Restoring Natural Forests as the Most Efficient Way to Water Quality and Abundance: Case Study from Želivka River Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Ecosystem services are still an underappreciated part of the research. Each attempt to emphasize the invaluable role of nature in the functioning of man on Earth is very important and necessary. The work presented for review is another important attempt at such an action. It is a case study of the valuation of ecosystem services in the Zelivka river basin. It emphasizes its essence and the role of humans in changing land use. The work is also a rich document of the reasons for these changes.
Any comments or suggestions there are in the manuscript
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses of Authors to Reviewers:
Authors are very grateful for all of valuable comments of Reviewers. All relevant notes of Reviewers were incorporated into the final version. The title was improved. The novelty of the work was underlined in abstract and some recent literature on water and ES added.
Response to Reviewer 1:
Thank you for recommending our manuscript for publication. Thank you also for your valuable comments. All relevant notes were incorporated into the final version.
Response to Reviewer 2:
Thank you very much for your clear recommendation of the manuscript for publication. Thanks also for your comments. We incorporated your comments into the final version by characterizing EWVM as a method that evaluates ecosystems according to their different efficiencies in transforming solar energy into the principal supporting and regulating ecosystem services. We also removed the most critical part of our describing the Bala’s et al. article.
Response to Reviewer 3:
Thank you for recommending our manuscript for publication. Thank you also for your valuable comments.
22nd December 2021
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article presents a study to understand the importance of natural forest ecosystem in water resources sustainability. The authors used Energy-Water-Vegetation method for the assessment of ecosystem service.
I personally feel that the paper is well conceived, the formulations are appropriate and is useful for the environment management planner and the scientific community. Hence, I have no reservation in recommending the article for publication.
Specific comments:
1. The introduction is not properly presented and it does not indicate the deficiencies of the current research and the innovations of this paper. Incorporate a brief discussion on EWVM and its importance, as well as its limitation; discuss other approaches used for the assessment of ecosystems services. The literature review is not properly done, please cite recent work.
2. In methodology: please discuss about the input data, methodology followed (methodology flow chart), quantification approach and validation. Also discuss error estimation…
3. Justification for the validity of the assumptions in the formulations needs to be brought out in the text.
4. Please either removed or modify the discussion on the article by Bala et al., 2007. Line No. 429-433 and 438-444.
Author Response
Responses of Authors to Reviewers:
Authors are very grateful for all of valuable comments of Reviewers. All relevant notes of Reviewers were incorporated into the final version. The title was improved. The novelty of the work was underlined in abstract and some recent literature on water and ES added.
Response to Reviewer 1:
Thank you for recommending our manuscript for publication. Thank you also for your valuable comments. All relevant notes were incorporated into the final version.
Response to Reviewer 2:
Thank you very much for your clear recommendation of the manuscript for publication. Thanks also for your comments. We incorporated your comments into the final version by characterizing EWVM as a method that evaluates ecosystems according to their different efficiencies in transforming solar energy into the principal supporting and regulating ecosystem services. We also removed the most critical part of our describing the Bala’s et al. article.
Response to Reviewer 3:
Thank you for recommending our manuscript for publication. Thank you also for your valuable comments.
22nd December 2021
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper titled “Natural forests provide abundance of quality water for water reservoirs: case study from Želivka River basin” presents a good topic. However, the document not well structured. Below is the list of some questions that need to be addressed.
- The title of the manuscript is not good, I suggest to change it.
- The novelty of your work is missing in the abstract section.
- In introduction lacks some recent works on “water and ecosystem services”.
- The quality of the figure should be improved.
Good luck
Author Response
Responses of Authors to Reviewers:
Authors are very grateful for all of valuable comments of Reviewers. All relevant notes of Reviewers were incorporated into the final version. The title was improved. The novelty of the work was underlined in abstract and some recent literature on water and ES added.
Response to Reviewer 1:
Thank you for recommending our manuscript for publication. Thank you also for your valuable comments. All relevant notes were incorporated into the final version.
Response to Reviewer 2:
Thank you very much for your clear recommendation of the manuscript for publication. Thanks also for your comments. We incorporated your comments into the final version by characterizing EWVM as a method that evaluates ecosystems according to their different efficiencies in transforming solar energy into the principal supporting and regulating ecosystem services. We also removed the most critical part of our describing the Bala’s et al. article.
Response to Reviewer 3:
Thank you for recommending our manuscript for publication. Thank you also for your valuable comments.
22nd December 2021
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been improved and now it is ready for pubblication. Congratulations
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
I suggest changing the topic of the paper because in its content and results there are no data concerning water quality.
In the abstract, there is only general information, but it should concern research results and conclusions. The form of writing is sometimes not scientific. Poorly described research methods. I suggest separating the chapter on the research area (currently it is in the results). Please describe in detail the research method itself, not the applicability. Often the contents of the chapters are mixed up. Some information from results in method, from discussion in results, and from the method in every other. Conclusions are only those that result from the analysis conducted by the authors.
Other comments in the text.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors and Editor,
this manuscript needs a thorough reforming to be deemed a scientific article. The introduction got my interest in the beginning but after reading the manuscript, I need to say that it lacks the fundamental structure and content to be considered further.
1. The introduction is vague, does not conclude and there are only three lines at the end about the aim of the study, which aim needs more detail. I could not understand what the authors studied until I read the results. I provide some suggestions to improve this.
2. Materials and methods. Well, there are actually no materials and methods. The authors do not describe what they did and how. An energy-water-vegetation method is mentioned, not described. How were ecosystem services valuated? Which ecosystem services were valuated? Later on, in the discussion, it is mentioned that this tool is similar to the SWAT hydrological model, but no description, nothing.
3. Results. The results contain two figures, one with the unimpacted landscape and one with the CLC 2012 landscape. How was the unimpacted landscape simulated? How were the ecosystem services valuated?
4. Discussion. I could not follow a discussion without understanding the materials and methods, and how the results were produced. Besides, the discussion does not evolve around the findings of this study but is vague, general about restoration, the differences between SWAT and the current model, some more introductory lines etc.
I strongly advise the authors to read similar articles on the topic, and focus on how a scientific paper should be prepared and what it should contain. (1) Research topic, (2) research question, (3) methods used to address the question/topic, (4) results presentation, (5) discussion around the results, possibly backed up by previous literature, (6) brief conclusions: 1... we found this... 2. We also showed that ...
Please also see my comments below.
INTRODUCTION
The introduction initially seems quite interesting, and thus I started editing many details to make it even better, but after finishing reading, I realized that it does not focus on a specific statement or topic. The last paragraph of the introduction should state the study’s aim but this aim is quite obscure. What was the study aim? I suggest merging the two final paragraphs of the introduction and start this last paragraph (the aim of the study) as follows: ‘The purpose of this study was to compare the economic value of four ecosystem services provided by the current landscape structure of the Želivka watershed (Czech Republic), with that provided by a hypothetical (simulated), fully natural (not influenced by human activities) Želivka watershed. We used … to simulate the watershed’s landscape structure without human influence and CORINE Land Cover 2012 data to assess current landscape structure, and the 1, 2, 3 and 4 ecosystem services were economically valuated by using the … method’.
Lines 29-36. Our ancestors always considered access to quality drinking water as a foundation for their existence [1,2]. In Czech Republic, situated in the temperate broad-leaved deciduous forest biome, in altitudes ranging from 115 to 1602 m a.s.l., access to quality drinking water was typically ensured for up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (approx. 1750-1850 CE). The natural landscape of ‘the roof of Europe’ provided good-quality freshwater sources under traditional agricultural activities [4,5]. During the medieval period, traditional agriculture was firmly tied to local land use, and the arable-fallow land management system could feed up to 30-40 individuals per km2 [6].
Lines 37-41. After the Industrial Revolution, the efforts of humans to quickly obtain the greatest profit possible, began to drastically change landscape structure. The rapidly growing Czech population from 2.5 to 4.8 million during the 18th century [7] has caused massive conversion of natural forests into continuously expanding agricultural land [8]. [Note: Obviously the growing Czech population did not convert natural land to agricultural land in many European countries].
Lines 42-53. This loss of natural landscapes was also … brought massive replacement … forests by monoculture … with optimized yield parameters [9]. This inevitably disrupted the fundamental ability of the landscape to retain freshwater [10]. After … war, collectivization of individual agricultural land and political efforts for self-sufficiency in cereal production further de-naturalized and de-watered European landscapes [11]. Large-scale agricultural fields, suitable for mechanization were developed. These efforts for self-sufficiency, accompanied by land amelioration, drainage and linear landscape simplification practices, ultimately led to the development of agrarian steppes, which after summer harvest, they convert solar energy to useless heat [12]. [Note: This citation [12] does not include neither ‘agrarian’ nor ‘steppes’, nor ‘heat’. Are you sure this is the correct one cited? Also, if you search ‘agrarian steppes’ in Google, no relevant results occur …].
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Here you should describe the methods you applied to address your research question. Which methods/software did you use to (1) simulate the landscape structure without human influence, (2) assess the current landscape structure, (3) which four ecosystem services were valuated? (4) which method you used to valuate ecosystem services. In 2.1. you do not mention anything about methods, e.g. we applied this, we used this software, we evaluated these services etc. All information provided in 2.1 is another introduction, what others did elsewhere. Just describe what you applied in this particular study to reach conclusions based on your study aim. In 2.2. you mention the ‘energy-water-vegetation’ method but no information on how this method works, what it does, how it does it etc. You should give a brief description rather than citing previous papers. To conclude, there is actually no materials and methods here. Also, you should describe the Želivka River Basin here, not in the results
RESULTS
Lines 213-214. Which four services were they? How was this map of potential natural vegetation developed? What is this systematic evaluation methodology?
Lines 217-219. How could a reader know or confirm how this map was developed and that this output is accurate? You provide no information.
Lines 236-237. Again, how did you calculate these €207.8 billion?
Table 2. Is ‘discontinuous urban fabric’ and ES? Or is ES referring to the ecosystem services provided by discontinuous urban fabric? What kind of ES does urban fabric provide and how were they valuated to 2.28 trillion?
Reviewer 3 Report
General Comment: The research is reasonably interesting, although it has to be included in the category of “case study”, more correctly.
Title: a case study from Želivka
Abstract:
line 17 authors
line 23 landscapes
Please improve the abstract with more information about M&M and Results
keywords: Words from the title should not be used as keywords.
Introduction
The authors undertook a detailed literature review of the published materials but some sentences are not united with a logical way.
Line 92. “1 000-1200 kWh/m2 of solar energy. Please explain better this sentence and add some references for this data?
line 115. we will show this……Third person is favored
line 115-117. The aim of the paper is not focused correctly and a few lines are not exhaustive.
M&M
Lines 124-128. “Since …………… about them.” Not clear. Please reformulate
Lines 129-135- Not clear and complicated to follow the logical traits
In complex, the section “2.1. The methods of monetary valuation of non-market ecosystem functions” is not correctly written and some sentences can be moved in Introduction section.
2.2. What can natural vegetation do with solar energy is question? please add ?
line 165. [ 19]
Please invert it.: The short water cycle (SWC)
CZK/m2
Results
1188 km2;
Discussion
In my opinion, the discussion paragraph has been well written
Conclusion
The conclusions repeat the results, not well focused on your findings and know is possible to develop this research. The conclusion is quite short basically including the results. More future developments and conclusions should be considered.
