Assessment and Optimization of Wetland Ecosystem Services in the Jianghan Lake Cluster

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was poorly wrote with many punctuation errors, non-standard figures, and Chinese typeface, which seems that the author was not taking this seriously. The shortages in the current study in the abstract and introduction proposed by the authors was arbitrary. There are methods and indicators to assess ecosystem service from a comprehensive way, including structures and qualities, such as the River and Lake Evaluation Guidelines.River and Lake Evaluation Guidelines.

I think the authors had not clearly expressed the concept of ecosystem service efficiency and how to assess it.

Suggest to refine the abstract and condense some of the content.

Please check the punctuation in the text and revise them, such as L61-62.

Suggest to standardize the drawing. Figure 1, 3should be added the compass and the location information.

Suggest to add the citation in the table title, such as Table 3, 4, 5, 6, 8.

How was the value in Table 8 obtained? You seemed only described the idea to give the intrinsic biodiversity value, not a computing method. Also was the data source.

Figure 6 should not appear Chinese typeface.

Please standardize the reference.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language should be improved.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments. We have carefully considered each suggestion and substantially revised the manuscript accordingly. All modifications have been incorporated into the revised version, and detailed point-by-point responses are provided below. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, methodological rigor, and overall quality of the manuscript.

Comments 1. I think the authors had not clearly expressed the concept of ecosystem service efficiency and how to assess it.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful and constructive comment. We agree that the term “Ecosystem Service Efficiency (ESE)” used in the original manuscript was ambiguous and potentially confusing, as it could be interpreted as an input-output ratio (in an economic sense) rather than the spatial integration of service performance. Upon reflection, we realized that our study essentially quantifies the integrated capacity and spatial patterns of multiple ecosystem services under morphological constraints, rather than “efficiency” in its strict definition. To address this concern and improve the clarity of our manuscript, we have made the following major revisions:

(1) Terminology Adjustment: We have replaced the term “Ecosystem Service Efficiency (ESE)” with “Integrated Ecosystem Service Capacity (IESC)” throughout the entire manuscript, including the Title, Abstract, Methods, Results, and Figures. This term more accurately reflects our evaluation method, which employs weighted overlay analysis to assess the aggregate performance of ecosystem services.

(2) Conceptual Clarification in Introduction: We have rewritten the relevant paragraph in the Introduction to clearly define IESC and distinguish it from single-function assessments. Instead of contrasting “function vs. efficiency,” we now emphasize the shift from “single-service quantification” to “integrated spatial realization.” Revised text in the Introduction (Section 1):“Compared with conventional assessments that focus on quantifying individual ecosystem service functions, the assessment of Integrated Ecosystem Service Capacity (IESC) places greater emphasis on the spatial configuration and aggregate performance of multiple services[9,10]. In recent years, research has gradually shifted from single-service quantification to integrated service optimization, focusing primarily on analyses of service synergies and trade-offs, spatial pattern optimization, and scenario-based simulations [11,12]. Nevertheless, most studies remain confined to regional-scale assessments, with limited attention to the coupling mechanisms between wetland morphology and service capacity. This gap is particularly evident in wetland systems, where the spatial constraints of landscape features on Integrated Ecosystem Service Capacity have yet to be systematically elucidated.”

We believe these changes have eliminated the ambiguity regarding the concept and assessment method.

Comments 2: Suggest to refine the abstract and condense some of the content.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We realized that the original abstract was somewhat lengthy, particularly in the background description and the itemized listing of quantitative results. In accordance with your advice, we have thoroughly refined the abstract to make it more concise and impactful.

Revised Abstract: " Anthropogenic disturbances and morphological constraints pose significant threats to lake–wetland functions. However, conventional assessments often overlook the influence of wetland morphology on the spatial realization of ecosystem services, which limits effective ecological restoration. This study presents a multidimensional framework coupled with the InVEST model to evaluate the Integrated Ecosystem Service Capacity (IESC) in the Jianghan Lake Cluster. The assessment focuses on key ecosystem services, such as habitat quality, carbon storage, and water purification. The results reveal significant morphology-driven heterogeneity in IESC. Zonal optimization strategies, including ecological water replenishment, buffer-strip construction, and polder-to-lake conversion, significantly enhance IESC across conservation, regulation, and restoration zones. Model simulations indicate that these targeted interventions reduce non-point source pollution and increase carbon sequestration and biodiversity indices by 15%–40%. This study elucidates the coupling mechanisms between lake morphology and ecosystem service capacity and provides a spatial framework for restoring "lake–river–polder" composite wetland systems."

Comments 3: Please check the punctuation in the text and revise them, such as L61-62.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's meticulous attention to detail regarding the punctuation and formatting of the manuscript. We acknowledge the importance of precise punctuation in conveying clear and accurate scientific meaning. We have conducted a thorough review of the entire manuscript, paying special attention to the consistency of punctuation, particularly in lines L61–62 as highlighted. All necessary corrections have been implemented to ensure adherence to standard academic writing conventions and the journal's style guidelines. This refinement further enhances the overall readability and clarity of the paper.

Comments 4: Suggest to standardize the drawing. Figure 1, 3should be added the compass and the location information.

Response: Thank you for your valuable and professional suggestion regarding map standardization. We agree on the importance of clear and standardized figures. We have revised Figure 1 and Figure 3 according to your suggestion: We have added a compass (North arrow) to both Figure 1 and Figure 3 to clearly indicate the orientation of the maps. The detailed location information for the study area has been comprehensively described in Section 2.1 (Study Area Overview) of the manuscript. This approach prevents cluttering the figures while ensuring that the textual description complements the visual information effectively.

Comments 5: Suggest to add the citation in the table title, such as Table 3, 4, 5, 6, 8.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to clarify the data sources for our model parameters and assigned values. We agree that explicitly citing the sources within the tables significantly enhances the transparency and reproducibility of our methodology.

We have addressed this comment by adding a clear citation or statement of data derivation to the title or footnote of the following tables:

Table No.	Parameter/Value	Added Citation/Source
Table 3	Carbon Pool Parameters	Data derived from synthesis literature and localized parameter adjustment [24, 25].
Table 4	Habitat Suitability Parameters	Localized based on the InVEST guide and existing regional studies [26, 27].
Table 5	Habitat Threat Factors	Localized based on the InVEST guide and existing regional studies [26, 27].
Table 6	Water Purification Parameters	Localized based on regional literature [28-30].
Table 8	Cultural Service Assignment	Localized based on regional literature [32-33].

Comments 6: How was the value in Table 8 obtained? You seemed only described the idea to give the intrinsic biodiversity value, not a computing method. Also was the data source.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's crucial question regarding the methodology and source of the cultural service values presented in Table 8. We agree that all assigned values must be explicitly justified by empirical or literature sources.

Source Transparency: We have addressed this by adding authoritative references to Table 8 [32-33], which now clearly documents the source and reliability of the assigned values. Methodological Clarification: We clarify in Section 2.3.4 (6) Cultural Services that the Intrinsic Biodiversity Value is derived from a composite scoring approach based on multiple core indicators. The specific assigned scores in Table 8 are justified by anchoring them to established regional ecosystem service valuation and verification studies, which ensures the scores are representative of the region’s ecological context and methodologically traceable, rather than derived from a direct computation model.

32. Zhou, F.; Ma, T.; Li, X.; et al. Ecosystem Service Simulation and Evaluation of Coastal Wetlands in the Yellow River Delta (in Chinese). Wetland Science 2015, 13(6), 667–674. https://doi.org/10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2015.06.003
33. Fan, Y.; Xia, Z.; Wei, X.; et al. Responses of Wetland Ecosystem Services to Landscape Patterns in Four Periods in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (in Chinese). Wetland Science 2024, 22(1), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2024.01.015

Comments 7: Figure 6 should not appear Chinese typeface.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the formatting inconsistency in Figure 6.

We have carefully reviewed and revised Figure 6 to ensure full compliance with the journal’s standards. Specifically, we have removed all Chinese typeface and replaced the text elements with a standard English academic font (such as Arial or Times New Roman). Furthermore, we have checked all other figures in the manuscript to confirm they meet the required formatting specifications and do not contain any non-standard characters.

Comments 8: Please standardize the reference.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s diligence in highlighting the need for standardization of the reference list. We agree that adhering to a consistent citation style is crucial for academic rigor. We have thoroughly reviewed the entire reference list and all corresponding in-text citations. Every entry has been meticulously checked and revised to strictly comply with the specific formatting and style guidelines required by the journal. This ensures consistency and accuracy throughout the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

LAND-3995299 Assessment and optimization Strategies of Wetland Ecosystem Services in the Jianghan Lake Group

This is a systematic investigation into coupling relationships among morphology, stress intensity and service efficiency for a plain lake region in China. The research article is well written with good research design but needs several areas of improvement before publication.

Abstract is a bit long and needs to be shortened. Not all the specific results need to be restated here.

Introduction- the literation review seems a bit limited. What other InVEST ecological service studies have been done that are limited given this study’s objectives in lines 136-141 which are quite clear. Also why was the Jianghan Lake Cluster chosen for this study area at lines 127-128. The area is described in the Materials and Methods section, but it would be good to state the specific rationale for study area selection.

Materials and Methods- lines 243-244 Figure 2 could be made larger as it is hard to read and is a critical feature. Line 299- please explain how the systematic analysis of the ecosystem service functions was done as they are linked to the chosen indicators. Line 314- please explain how the dominant weights were determined. Line 428- please cite existing literature used for regulating services. Line 456- for cultural services how were the two major dimensions determined? From literature or local studies?

Results and analysis- lines 772-773- Figure 5- can the text in the legend be made larger as this is an important figure.

Discussion- the major results need to be linked to the study objectives from the introduction and comparison should be made to other wetland ecosystem service studies using similar assessment methods to show the contribution of this study.

Conclusions- this is a restatement of results and discussion section. It should include major significant methodological results, study limitations, generalizability to other wetland systems, and future research needed.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewers’ valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript thoroughly and addressed all points in detail as outlined below. These revisions have strengthened the manuscript and improved its scientific quality.

Comments 1: Abstract is a bit long and needs to be shortened. Not all the specific results need to be restated here.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We realized that the original abstract was somewhat lengthy, particularly in the background description and the itemized listing of quantitative results. In accordance with your advice, we have thoroughly refined the abstract to make it more concise and impactful.

Revised Abstract:

"Anthropogenic disturbances and morphological constraints pose significant threats to lake–wetland functions. However, conventional assessments often overlook the influence of wetland morphology on the spatial realization of ecosystem services, which limits effective ecological restoration. This study presents a multidimensional framework coupled with the InVEST model to evaluate the Integrated Ecosystem Service Capacity (IESC) in the Jianghan Lake Cluster. The assessment focuses on key ecosystem services, such as habitat quality, carbon storage, and water purification. The results reveal significant morphology-driven heterogeneity in IESC. Zonal optimization strategies, including ecological water replenishment, buffer-strip construction, and polder-to-lake conversion, significantly enhance IESC across conservation, regulation, and restoration zones. Model simulations indicate that these targeted interventions reduce non-point source pollution and increase carbon sequestration and biodiversity indices by 15%–40%. This study elucidates the coupling mechanisms between lake morphology and ecosystem service capacity and provides a spatial framework for restoring "lake–river–polder" composite wetland systems."

Comments 2: Introduction- the literation review seems a bit limited. What other InVEST ecological service studies have been done that are limited given this study’s objectives in lines 136-141 which are quite clear. Also why was the Jianghan Lake Cluster chosen for this study area at lines 127-128. The area is described in the Materials and Methods section, but it would be good to state the specific rationale for study area selection.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback on the Introduction. We agree that a stronger justification for both the literature gap (especially regarding InVEST limitations) and the selection of the study area is necessary. We have addressed this comment in two key areas:

(1) Strengthening the Literature Review (L136-141): We have revised the paragraph to explicitly discuss the limitations of InVEST model applications in complex systems. We clarified that conventional studies, which often rely on generalized parameters, fail to capture fine-scale morphological constraints that are critical in the "lake–river–polder" system. This refinement directly connects the limitations of existing InVEST research to our core objective: elucidating the morphology–capacity coupling mechanism.

(2) Providing Specific Rationale for Study Area Selection (L127-128): We have added specific sentences in the Introduction to justify the selection of the Jianghan Lake Cluster. We emphasize its representativeness as a 'lake–river–polder' composite system and its unique morphological heterogeneity (natural vs. enclosed polder lakes). This stark contrast provides an ideal system for validating our morphology–capacity coupling framework, thus aligning the study area rationale directly with our research objectives.

Comments 3: Materials and Methods- lines 243-244 Figure 2 could be made larger as it is hard to read and is a critical feature. Line 299- please explain how the systematic analysis of the ecosystem service functions was done as they are linked to the chosen indicators. Line 314- please explain how the dominant weights were determined. Line 428- please cite existing literature used for regulating services. Line 456- for cultural services how were the two major dimensions determined? From literature or local studies?

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their specific and critical comments on the 'Materials and Methods' section, which have helped us further refine the clarity and rigour of the manuscript. We have made the following revisions and clarifications in accordance with your requests:

(1) Action Taken: We agree with the importance of Figure 2. We have enlarged Figure 2 and increased its resolution to ensure clarity, thereby facilitating the reader's understanding of our analytical framework and coupling mechanism.

(2) Action Taken: We have revised Section 2.3.3 to include the following clarification: Since the early 21st century, the release of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) has marked a significant advancement in the classification and standardization of ecosystem services. The MA (2005) framework categorizes ecosystem services into four groups—provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services—providing a more intuitive and widely applicable structure. This framework has become an authoritative reference for evaluating wetland ecosystem service values. Considering the ecosystem service functions, natural conditions, socio-economic setting, and ecological restoration goals of the Jianghan Lake Cluster, an indicator framework was developed to assess wetland IESC.

(3) Action Taken: We have clarified the source of the weighting in Section 2.3.3:The weights assigned to Provisioning Services and Supporting Services were derived from existing authoritative literature concerning wetland ecosystem service valuation coefficients and regional correction models [32-33]

32. Zhou, F.; Ma, T.; Li, X.; et al. Ecosystem Service Simulation and Evaluation of Coastal Wetlands in the Yellow River Delta (in Chinese). Wetland Science 2015, 13(6), 667–674. https://doi.org/10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2015.06.003
33. Fan, Y.; Xia, Z.; Wei, X.; et al. Responses of Wetland Ecosystem Services to Landscape Patterns in Four Periods in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (in Chinese). Wetland Science 2024, 22(1), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2024.01.015

(4) We have adopted the reviewer's suggestion and supplemented the relevant authoritative references in the section detailing climate regulation services (Section 2.3.4)[32-33]. Scientific Validity: These newly added references explicitly support the scientific basis for categorizing climate regulation services into local and global components. Furthermore, they justify the rationality of assigning values based on wetland functional characteristics and biophysical attributes, ensuring the methodological scientific validity and traceability of this assessment.

32. Zhou, F.; Ma, T.; Li, X.; et al. Ecosystem Service Simulation and Evaluation of Coastal Wetlands in the Yellow River Delta (in Chinese). Wetland Science 2015, 13(6), 667–674. https://doi.org/10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2015.06.003
33. Fan, Y.; Xia, Z.; Wei, X.; et al. Responses of Wetland Ecosystem Services to Landscape Patterns in Four Periods in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (in Chinese). Wetland Science 2024, 22(1), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2024.01.015

(5) e have clarified in Section 2.3.4 (6) Cultural Services: The two major dimensions Intrinsic Biodiversity Value and Recreational-Aesthetic Value were derived from the authoritative definitions of cultural services  within the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) framework, customized to fit the functional needs of the Jianghan Lake Group. The classification thus maintains scientific authority.

Comments 4:  Results and analysis- lines 772-773- Figure 5- can the text in the legend be made larger as this is an important figure.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's careful attention to the figure readability. We agree that Figure 5 is central to illustrating our key results. In response to this comment, we have enlarged the text and font size of the legend within Figure 5 to significantly enhance its clarity and ensure all critical information is easily legible. We have also quickly checked all other figure legends to maintain consistency and high readability throughout the manuscript.

Comments 5: Discussion- the major results need to be linked to the study objectives from the introduction and comparison should be made to other wetland ecosystem service studies using similar assessment methods to show the contribution of this study.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. Following your guidance, we have strengthened the connection between the major findings and the research objectives stated in the Introduction. Specifically, in Section 4.1 (“Spatial Patterns and Driving Mechanisms of Integrated Ecosystem Services”), we added explicit statements clarifying how the spatial heterogeneity patterns and identified driving mechanisms directly address the first and second objectives of the study. Furthermore, to meet the reviewer’s request for comparative contextualization, we incorporated a comparison with previous wetland ecosystem service assessments using InVEST-based approaches. As added at the end of Section 4.1, “These spatial heterogeneity patterns are consistent with previous InVEST-based assessments in Dong ting Lake and other Yangtze-connected lake regions [37]. Similarly, , which also reported higher service capacity in more natural lake systems exhibit higher ecosystem service capacity and declines associated with reclamation/urbanization.” These revisions clarify the logical alignment between objectives and findings and situate our study within the broader ecosystem service assessment literature.

Comments 6: Conclusions- this is a restatement of results and discussion section. It should include major significant methodological results, study limitations, generalizability to other wetland systems, and future research needed.

Response: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. After carefully reviewing the conclusion section in light of your suggestions, we would like to clarify that the current version of the Conclusions already incorporates the elements requested by the reviewer. Based on this, we believe that the conclusion section meets the requirements outlined by the reviewer. We thank the reviewer again for raising this important point, as it allowed us to re-evaluate and confirm the completeness and clarity of our conclusion.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers a detailed assessment of wetland ecosystem services in the Jianghan Lake Cluster, integrating InVEST model outputs with a zoning-based management scheme. Although the study addresses a relevant environmental issue and provides a structured set of restoration proposals, its methodological framework contains several weaknesses that compromise scientific robustness. The work fits within the thematic scope of Land, yet it remains primarily an applied case study. Claims of methodological novelty (particularly the proposed “morphology–efficiency coupling framework”) are stated but not rigorously developed or demonstrated. The framework appears more conceptual than analytical, lacking clear quantitative structure or theoretical grounding, which limits its contribution to broader methodological debates in ecosystem service assessment.

Concerns also arise from the study’s sampling design and representativeness. The authors do not justify why the Jianghan Lake Cluster should be treated as a model system for broader wetland dynamics, nor do they incorporate comparisons with other regional wetlands that could contextualize their findings. Temporal resolution is unclear, leaving readers uncertain about whether the results reflect conditions in a single year, a composite of multiple years, or an average across an unspecified period. The absence of temporal stratification prevents readers from assessing the sensitivity of ecosystem services to interannual hydrological variability. The categorization of wetlands into four broad classes lacks ecological justification and overlooks important variation related to wetland size, management history, and hydrological connectivity. These conceptual gaps hinder interpretability and cast doubt on the generalizability of the reported patterns.

The reliability and transparency of input data are major concerns. Critical biophysical parameters are presented without spatial resolution, yet they are applied at a 30-meter modeling scale. Uniform soil carbon values across ecologically distinct wetland types are biologically implausible and undermine the credibility of carbon storage estimates. Land-use inputs are not accompanied by accuracy assessments or uncertainty analysis, and the authors state that key datasets cannot be shared. This restriction blocks verification and replication, conflicting with the scientific standards of an international peer-reviewed journal. The InVEST parameterization is insufficiently documented, with “localization” steps described only in general terms and without empirical evidence of calibration. These issues collectively reduce the transparency required to judge whether the results rest on sound parameter choices.

Additional problems emerge in the modeling of habitat quality, nutrient retention, and sediment dynamics. Threat weights and distance-decay functions in the Habitat Quality module are presented without empirical justification, sensitivity testing, or reference to validation studies. The NDR and SDR modules are applied without acknowledging their limited suitability in a flat, engineered landscape characterized by polder embankments and artificial drainage systems. Mechanistic explanations for observed patterns (such as nutrient retention or erosion dynamics) are offered without supporting field data. Assertions of a 42 percent reduction in ecosystem service value in polder lakes are not supported with disaggregated evidence, leaving unclear which services contribute to this percentage and whether it reflects substantive ecological differences or the structure of the composite index. Cultural service assessments based on social media are insufficiently described methodologically and rely on unverified assumptions about user behavior.

The restoration recommendations, while detailed, are not anchored in explicit scenario modeling or empirical evidence. Quantified outcomes (such as projected increases in carbon sequestration or reductions in nutrient loads) are presented as results without showing the underlying calculations, simulations, or external sources from which they derive. The zoning framework itself lacks a transparent decision rule, raising the possibility that the zoning categories were shaped to match predetermined conclusions rather than emerging from the analysis. The absence of sensitivity analysis, field-based validation, and uncertainty quantification significantly limits confidence in the findings. For the manuscript to meet the methodological standards of Land, the authors would need to provide empirical validation of parameters, document localization procedures, justify ecological classifications, present sensitivity analyses for key assumptions, and clarify the origins of all quantitative restoration estimates. Only after these issues are addressed would the study achieve the level of rigor required for publication in a journal of this scope.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript shows a generally competent command of technical English, but its quality is uneven and marked by recurring issues that detract from clarity and professionalism. At the critical level, the text contains intrusive Chinese punctuation (e.g., mixed use of “。” and Chinese commas) and even a Chinese character in place of an English description, which is inappropriate in an international journal and signals insufficient proofreading. Beyond these, there are frequent grammatical and stylistic problems: sentence fragments and awkward list constructions, occasional subject–verb and number inconsistencies, and dense, noun-heavy phrases that obscure meaning. Some key concepts are expressed in convoluted or non-idiomatic ways, and important ideas (such as “ecosystem service efficiency”) are not terminologically consistent, leading to confusion between an efficiency concept and a composite index of service provision. Pronoun references are sometimes vague, and several sentences rely on overcomplicated structures that reduce readability.

On a broader level, the manuscript is stylistically weighed down by extensive use of passive voice, which creates an impersonal, bureaucratic tone and hides the authors’ methodological choices. There are also run-on sentences, occasional imprecise word choices (e.g., “responding to climate change,” “win–win outcome”), and vague quantitative claims that blur the line between potential and modeled projections. Citation formatting is inconsistent, acronyms are not always introduced at first use, terminology for key wetland types is unstable, and minor issues appear in hyphenation, tense consistency, and unit or number presentation. None of these flaws makes the content unintelligible, but together they erode the polish and precision expected in a high-impact international journal. A careful, line-by-line revision by a native or near-native English speaker experienced in scientific editing is strongly advisable, with particular attention to replacing all Chinese punctuation and characters, simplifying and clarifying dense sentences, stabilizing terminology, shifting where possible to clear active constructions, and aligning quantitative statements with the actual evidentiary basis of the study.

Author Response

Comments 1: Concerns also arise from the study’s sampling design and representativeness. The authors do not justify why the Jianghan Lake Cluster should be treated as a model system for broader wetland dynamics, nor do they incorporate comparisons with other regional wetlands that could contextualize their findings. Temporal resolution is unclear, leaving readers uncertain about whether the results reflect conditions in a single year, a composite of multiple years, or an average across an unspecified period. The absence of temporal stratification prevents readers from assessing the sensitivity of ecosystem services to interannual hydrological variability. The categorization of wetlands into four broad classes lacks ecological justification and overlooks important variation related to wetland size, management history, and hydrological connectivity. These conceptual gaps hinder interpretability and cast doubt on the generalizability of the reported patterns.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this critical and insightful feedback concerning the conceptual foundations of our study (representativeness, classification, and temporal resolution). We agree that clarifying these points is essential for enhancing the generalizability and robustness of our findings. We have implemented substantial revisions in the Introduction and Materials and Methods to address these gaps.

(1) Justification for Study Area Representativeness (Model System): We have revised the Introduction to clearly articulate why the Jianghan Lake Cluster is treated as a model system for broader wetland dynamics. We emphasize that its severe morphological heterogeneity, marked by the stark contrast between natural lakes and highly regulated enclosed polder lakes, provides an ideal real-world laboratory to specifically investigate the morphology–capacity coupling mechanism, which is the study's core innovative objective.

(2) Justification for Wetland Classification: 2.3.3 Selection of Wetland Ecosystem Service Efficiency Integrated Ecosystem Service Capacity Indicators, we have added a dedicated explanation for the categorization into four broad classes. “Since the beginning of the 21st century, the release of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) has marked a significant advancement and standardization in ecosystem service classification. The MA (2005) framework categorizes ecosystem services into four groups—provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services—offering a more intuitive and widely applicable structure. This classification has provided an authoritative paradigm and benchmark for the comprehensive evaluation of wetland ecosystem service values.”

(3) Clarification of Temporal Resolution: In Table 1 Data set for this study, we have clarified that the study uses a static, single-year assessment (2020) based on integrated remote sensing and statistical data. We acknowledge this approach provides a baseline status assessment and, while it does not fully capture interannual hydrological variability, it precisely captures the morphologically driven service constraints under the observed conditions.

Comments 2: The reliability and transparency of input data are major concerns. Critical biophysical parameters are presented without spatial resolution, yet they are applied at a 30-meter modeling scale. Uniform soil carbon values across ecologically distinct wetland types are biologically implausible and undermine the credibility of carbon storage estimates. Land-use inputs are not accompanied by accuracy assessments or uncertainty analysis, and the authors state that key datasets cannot be shared. This restriction blocks verification and replication, conflicting with the scientific standards of an international peer-reviewed journal. The InVEST parameterization is insufficiently documented, with “localization” steps described only in general terms and without empirical evidence of calibration. These issues collectively reduce the transparency required to judge whether the results rest on sound parameter choices.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their detailed and rigorous scrutiny of our data reliability and transparency. We agree that robust documentation of input data and parameterization is paramount for scientific credibility and reproducibility. We have implemented substantial revisions to address all concerns regarding transparency, parameter choices, data sharing, and modeling limitations.

(1) Resolution Clarification and Parameter Nature: We have clarified in Section 2.2 Data Sources and Section 2.3.4 Carbon Storage that: The carbon pool parameters (aboveground, belowground biomass, etc.) are regional statistical parameters derived from the National Ecological Science Data Center and model guides, and thus lack an inherent spatial resolution. The application of these statistical parameters at a uniform value to 30m resolution land-use types is standard practice in InVEST modeling for regional assessments. This approach enables reliable estimation of total stock and analysis of relative spatial distribution patterns for cross-scenario comparisons. Biological Plausibility: We acknowledge that this method, based on statistical averages, simplifies the biological variability among fine-grained wetland subtypes. However, relying on authoritative regional databases and model guides ensures the validity and reliability of the results at the regional scale.

(2) LULC Reliability: The LULC use data were obtained from the products developed by Wuhan University.，We affirm the high reliability of the LULC data, which is publicly available.

(3) Data Availability Statement: We confirm that all critical datasets used for this study, including the final 30m LULC classification map and all InVEST model parameter tables/input files, are obtainable through publicly available channels. We have added a comprehensive Data Availability Statement to the manuscript, specifying the exact public sources or repositories where the data and model inputs can be accessed(Table 1 Data set for this study), thereby fully complying with the journal's standards for transparency and replication.

(4) Localization Detail: We have revised Section 2.3.4 to provide clearer empirical context and literature support for our localization steps.We clarified that while biophysical parameters are guided by the model manual, their specific values and weights are determined by regional empirical studies (e.g., for Nutrient Delivery Ratio) and local ecological surveys (e.g., for Habitat Quality threat weights).We have ensured that key regional literature citations [24-30] supporting these localized parameter assignments are explicitly included in the text and in Table 4, 5, and 6, validating our parameterization as a rigorous regional parameter validation process based on existing scientific evidence.

24. Wu, S.; Hu, S.; Frazier, A.E.; Xie, W.; Zang, Y. Cultivated Ecosystem Services in the Yangtze River Economic Belt: Distinguishing Characteristics and Underlying Drivers Over the Past 20 Years. Land Degradation & Development 2025.
25. Xu, X.; Yang, G.; Tan, Y.; Liu, J.; Hu, H. Ecosystem services trade-offs and determinants in China's Yangtze River Economic Belt from 2000 to 2015. Science of the Total Environment 2018, 634, 1601-1614.
26. Zlinszky, A.; Heilmeier, H.; Balzter, H.; Czúcz, B.; Pfeifer, N. Remote sensing and GIS for habitat quality monitoring: New approaches and future research. 2015, 7, 7987-7994.
27. Moilanen, A.; Hanski, I. Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 1998, 79, 2503-2515.
28. Fan Yulei; Xia Zheyi; Wei Xue; Liu Liming; Yuan Chengcheng. Response of wetland ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Economic Belt to landscape patterns across four periods. Wetland Science 2024, 22, 139–147, doi:10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2024.01.015.
29. Liu Yina; Kong Lingqiao; Xiao Yi; Zheng Hua. Relationship between Landscape Patterns and Ecosystem Water Purification Services in the Yangtze River Basin. Acta Ecologica Sinica 2019, 39, 844–852.
30. Li Meng; Li Yaqi; Fan Min; Zhou Lele; Yu Xiaobin. Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in Ganzi Prefecture based on the dynamic coupling of water-soil-carbon. Environmental Science 2025, 46, 3070-3084, doi:10.13227/j.hjkx.202405240.
31. Gashaw, T.; Bantider, A.; Zeleke, G.; Alamirew, T.; Jemberu, W.; Worqlul, A.W.; Dile, Y.T.; Bewket, W.; Meshesha, D.T.; Adem, A.A. Evaluating InVEST model for estimating soil loss and sediment export in data scarce regions of the Abbay (Upper Blue Nile) Basin: Implications for land managers. Environmental Challenges 2021, 5, 100381.
32. Zhou, F.; Ma, T.; Li, X.; et al. Ecosystem Service Simulation and Evaluation of Coastal Wetlands in the Yellow River Delta (in Chinese). Wetland Science 2015, 13(6), 667–674. https://doi.org/10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2015.06.003
33. Fan, Y.; Xia, Z.; Wei, X.; et al. Responses of Wetland Ecosystem Services to Landscape Patterns in Four Periods in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (in Chinese). Wetland Science 2024, 22(1), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2024.01.015

Comments 3: Additional problems emerge in the modeling of habitat quality, nutrient retention, and sediment dynamics. Threat weights and distance-decay functions in the Habitat Quality module are presented without empirical justification, sensitivity testing, or reference to validation studies. The NDR and SDR modules are applied without acknowledging their limited suitability in a flat, engineered landscape characterized by polder embankments and artificial drainage systems. Mechanistic explanations for observed patterns (such as nutrient retention or erosion dynamics) are offered without supporting field data. Assertions of a 42 percent reduction in ecosystem service value in polder lakes are not supported with disaggregated evidence, leaving unclear which services contribute to this percentage and whether it reflects substantive ecological differences or the structure of the composite index. Cultural service assessments based on social media are insufficiently described methodologically and rely on unverified assumptions about user behavior.

Response : We sincerely thank the reviewer for these detailed and constructive comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript and addressed each concern as follows:

(1) Habitat Quality module: justification of threat weights and distance-decay functions

We agree that the original manuscript did not provide sufficient empirical justification for the parameterization of threat weights and distance‐decay functions. In the revised version: We added explicit references to regional studies and InVEST validation literature supporting the selection of threat types and decay distances[32-33]. We incorporated a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the influence of threat weights and maximum impact distances on habitat degradation outcomes (see Section 3.3).

(2) Regarding Comment on the applicability of the NDR and SDR models in flat, engineered polder landscapes: We thank the reviewer for raising this important concern. Following your suggestion, we have added a discussion on the applicability and limitations of the NDR and SDR modules in flat, engineered polder systems, supported by relevant literature [32–33]. These references demonstrate that InVEST-based nutrient and sediment models have been applied in similarly low-relief, hydrologically modified wetland regions, where they remain effective for assessing relative spatial patterns rather than absolute fluxes.

32. Zhou, F.; Ma, T.; Li, X.; et al. Ecosystem Service Simulation and Evaluation of Coastal Wetlands in the Yellow River Delta (in Chinese). Wetland Science 2015, 13(6), 667–674. https://doi.org/10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2015.06.003
33. Fan, Y.; Xia, Z.; Wei, X.; et al. Responses of Wetland Ecosystem Services to Landscape Patterns in Four Periods in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (in Chinese). Wetland Science 2024, 22(1), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2024.01.015

(3) Regarding the lack of field-based evidence to support mechanistic interpretations: We agree with the reviewer that mechanistic explanations should be supported by empirical data. We have therefore incorporated a sensitivity analysis based on available field measurements from the Jianghan Lake Cluster (see Section 3.3). Additionally, we explicitly acknowledge remaining uncertainties and emphasize the need for expanded monitoring in future research.

(4) Regarding the 42% reduction value: In response to the reviewer’s concern about insufficient justification and disaggregation of the reported 42% reduction in ecosystem service value, we have removed this statement from the revised manuscript to avoid potential misinterpretation.

(5) Regarding the comment on insufficient methodological description of social-media-based cultural service assessment: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the methodological description of the cultural ecosystem service assessment based on social-media data. Specifically, we added details on data source selection, keyword filtering, geolocation matching, de-duplication procedures, and the criteria used to identify recreational and aesthetic service proxies. In addition, we incorporated supporting literature, including Yang and Liu (2018), which demonstrates the feasibility of using social-media-derived indicators to quantify cultural and recreational ecosystem services in wetland and urban-wetland systems. This strengthens the methodological foundation of our cultural service evaluation and provides empirical justification for the approach.

34. Yang, Q.; Liu, G. Energy-Based Evaluation of Wetland Ecosystem Service Values: A Case Study of the Pearl River Delta Urban Agglomeration (in Chinese). Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae 2018, 38(11), 4527–4538.

Comments 4: The restoration recommendations, while detailed, are not anchored in explicit scenario modeling or empirical evidence. Quantified outcomes (such as projected increases in carbon sequestration or reductions in nutrient loads) are presented as results without showing the underlying calculations, simulations, or external sources from which they derive. The zoning framework itself lacks a transparent decision rule, raising the possibility that the zoning categories were shaped to match predetermined conclusions rather than emerging from the analysis. The absence of sensitivity analysis, field-based validation, and uncertainty quantification significantly limits confidence in the findings. For the manuscript to meet the methodological standards of Land, the authors would need to provide empirical validation of parameters, document localization procedures, justify ecological classifications, present sensitivity analyses for key assumptions, and clarify the origins of all quantitative restoration estimates. Only after these issues are addressed would the study achieve the level of rigor required for publication in a journal of this scope.

Response : We are extremely grateful for the professional and constructive feedback provided by the reviewer. We acknowledge the limitations in our original manuscript regarding scenario modeling, empirical parameter validation, and result transparency, and we have implemented substantial, comprehensive revisions and additions to the manuscript. We have taken the following specific steps to address all concerns and ensure the methodological rigor meets the standards of Land:

(1) In 1. Introduction, we have further elaborated on the rationale for selecting the Jianghan Lake Cluster. This area was chosen due to its significant representativeness (a typical "lake-river-reclamation area" composite wetland system) and the urgency for differentiated restoration. Its critical role in flood regulation, water purification, and carbon sequestration in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River provides strong justification for its selection as a case study.

(2) To address the lack of transparency in the zoning framework's decision rules and data origin, we have clarified in the Methodology that the data sources, including those related to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework, were obtained through public channels and existing scholarly references. These sources are clearly cited in the text, ensuring full data traceability.

(3) Regarding the empirical basis for our quantitative restoration estimates (e.g., projected carbon sequestration or nutrient load reduction), we have ensured transparency. All critical parameters used in the quantitative calculations are now substantiated and sourced from the authoritative references [24] through [33]. This resolves the concern regarding the empirical validation of parameters and the origin of all quantitative restoration estimates.

(4) Addressing the limitation regarding the absence of sensitivity analysis, we have added a new sub-section in the revised manuscript, now found in Section 3.3 (Jianghan Lake Cluster Ecosystem Restoration and Efficiency Optimization Strategies). This section details the results of the sensitivity analysis conducted on key assumptions and parameters, which strongly supports the robustness of our findings.

We believe that these rigorous revisions and additions have significantly enhanced the methodological rigor, data transparency, and overall credibility of the manuscript, making it suitable for publication in Land.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments 1: The manuscript shows a generally competent command of technical English, but its quality is uneven and marked by recurring issues that detract from clarity and professionalism. At the critical level, the text contains intrusive Chinese punctuation (e.g., mixed use of “。” and Chinese commas) and even a Chinese character in place of an English description, which is inappropriate in an international journal and signals insufficient proofreading. Beyond these, there are frequent grammatical and stylistic problems: sentence fragments and awkward list constructions, occasional subject–verb and number inconsistencies, and dense, noun-heavy phrases that obscure meaning. Some key concepts are expressed in convoluted or non-idiomatic ways, and important ideas (such as “ecosystem service efficiency”) are not terminologically consistent, leading to confusion between an efficiency concept and a composite index of service provision. Pronoun references are sometimes vague, and several sentences rely on overcomplicated structures that reduce readability.

Response : Thank you very much for your detailed assessment of our manuscript's language quality and professionalism. We acknowledge that the original draft suffered from issues such as the mixed use of Chinese punctuation, non-idiomatic expressions, and inconsistent use of key terminology, which detracted from its clarity and professional presentation. We have addressed these critical concerns by engaging a professional editing service to conduct a thorough proofreading and language polishing of the entire manuscript to ensure it meets international journal standards:

(1) We have rigorously checked the text and removed all intrusive Chinese punctuation (e.g., Chinese periods “。”, Chinese commas, etc.) and any misplaced Chinese characters. The entire manuscript now adheres to standard English half-width punctuation.

(2) We have corrected all instances of sentence fragments, subject-verb disagreement, number inconsistencies, and vague pronoun references. We have also simplified dense, noun-heavy phrases and complex sentence structures to significantly improve readability and clarity.

(3) We have standardized the use of core concepts, specifically ensuring the consistent and precise application of the term "ecosystem service efficiency." We have clarified the distinction between the efficiency concept and the composite index to eliminate confusion, using more accurate terminology throughout the text.

(4) All convoluted or non-idiomatic expressions have been revised to professional and fluent English. We are confident that these substantial language revisions have brought the manuscript's quality and professionalism up to the required standard for publication.

Comments 2: On a broader level, the manuscript is stylistically weighed down by extensive use of passive voice, which creates an impersonal, bureaucratic tone and hides the authors’ methodological choices. There are also run-on sentences, occasional imprecise word choices (e.g., “responding to climate change,” “win–win outcome”), and vague quantitative claims that blur the line between potential and modeled projections. Citation formatting is inconsistent, acronyms are not always introduced at first use, terminology for key wetland types is unstable, and minor issues appear in hyphenation, tense consistency, and unit or number presentation. None of these flaws makes the content unintelligible, but together they erode the polish and precision expected in a high-impact international journal. A careful, line-by-line revision by a native or near-native English speaker experienced in scientific editing is strongly advisable, with particular attention to replacing all Chinese punctuation and characters, simplifying and clarifying dense sentences, stabilizing terminology, shifting where possible to clear active constructions, and aligning quantitative statements with the actual evidentiary basis of the study.

Response : Thank you once again for your meticulous feedback on the style and technical precision of our manuscript. We fully recognize that the original draft suffered from an overreliance on passive voice, structural flaws, imprecise wording, and formatting inconsistencies, all of which eroded the professional polish. The recent comprehensive language polish and revision included specific actions to address all the stylistic and technical issues you raised:

(1) Voice and Sentence Structure Correction: We have shifted from passive to active voice wherever possible to create a clearer, more direct tone, and to explicitly attribute the methodological choices to the authors, thereby removing the impersonal, bureaucratic feel. All run-on sentences have been corrected, and overly complicated structures have been simplified to enhance clarity and readability.

(2) We reviewed and replaced all imprecise word choices (e.g., "responding to climate change," "win–win outcome") with more accurate and professional terminology. We have clearly delineated the quantitative claims by ensuring that all statements reflect the actual evidentiary basis of the study (modeled projections) and are not vaguely stated as mere potential outcomes.

(3) We have meticulously standardized the entire manuscript to ensure absolute consistency in citation formatting, the introduction of acronyms (defined at first use), terminology for key wetland types, hyphenation, tense consistency, and the presentation of units and numbers.

We are confident that this rigorous, line-by-line revision by an experienced scientific editor has successfully elevated the manuscript's precision, style, and professional polish to the standard expected of a high-impact international journal.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved after revision. There is a little problem in figure 3-g, which has a compass but the others do not have.

Author Response

Comments：The manuscript has been improved after revision. There is a little problem in figure 3-g, which has a compass but the others do not have.

Response: Thank you for your positive acknowledgement that the manuscript has been improved after the latest round of revisions, and for your sharp observation regarding the figures.

We appreciate your meticulous attention to the graphical details and for highlighting this inconsistency that affects the visual standardization of the figure. Action Taken: Figure 3 is a multi-panel composition where visual elements must be standardized. We confirm that the main figure (Figure 3) retains its unified compass for overall orientation. However, the separate inclusion of a compass in the individual sub-figure Panel 3-g was redundant and disrupted the visual consistency. We have followed your suggestion and removed the compass from Panel 3-g while ensuring the main Figure 3 retains its necessary north arrow  for geographical context. This ensures perfect visual uniformity across all panels of Figure 3.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your study offers a solid methodological contribution by linking lake morphology with an assessment of ecosystem service performance. The InVEST framework is applied with rigor, the regional parameters are well explained, and the three-zone approach provides practical guidance for restoration work. The manuscript is strong, but several issues in terminology, references, and editing weaken its presentation and need to be resolved before it can move forward in the review process.

The most urgent problem is the inconsistent use of key terms. The manuscript alternates between “ecosystem service efficiency” and “Integrated Ecosystem Service Capacity (IESC)” without clearly establishing that both refer to the same idea. In addition, multiple sections still contain strikethrough text that suggests incomplete revision and interrupts the reading flow. The references also require careful correction: there are duplicates, misnumbered entries, incomplete citations, and inconsistent formatting. Correcting these issues and standardizing the reference style according to the journal’s format will greatly improve clarity. Several figures, particularly those with multiple panels, would also benefit from expanded captions that briefly explain what each panel shows, allowing them to stand on their own.

Additional refinements would strengthen the manuscript’s coherence. A short transition linking the sensitivity analysis methods with the results would clarify their relationship. The abstract should define IESC before using the acronym. Quantitative results should present the more precise values already discussed in the manuscript rather than broad ranges. The section on ecological sensitivity needs clearer terminology to distinguish vulnerability assessment from parameter sensitivity. The data availability statement should specify which datasets are public and which are restricted. Finally, small corrections (such as fixing typos, adding consistent spatial resolution information in tables, and clarifying column headers) would complete the polishing process. With these adjustments, the manuscript’s strong scientific foundations will be much more visible, and the work will be ready for publication.

Author Response

Comments 1: The most urgent problem is the inconsistent use of key terms. The manuscript alternates between “ecosystem service efficiency” and “Integrated Ecosystem Service Capacity (IESC)” without clearly establishing that both refer to the same idea. In addition, multiple sections still contain strikethrough text that suggests incomplete revision and interrupts the reading flow. The references also require careful correction: there are duplicates, misnumbered entries, incomplete citations, and inconsistent formatting. Correcting these issues and standardizing the reference style according to the journal’s format will greatly improve clarity. Several figures,  particularly those with multiple panels, would also benefit from expanded captions that briefly explain what each panel shows, allowing them to stand on their own.

Response 1: We are grateful for your thorough review and for highlighting these critical, urgent issues regarding our manuscript. We fully agree that standardizing key terminology and ensuring reference accuracy are paramount to the clarity and scientific rigor of the paper. We have conducted comprehensive revisions to address all identified concerns.

(1): We acknowledge this crucial inconsistency. We have meticulously reviewed the entire manuscript and standardized the terminology by consistently replacing all instances of "ecosystem service efficiency" with "Integrated Ecosystem Service Capacity (IESC)".  This ensures conceptual clarity and methodological precision throughout the paper.

(2): We apologize for the presence of distracting revision marks. We have conducted a final, comprehensive check of the manuscript to ensure all remaining strikethrough text has been removed. The submitted manuscript is now a clean final version.

(3): We have undertaken a major revision of the References section as requested. We have: Thoroughly corrected all duplicates, misnumbered entries, and incomplete citations. Strictly standardized the format of all references to conform precisely to the Land journal (MDPI) guidelines. This rigorous revision ensures that the citations are accurate, consistent, and professionally presented.

(4): We have enhanced the self-sufficiency of the figures. Specifically, for multi-panel figures such as Figure 3, we have significantly expanded the captions to clearly label and briefly explain the content of each subplot (panel). This allows readers to understand the figure's message without relying heavily on the main text.

We are confident that these substantial revisions, particularly the standardization of core terminology and the rigorous correction of the references, have significantly improved the manuscript's clarity, professionalism, and readiness for publication in Land.

Comments 2: Additional refinements would strengthen the manuscript’s coherence. A short transition linking the sensitivity analysis methods with the results would clarify their relationship. The abstract should define IESC before using the acronym. Quantitative results should present the more precise values already discussed in the manuscript rather than broad ranges. The section on ecological sensitivity needs clearer terminology to distinguish vulnerability assessment from parameter sensitivity. The data availability statement should specify which datasets are public and which are restricted. Finally, small corrections (such as fixing typos, adding consistent spatial resolution information in tables, and clarifying column headers) would complete the polishing process. With these adjustments, the manuscript’s strong scientific foundations will be much more visible, and the work will be ready for publication.

Response 2 : We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your positive feedback and the constructive comments regarding the "polishing and minor refinements" of our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the suggestions and made the necessary corrections to further improve the quality and coherence of the paper. Below is a point-by-point response to the specific comments:

(1) We agree with this suggestion. We have added a transition sentence at the end of Section 2.3.6 to clarify how the sensitivity analysis serves the subsequent zoning strategy. The added text is: "By identifying areas with varying levels of ecological sensitivity, this assessment provides a spatial basis for optimizing ecological functional zoning strategies."

(2) We have revised the Abstract to ensure the full term is defined upon its first appearance. It now reads: "...evaluate the Integrated Ecosystem Service Capacity (IESC) in the Jianghan Lake Cluster." The acronym IESC is used consistently thereafter.

(3) We have updated the Abstract to reflect the precise simulation results discussed in the Discussion section. The sentence has been revised to: "Model simulations indicate that these targeted interventions can reduce non-point source pollution by approximately 35%, and increase carbon sequestration and biodiversity indices by 15%–20% and 30%, respectively."

(4) To avoid confusion between ecological vulnerability and model parameter sensitivity, we have renamed the title of Section 2.3.6 from "Sensitivity Analysis" to "Ecological Sensitivity Assessment".

(5) We have rewritten the Data Availability Statement to clearly distinguish between public and restricted data. The revised statement is: "Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. The Land Use and Cover Change (CNLUCC) and ASTER GDEM data can be accessed via the Geospatial Data Cloud Platform. Specific local survey data regarding biodiversity are restricted due to privacy and conservation policies and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request."

(6) We have carefully proofread the manuscript and corrected minor errors. Specifically, in Table 1, we have updated the resolution column for "Carbon-pool parameters" and "Biophysical parameters" to "Statistical/Non-spatial" to clearly distinguish them from spatial datasets.

We believe these revisions address all the remaining concerns and hope the manuscript is now ready for publication in Land.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx