusions.

2、In the "Source of data" section, the author describes the land use classification used in this study as consisting of six categories. However, in the "Results" section, the land use changes are analyzed based on seven categories. It is recommended that the author verify and unify the land use classification standard throughout the entire paper.

3、The article has certain limitations in its theoretical and mechanistic understanding of the driving mechanisms and regulation of changes in ecosystem services. Firstly, the article briefly analyzes the correlation between ecosystem services (including food supply) and the yield of four important crops in the Songhua River Basin, drawing conclusions based on correlation. This approach is inappropriate as the author did not quantitatively analyze the coupling mechanisms between them and the driving mechanisms behind changes in ecosystem service values. Secondly, the author did not explore targeted measures for optimizing the regulation of ecosystem services in the Songhua River Basin, greatly diminishing the practical value of the research. It is suggested that the author strengthen the analysis by incorporating quantitative models of driving forces and optimization of regulation.

4、The references in the paper are outdated. It is recommended to supplement it with more recent and relevant research literature.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is recommended that the manuscript be accepted

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version has the following issues, provided for reference only:

1. The authors explained in their response that they couldn't find the relevant statistical data on food production in Heilongjiang Province for the years 2000 and 2010. Therefore, they only used data from 2020 for calculations. I cannot agree with this explanation because these data between 2000 and 2020 are crucial for calculating ecosystem service values using the equivalence factor method. The differences in data over the past 20 years are significant, so without sufficient data support, the accuracy of the research results obtained by the authors will be greatly compromised.

2. There seems to be a logical issue with the analysis in the article. The analysis primarily focuses on food provisioning services (including food supply) and food production, which introduces uncertainty in the correlation between the two. The authors also fail to address this issue in the discussion section.

3. The quality of the images in the article is very poor. All images have low resolution and poor readability. It is recommended to re-create all the images throughout the entire article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx