Ecosystem Health Assessment of the Manas River Basin: Application of the CC-PSR Model Improved by Coupling Coordination Degree

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive assessment of the ecosystem health (EH) of the Manas River Basin using a coupling coordination pressure-state-response (CC-PSR) model.This work is beneficial for further understanding the ecosystem health in Northwest China, but it still requires further refinement in details. 

(1) I suggest that the authors adhere strictly to the structure of Introduction—Materials and Methods—Results—Discussion—Conclusion. A literature review is not a necessary component for a journal paper.

(2) The discussion section is overly simplistic.

(3) The paper does not clearly identify a specific scientific question. Overall, it does not attempt to address a widely accepted methodological issue in the field of ecological health assessment. Instead, it merely provides an assessment of a specific site, making it appear more like a report than a scholarly article.

(4) Please include the review number, like 【GS(2024)0650】， on the map of China.

(5) The consideration of biodiversity-related indicators is relatively insufficient. Please elaborate on the ecological significance of the relevant landscape pattern indices and explain why they are chosen as key indicators to illustrate specific issues.

(6) Does the overall score obtained by the entropy method accurately reflect all ecological problems in the region? It is recommended to provide further details on the different related scores and attempt to analyze the potential trade-offs between different categories.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend that the authors enhance the language flow and adhere to the SUCCES principles (Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, Stories) to improve the narrative's engagement by clearly presenting the problem and the solution.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Point-by-point response to Comments for Reviewer
Comments 1: [I suggest that the authors adhere strictly to the structure of Introduction—Materials and Methods—Results—Discussion—Conclusion. A literature review is not a necessary component for a journal paper.]
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised the introduction based on your and another reviewer's suggestions. The literature review has been compiled and merged into the introduction (From line 16 on page three to line 40 on page four; And lines 2 to 18 on page five). The order of the discussion and conclusion sections has been swapped, and some modifications have been made (For details, please refer to Response 5 and 6).
Comments 2: [The discussion section is overly simplistic.]
Response 2: We agree with this comment. We have rewritten the discussion section (Pages 24 to 25). In the discussion, the contribution of this paper have been discussed in greater detail, as well as its relevance within the framework of the available literature. We have summarized the limitations of this study according to your comments 5 and 6. Close with the recommendations for future work.

Comments 3: [The paper does not clearly identify a specific scientific question. Overall, it does not attempt to address a widely accepted methodological issue in the field of ecological health assessment. Instead, it merely provides an assessment of a specific site, making it appear more like a report than a scholarly article.]

 

Response 3:

Agree. The specific scientific question that the paper aims to address have been added to the latter half of the introduction (Lines 14-18 on page 5).

 

Comments 4: [Please include the review number, like 【GS(2024)0650】， on the map of China.]

 

Response 4: Thank you for your reminding. The review number has been added to the map (Figure 1).

 

Comments 5: [The consideration of biodiversity-related indicators is relatively insufficient. Please elaborate on the ecological significance of the relevant landscape pattern indices and explain why they are chosen as key indicators to illustrate specific issues.]

 

Response 5:

Thank you for pointing this out. Owing to the limited availability of data, the selection of indicators has a bias toward material and landscape indicators, while neglecting biodiversity. This inevitably undermines the objectivity of the assessment results. We have pointed out this limitation in the discussion section of the the re-submitted manuscript. We will focus on addressing this flaw in subsequent research.

The ecological significance of the landscape pattern indices have been added to the "Constructing the Assessment Indicator System" section (From line 21 to line 27 on page 9). The specific issues illustrated by landscape pattern indices: SHEI, SHDI, CONNECT, and CONTAG have been added to the "Table 4. Indicator formulas and calculations" (The column of "Calculation Instructions" on pages 16 to 17.).

 

Comments 6: [Does the overall score obtained by the entropy method accurately reflect all ecological problems in the region? It is recommended to provide further details on the different related scores and attempt to analyze the potential trade-offs between different categories.]

 

Response 6:

From the calculation results of indicator weights, the entropy weight method can indeed objectively reflect the impact of each indicator on EH. According to the information entropy theory, the smaller the information entropy of the indicator, the greater its discrete degree, and the higher the weight assigned. The specific weight values of the indicators are supplemented into Table 1. Thanks for your reminding.

The suggestion about "analyze the potential trade-offs between different categories" is very inspiring. However, analyzing the coupling coordination relationship between the elements is the focus of this work. I am worried that introducing discussions about "trade-offs" will increase the reading load for the readers. I'm so sorry, but we will definitely incorporate it into our upcoming research plans.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your feedback has been immensely helpful for improving our work and enhancing the quality of the article.

 

With best wishes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

Thanks for this contribution; it represents a significant case study that helps us understand how to measure ecosystem health. Evaluating ecosystem health and resilience is an important topic that deserves publication and dissemination. The case study presented is exciting and provides significant evidence for this field of research. In general terms, the manuscript and the research results are well presented. 

However, I have the following concerns and recommendations. 

1. Introduction: The work focuses on ecosystem health, but a resilience indicator is included. In the introduction and methods section, it is convenient to discuss the type of resilience and the approach to resilience being considered in this contribution. This aspect needs to be clarified in the current presentation.

2. In theoretical and methodological terms, what is the difference between ecosystem health and resilience? The manuscript must clarify these concepts, and the introduction should establish these conceptual aspects.

3. Likewise, the introduction needs to clearly state the specific contributions to the literature and this field of research. Although a detailed reading of the document helps understand it, the introduction should close by specifying the contributions of this contribution to the scientific literature with total quality.

4. Methods. They are well presented. However, the conceptual and methodological bases for defining the selected indicators' weights must be clarified. For example, in Table 1, what are the theoretical bases and considerations for selecting these factors?

5. Table 2. Coupling coordination relationship pairs. What is the theoretical and methodological basis of these pair relationships? Why are these relationships selected? What is the theoretical and methodological basis for this selection?

6. Table 3. Ranks of the degree of coupling coordination. The methodology needs to explain why these ranks exist. Please specify this calculation and the definition of the ranges in more detail.

7. Methodology. An introduction to the methods, with a diagram or detailed description of the phases in chronological order, would help us better understand the implemented process. Please complement this and clarify the methodological phases implemented.

8. Considering the focus of this research, it is more pertinent to present the results and discussion sections separately. The results should be presented for the case study. In the discussion, the contribution of this proposal should be discussed in greater detail, as well as its relevance within the framework of the available literature, the limitations of this study, the advantages of this proposal, and the recommendations for future work.

9. The discussion should be enriched with an adequate contrast between this proposal, the existing literature, and trends. What is this work's real contribution to the literature? What is new? The discussion should close with an analysis of limitations and recommendations. Section seven of the discussion must be more extensive and reflect this contribution.

Best regards, 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Point-by-point response to Comments for Reviewer
Comments 1 and 2: [Introduction: The work focuses on ecosystem health, but a resilience indicator is included. In the introduction and methods section, it is convenient to discuss the type of resilience and the approach to resilience being considered in this contribution. This aspect needs to be clarified in the current presentation.]; [In theoretical and methodological terms, what is the difference between ecosystem health and resilience? The manuscript must clarify these concepts, and the introduction should establish these conceptual aspects.]
Response 1 and 2: Thank you for your comments, we have revised the introduction based on your and another reviewer's suggestions. The literature review has been compiled and merged into the introduction. The difference between ecosystem health and resilience has been added to the second paragraph of the introduction (Lines 16 to 35 on page three). In a nutshell, EH emphasizes the overall condition of the ecosystem, which is different from ecosystem resilience. It encompasses multiple dimensions, serving as a comprehensive reflection of ecological processes, environmental quality, and biodiversity. Ecosystem resilience focuses more on the adaptability and anti-disturbance capacity of ecosystems. It can be confirmed that healthy ecosystems typically exhibit strong ecosystem resilience.
Comments 3: [Likewise, the introduction needs to clearly state the specific contributions to the literature and this field of research. Although a detailed reading of the document helps understand it, the introduction should close by specifying the contributions of this contribution to the scientific literature with total quality.]
Response 3: We agree with this comment. We added the specific scientific question that the paper aims to address to the latter half of the introduction (Lines 14-18 on page 5). Meanwhile, the specific contributions of this paper have been supplemented to the end of the introduction (Lines 49 to 52 on page 5).

Comments 4: [Methods. They are well presented. However, the conceptual and methodological bases for defining the selected indicators' weights must be clarified. For example, in Table 1, what are the theoretical bases and considerations for selecting these factors?]

 

Response 4:

Thank you for pointing this out. The specific weight values of the indicators are supplemented into Table 1. The methodological bases for defining the weights have been added to the "Constructing the Assessment Indicator System" section (Lines 8 to 16 on page 10). Thanks again for your reminder. The theoretical bases and considerations for selecting indicators have been explained in the interpretation of indicators from pages 9 to 10.

 

Comments 5: [Table 2. Coupling coordination relationship pairs. What is the theoretical and methodological basis of these pair relationships? Why are these relationships selected? What is the theoretical and methodological basis for this selection?]

 

Response 5:

I'm sorry, the process of identifying the coupling coordination relationship pairs was relatively subjective. Only subjectively considered the direct correlation of indicators. We have acknowledged this flaw in discussion and will actively seek better theoretical support for improvement in future work.

 

Comments 6: [Table 3. Ranks of the degree of coupling coordination. The methodology needs to explain why these ranks exist. Please specify this calculation and the definition of the ranges in more detail.]

 

Response 6:

We have provided additional explanations on the methodological bases for dividing these ranks (Lines 1 to 7 on page 12). The definition of the ranks have also been added to lines 8 to 24 on page 12.

 

Comments 7: [Methodology. An introduction to the methods, with a diagram or detailed description of the phases in chronological order, would help us better understand the implemented process. Please complement this and clarify the methodological phases implemented.]

 

Response 7:

Thank you, this comment is very constructive. We created an assessment flowchart as a graphical abstract to help readers better understand the implemented process (Please refer to the attachment for details).

 

Comments 8 and 9: [Considering the focus of this research, it is more pertinent to present the results and discussion sections separately. The results should be presented for the case study. In the discussion, the contribution of this proposal should be discussed in greater detail, as well as its relevance within the framework of the available literature, the limitations of this study, the advantages of this proposal, and the recommendations for future work.] [The discussion should be enriched with an adequate contrast between this proposal, the existing literature, and trends. What is this work's real contribution to the literature? What is new? The discussion should close with an analysis of limitations and recommendations. Section seven of the discussion must be more extensive and reflect this contribution.]

 

Response 8 and 9:

Agree. We have rewritten the discussion section based on your and another reviewer's suggestions (Pages 24 to 25). In the discussion, the contribution of this paper have been discussed in greater detail, as well as its relevance within the framework of the available literature. We have summarized the limitations of this study. Close with the recommendations for future work.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your feedback has been immensely helpful for improving our work and enhancing the quality of the article.

 

With best wishes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions made to the manuscript have significantly improved its clarity and structure. The methodology, data analysis, and conclusions are now stronger and more convincing. The content aligns well with Land’s focus, offering relevant and valuable insights. I’m satisfied with the changes and recommend the paper for acceptance.