Incorporating Stepping Stone Establishment into Rural Ecological Security Pattern Optimization: A Water–Energy–Food Coupling Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The study positions the water-energy-food (W-E-F) nexus as its core framework but provides no mechanistic explanation of how W-E-F coupling drives ecological network optimization. Critical theoretical foundations (e.g., threshold effects in resource coupling proposed by Hoff, 2011) are absent, reducing the framework to a superficial amalgamation of buzzwords rather than a dynamic, complexity-aware model.

2. Equal weighting of W-E-F subsystems (α=β=γ=1/3) in the coupling coordination model lacks empirical or theoretical justification. For instance, the assumption that rural biomass energy contributes equally to ecological security as water resources is arbitrary. Sensitivity analysis or alternative weighting schemes (e.g., entropy method) are omitted, casting doubt on the validity of coupling state assessments.

3. Three stepping stone identification methods (minimum cost path, gravity model, circuit theory) are applied without quantitative comparison of their impacts on landscape connectivity (e.g., EC index, BC centrality). Spatial synergies among stepping stones and minimum ecological thresholds (e.g., area, shape requirements) are ignored, risking oversimplification of network fragility.

4. Mismatched spatial resolutions (e.g., 30m CLCD land cover vs. 250m NDVI) and unaddressed temporal inconsistencies (e.g., mixing 2015 and 2020 data without climate event calibration) invalidate ecosystem service evaluations. No data harmonization protocols are described.

5. The "one core, three zones, four corridors, multiple nodes" pattern is merely mapped, not explained. Key questions remain unanswered: Is high coupling coordination driven by natural endowments or human interventions? How do energy flows or species migration interact with W-E-F dynamics?

6. Conclusions regurgitate case-specific findings without extracting universal principles of W-E-F-driven ESP optimization. Critical comparisons with analogous frameworks (e.g., Fan et al., 2020’s urban ESP study) are missing. The applicability of the framework to arid or high-density rural regions remains unexamined.

7. Proposed "stepping stone networks" lack quantitative connectivity targets and disregard rural land tenure conflicts or livelihood dependencies (e.g., compensation for farmland conversion). Social-ecological system (SES) complexities (Ostrom, 2009) are wholly ignored, rendering suggestions technocratic fantasies.

8. Undifferentiated use of "ecological security pattern" and "ecological network" creates conceptual ambiguity. Foundational ESP literature (e.g., Forman, 1995) is conspicuously uncited. Figures omit geographic coordinates, statistical significance markers, and scale bars, violating cartographic standards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. The paper is interesting; the researched problem has scientific potential and may be of interest to potential readers.

The paper introduces a novel framework for rural ecological security pattern optimization by coupling ecosystem services related to W-E-F. This integrated nexus approach is still emerging in ESP design and is a noteworthy contribution.

The four-step methodological approach – from ES quantification to coupling coordination analysis, resistance modeling, corridor extraction, and final ESP optimization – is thorough and scientifically sound.

The application of graph theory indices (Harary index, IIC, PC) offers measurable proof of improvement in ESP connectivity, which is often lacking in similar ecological modeling studies.

Although I evaluate the paper positively, I suggest you consider the following points: 

• Although W-E-F coupling is well-executed, the study is constrained to only three ESs: Water Yield (WY), Carbon Storage (CS), and Food Production (FP). Other relevant ESs like soil retention, biodiversity habitats, or climate regulation could enhance the multidimensionality of the model. I suggest adding or at least discussing other ecosystem services (e.g., biodiversity, recreation, and pollination) to create a more comprehensive rural ESP model.
• The use of mixed spatial resolutions (12.5 m for DEM, 1 km for climate data, 30 m for land cover) may introduce spatial misalignment or scaling biases in the modeling process.
• The paper contains several grammatical errors, awkward phrasings, and repetitive word choices (e.g., “coupling coordination of WY-CS-FP” is overused). This detracts from readability and may confuse non-expert readers. The manuscript requires a thorough language edit to ensure grammatical accuracy, clarity, and conciseness. Avoid repetitive phrases and improve transitions between sections.
• When it comes to material errors, there is an issue with consistency in terminology. The terms “corridors,” “belts,” and “zones” are sometimes used interchangeably without sufficient distinction. Definitions should be consistently applied.
• I also suggest adding stakeholder implications. Describe how farmers, local governments, or NGOs can practically implement the suggested ESPs or utilize the results for policy formulation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper contains several grammatical errors and awkward phrasings, and requires a language edit to ensure grammatical accuracy, clarity, and conciseness.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made excellent revisions, and the article is now at a publishable level.