Spatial Distribution and Differentiation Analysis of Coastal Aquaculture in China Based on Remote Sensing Monitoring

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The MS explored spatial distribution and differentiation analysis of coastal aquaculture ponds in China using remote sensing technology. The topic is interesting, and the MS is well-written, I think that it is acceptable after some revisions.

(1) The study used existing aquaculture datasets obtained by different methods and different sensors, and there are differentiations in spatial resolution and accuracy. Are they normalized?

(2) For sections 3.1 and 3.2, I suggest summarizing the brief information of the datasets in a TABLE, such as type (pond aquaculture, marine aquaculture), satellite and sensors, spatial resolution, study period and corresponding references etc.

(3) Lines 291-292 on page 7, “The remote sensing image data sources exclusively utilized Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-291 2 images from 2020.” What is the purpose of using Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 images from 2020, it is important to know that the existing datasets were used.

(4) For section 4. Results, “remote sensing monitoring suggests an underestimation of Liaoning's marine aquaculture compared to statistical yearbook data.” Why? Is the statistical yearbook wrong, or is the existing datasets from remote sensing data wrong?

(5) The keyords “Coastal zone; China” can be integrated into “Coastal zone in China”.

(6) I think that the following references can help to improve the description in section INTRODUCTION.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2023.2297943

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2022.113347

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.06.018

(7) There are some spelling and grammar errors, the language should be improved by a native speaker of English.

Some grammar and spelling errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

the manuscript falls within the journal objectives and deals with relevant topics.

Nevertheless, as far as I am concerned, it needs significant reorganization, especially in some sections.

The introduction needs improvement to provide a more uniform and comprehensive picture in terms of methods, reference data, involved areas. At the same time, the contents of this section appear to be weakly linked to the following sections.

Most of the methods sections need large rearrangement, as they also include and mix data, results, and objectives. Moreover, methods for remote sensing data processing are either almost lacking or too generic. As a general observation, the manuscript is more oriented to spatial analysis than remote sensing, in contrast with the title. Sometimes, the reader cannot easily understand which data are collected from the literature or obtained in this research. No information is provided in the results about the accuracy of the outputs. The discussion doesn’t provide outcomes in terms of methods novelties. Moreover, no attempts are made to perform comparisons with other known situations in the neighboring countries or elsewhere in the world.

Apart obvious interests in China, which information/findings may be of general interest at an international level?

The results will need rearrangements consequently.

Probably the literature format (in some cases) doesn’t follow the journal specifications, please check.

More detailed comments can be found hereunder.

Best regards.

DETAILED COMMENTS

49-87. As this reference framework refers to different perspectives/issues, it should be widened and strengthened in order to provide a more uniform and comprehensive picture in terms of methods, reference data, involved areas. To this aim, further literature, also dealing with the same study area or adjoining areas/countries, like (at least) the following should be added and/or discussed: 1) FAO, ISBN 9251051143, 2) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00036-X, 3) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.012, 4) https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103504, 5) https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14122862, 6) https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132089. This literature should help the Authors to perform some new comparative analysis within the discussion.

93-98. Please improve and further develop this description of the objectives, which appears to be weakly connected to the previous text. Is this manuscript aimed at providing new information on a specific study area (Southern China) only? Alternatively, does it convey also new methodological findings? Which information/findings may be of general interest at an international level? Relationships may be found also with lines 123-136.

110-111. This is probably true for some regions of the world only, so the Authors should develop this concept more precisely, with adequate references to the literature.

147. The research focuses on coastal aquaculture. Hence, should the mainland buffer zone size depend also on the coastline morphology?

Figure 1. The scale bar seems to be wrong. Please check.

163. Unclear sentence. Which is the step the Authors are referring to?

178-180. It is not clear to the reader whether this extraction is one of the outcomes of this research. Please check.

182-190. Following the above comment, this sentence is unclear also. The Authors present here some results, even though this is the materials & methods section. Moreover, the sentence “data generated in this study align consistently with the previously published datasets” provides in the wrong section “subjective” conclusions not based on quantitative analysis. Hence this text should be probably reorganized.

191-204. Again, results (i.e., accuracy rate, recall, rate, …) not based on previously described methods are here mixed along with data and objectives.

213-222. If these are methods from a previous work in the literature, please cite the reference and the data therein, and eliminate this description.

223-238. Again, quite hard to understand the contents of these sentences, where data, methods and results are mixed. The reader cannot clearly understand which are the input data and reliability. Which is the meaning of sentences like “…our team’s marine aquaculture extraction results stood at …”? Are the Authors referring to activities implemented in this research? If this is the case, they shouldn’t provide here results. If they are referring to the literature, they should cite the sources only.

280-281. “… extending 100km along the coastal line…”, where can this be seen in Figure 1? There is something unclear, also due to the scale bar of the figure, which seems to be wrong.

291-305. Unclear sentences. Please describe the image processing methods. Which kind of data did the Author manage and extract from the images? Which kind of information where visually extracted? Based on which criteria and constraints? Examples or images to support the reader?

310-313. Fishnet tools, Kernel analysis tool and Getis-Ord Gi*. Please add relevant literature (i.e.. Eq. 1 and 2).

359. Which is the meaning of “aquaculture area value of 400km2”?

363-364. May the Authors rely on values with 10-2 km2 precision? What about the accuracy of these results?

419-423. Check syntax.

430-431. Unclear sentence, please check.

480-483. Check syntax.

529-539. This section should be moved to Methods.

541-542. It is not clear where the remote sensing data results here discussed have been previously described. Which is their accuracy?

586-587. Please add references to support this explanation.

657-659. The readers may rely on this, but where may they find a comprehensive analysis of the accuracy of the results obtained?

English is almost fine, even though some sentences need to be checked as highlighted in the detailed comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Spatial Distribution and Differentiation Analysis of Coastal Aquaculture in China Based on Remote Sensing Monitoring

I enjoyed reviewing the manuscript “Spatial Distribution and Differentiation Analysis of Coastal 2 Aquaculture in China Based on Remote Sensing Monitoring”.

 The study investigates the spatial patterns and distribution of coastal aquaculture in China, using remote sensing data and statistical analyses. The study highlights the importance of shoreline characteristics, policy interventions, and the potential for IMTA to foster sustainable development practices in China's coastal zones.

After reviewing the manuscript, it appears scientifically sound and well-structured, with clear objectives, methods, results, and discussions. However, there are a few sections where the manuscript could be improved.

Comments:

The language style throughout the entire manuscript is predominantly formal and technical, which is appropriate for a scientific paper. However, there are areas where the language could be improved for clarity and precision. Some sentences are long and complex, which might make it challenging for readers to follow the arguments or explanations. Simplifying certain phrases and ensuring consistency in terminology usage would enhance readability.

Here is an example:

Original: "Furthermore, by analyzing the types of coastal zones in the municipalities of coastal provinces and utilizing data from the China Fishery Statistical Yearbook, the proportion of coastal zone aquaculture in the current aquaculture landscape of major aquaculture provinces was examined."

Simplified: " Furthermore, we examined the proportion of coastal zone aquaculture in major aquaculture provinces by analyzing coastal zone types in coastal municipalities and using data from the China Fishery Statistical Yearbook."

Methodology: While the methodology section provides a general overview of the approach used, adding more detail about the specific remote sensing techniques, statistical analyses, and data sources utilized would enhance the reproducibility and transparency of the study.

For instance, the manuscript provides a comprehensive explanation of the kernel analysis, detailing its application in examining the aggregation patterns of aquaculture in coastal areas of China. It effectively illustrates how the analysis identifies dense areas, high-value, and low-value gathering areas of aquaculture, contributing to a nuanced understanding of spatial distribution patterns. However, further clarification on the specific parameters and methodologies used in the kernel analysis could enhance the reader's comprehension.

Authors should avoid the terms our team or with other team datasets … please provide references…

In the results section, authors should consider increasing the letter size of figures to improve visibility and legibility for readers.

The discussion provides valuable insights into the effects of coastal geographical features on aquaculture patterns in China and offers suggestions for the development of aquaculture in coastal zones. However, it could benefit from further elaboration on the potential limitations of the study, such as any constraints in data collection or analysis methodologies. Additionally, discussing how external factors like climate change may impact the observed aquaculture patterns could enhance the comprehensiveness of the discussion.

Some sentences are quite lengthy and could be broken down for easier comprehension.

E.g.

Original : "Therefore, explaining the spatial distribution and variability of aquaculture activities between the northern and southern provinces based solely on coastline length is challenging."

 Revised : "Hence, it is challenging to solely explain the spatial distribution and variability of aquaculture activities between the northern and southern provinces based on coastline length alone."

Overall, the paper appears to be on track for acceptance. I recommend the manuscript for acceptance pending minor revisions.

Some sentences are quite lengthy and could be broken down for easier comprehension. Overall, while the language style effectively communicates the scientific content, minor improvements could enhance readability and flow.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The concerns have been addressed, the MS is acceptable in current form.