A Modified Location-Weighted Landscape Index to Evaluate Nutrient Retention in Agricultural Wetlands: A Case Study of the Honghe Hani Rice Terraces World Heritage Site
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presents the results of a research in which the authors have aimed to explore and modify the LWLI by assigning nutrient-based weight, to assess the nutrient retention function and identify the contribution rates of sink landscapes in a rice terrace landscape for spatial optimization.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The English of the paper should be significantly improved. I advise the authors to find a proofreader with good written scientific English skills.
Abstract must be rewritten as quantitative information (results) should
be provided.
The study area should be further detailed hydrology and soil types and dynamics of agroforestry.
The introduction is well presented. I like it.
There are many typographic and spelling errors throughout the manuscript. Please, revise the paper carefully, some examples are listed below:
1) Space between text and square brackets of references (e.g., Line 32 and 33), please check out this issue troughouth the manuscript.
2) Line 41: replace "use" by "used".
3) There is no coherence between "water sampling map" and basic informations in table 1.
4) Line 166: delete "]"
The discussion of the paper need to be enhanced; try to compare and to discuss your results with those by other researchers either in the same area or other regional sites?
References:
Reference 51th in the list should be in "Small Letters".
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Water sampling and experimental analysis needs more details and coherence. In the table 1, authors presents 34 sampling sites and 45 sampling points in the map (figure 1). However, in the sub-section 3.1. we found 68 water samples. It's so hard to undersant the sampling philosophy followed by autors. More clarifications are needed about the exact sampling sites, the frequency of samling for the same site...
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript must be heavily edited to make it into a readable publication submission. I dedicated several hours to the review and did not get past the first two pages. The reason is the poor English formatting and word usage. I will provide my comments on the Introduction as an example. The authors should employ a strong scientific English editor and resubmit.
Line 12: Change integrate to integrates
Line 13: Change "weight of" to "weights for"
Line 14: Add commas before and after objectively and change remains to requires
Line 14: Add is after "This study", change "to" to "at", and change modify to modifying
Line 15: Change weight to weights and identify to identifying
Line 16: Change Taking to Using
Line 17: Add "the" before study, "and" after area and delete the second "the"
Line 19: Place a period after rate and capitalize the second the
Line 23: Replace "to" with "for"
Line 24: Add "the: before HHRT in both cases
Line 31: Add "entering" after phosphorus and add "from non-point sources (NPS)" after freshwater
Line 32: Delete "non-point source (NPS)", delete comma before thus, delete "thus", add "and" after [1] and delete "that"
Line 33: Change threaten to threatening, change in to throughout, and change Compare to Compared
Line 34: there needs to be a timeframe associated with "key problem"
Line 35: The phrase "the country and region" is not clear; which country and region?
Line 45: Delete "contributing"
Line 48: Change pollutions to pollution
Line 50: Delete comma and delete "Therefore,"
Line 51: Capitalize Effectively and change assess to assessing
Line 54: Change sciences to science, delete "However," and capitalize Due
Line 58: Change "At present, ... number of" to "Many" and delete the many before mathematical
Line 60: Change always to are
Line 61: Change by to using
Line 62: Change "However" to "Unfortunately", add with before each and delete that
Line 63: Change "caused" to "causing", add "their" before application, and change "Additionally, most" to "Most"
Line 64: Change "them" to "these approaches", delete were, delete the comma after structure, and change "no reflection" to "do not examine"
Line 65: Change of to the, change process to processes, and change significance to interpretation
Line 66: Add "the" before relationships
Line 68: Change "forwarded" to "forward" and add "and" before a
Line 69: Add is before based
Line 70: Change "with the" to "in"
Line 71: Change "relationship" to "relation" and change "of" to "to"
Line 75: Delete comma
Line 76: Change was to has been, change Evaluating to evaluating, and change Indicating to indicating
Line 77: Change Determining to determining
Line 78: Change Assessing to assessing and change Identifying to identifying
Line 79: Change "were" to "has been" and delete "the" before source
Line 80: Delete "Additionally," and capitalize The
Line 81: Change "are the to "(e.g.,", Add closed parenthesis after landscapes, and change ". Generally it has" to "have"
Line 82: Changes "its" to "their", change "by" to "based on", change experiences to experience, and change "Therefore" to "Using"
Line 83: Change of to for, add "parameters" after landscape, and change "to accurately" to "accurately to"
Line 84: Change pattern to patterns
Line 86: Change "takes" to "examines"
Line 90: change study to studies, "was" to "is", and "of" to "by"
Line 91: Change "has" to "that have"
Line 93: Delete comma and change "how to keep" to "keeping"
Line 95: Delete comma
Line 96: Change "with" to "for" and change "process" to "processes"
Line 97: Change function to functions
Lines 97-98: "Identify ... control." is not a sentence
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper of Yuanmei Jiao, et al. "A Modified Location-Weighted Landscape Index to Assess Nutrient Retention in Agricultural Wetlands: A Case Study of the Honghe Hani Rice Terraces World Heritage Site" explores the usability of the Location-weighted Landscape Index in the sink landscape-dominated agricultural wetlands, and tries to find an objective weight-assigning method with non-point source pollution process or nutrient retention function. The key sink landscapes and their contribution rates to the nutrient retention function for environmental planning on non-point source pollution control are also identified. Based on these results, some optimization suggestions put forward regarding the landscape pattern in the Honghe Hani Rice Terraces.
Minor
Page 3, Lines 100-101
You write:
Five small watersheds were selected as the study area;
But in Fig. 1 the larger study area is shown in blue. What is this area, how is it chosen? You need to show the scale bar.
Figure 1.
The study area should also be shown on hemisphere showing Beijing.
Legend
"Basin Boundary" actually shows the borders of Figures a-e, not "Basin Boundary".
Please explain how you determined the boundaries of the watersheds
Table 2
Please explain who acted as "Expert Knowledge"
Table 4
Please explain why the sum of the areas of source and sink landscape areas in the watersheds a, d, e is less than 100%
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After my second revision of the manuscript, I found that all my comments and suggestions are adressed by authors.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors appear to have addressed all the reviewers' concerns
