Land Surface Temperature Regulation Ecosystem Service: A Case Study of Jaipur, India, and the Urban Island of Jhalana Reserve Forest
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a basic examination of the effects of urban areas on temperature regimes. The authors have done a careful job gathering useful and illustrative data, and their figures are well chosen and clear. Their conclusions are also reasonable and straightforward, and they follow logically from the data they present.
The overall statistical analyses are a bit unclear, but it appears that each season's data are analyzed separately. The data would be better assessed in a single analysis rather than separate analyses for each season. If the current separate analyses are kept in the paper, then the p-values should be adjusted to reflect the multiple tests.
Figures with box plots (Figs. 3, 5, and 7) would benefit from improved graphics; specifically the numerical values within the plots are poor in quality. This can be fixed by pasted higher-quality graphics over those produced by the program used to generate these figures. Also, the grey-toned portions of the box plot would be more easily read if they were in black, and a darker color than yellow would be more clear for many people.
Specific comments:
The Introduction in Ll. 57-61 is muddled (e.g., it is unclear to what 'This demonstrates' refers), and this sort of basic information is not necessary in a paper. It would be better to start with ecosystem services and then explain your subject within that context.
For clarity and easy reference, put the numbers listed in ll. 112-114 in a small table.
I cannot figure out the meaning of the sentence on Ll. 125-128.
Similarly "we chose Landsat thermal bands based LST computations (ll.132-22) is unclear. Do you mean 'we chose Landsat thermal bands based on LST computations,' or something else?
I also cannot understand ll. 137-141; please rewrite these sentences for clarity.
L. 153: I think you mean this: The city boundary was used to delimit the urban areas. If so, please change the wording, and if not, explain what you do mean.
The paragraph starting on l. 194 is not clear, and I do not understand its meaning and am thus unable to provide suggestions for clarifying it.
A few writing errors:
Sentence on ll. 50-52 is incomplete.
Ll 52-54: rewrite for clarity.
L. 56-57: There should not be a comma between subject and verb or before the period at the end of the sentence.
L. 63: Modis-based daytime and nighttime LSTs....
L. 90: This was defined as a plural, so you should not use LST's, and if you did want to consider LST as singular then the plural would be LSTs. This error occurs in other places; do a word search to find them.
L. 92: Replace 'in respective of' with 'to examine.'
L. 124: Put a comma after 'analysis.'
L. 135: 'a mono-window algorithm'
L. 146: Use 'by' rather than 'as.' Also add 'as' before mentioned to make this phrase complete.
L. 192, 201, etc.: 'LST's' is a plural term, so correct verbs to agree with their subjects.
L. 194: This is a sentence fragment.
L. 220: Rewrite for clarity.
Clarify legend for Fig. 12, which does not currently explain the figure well.
L. 258: 'lower' not 'low' Also reword - 'witness' is not appropriate here.
Ll. 265-66: Unclear. How is the absence of crops differ from the presence of barren lands?
L. 289: Instillations??
L. 294-5 Should be 'services' rather than 'service.' Also, add a comma after 'climate' and remove the hyphen in 'heat-stress.'
Author Response
Reviewer 1 –
This is a basic examination of the effects of urban areas on temperature regimes. The authors have done a careful job gathering useful and illustrative data, and their figures are well chosen and clear. Their conclusions are also reasonable and straightforward, and they follow logically from the data they present.
The overall statistical analyses are a bit unclear, but it appears that each season's data are analyzed separately. The data would be better assessed in a single analysis rather than separate analyses for each season. If the current separate analyses are kept in the paper, then the p-values should be adjusted to reflect the multiple tests.
- Very small p values are mentioned as in scientific notations.
Figures with box plots (Figs. 3, 5, and 7) would benefit from improved graphics; specifically the numerical values within the plots are poor in quality. This can be fixed by pasted higher-quality graphics over those produced by the program used to generate these figures. Also, the grey-toned portions of the box plot would be more easily read if they were in black, and a darker color than yellow would be more clear for many people.- Font size increased and improved the scientific notations of p-values.
Specific comments:
The Introduction in Ll. 57-61 is muddled (e.g., it is unclear to what 'This demonstrates' refers), and this sort of basic information is not necessary in a paper. It would be better to start with ecosystem services and then explain your subject within that context. - Have now made into next paragraph and combined with the one with the examples of the explanation about excosystem services.
For clarity and easy reference, put the numbers listed in ll. 112-114 in a small table. - Now included as Table 1.
I cannot figure out the meaning of the sentence on Ll. 125-128. - “Satellite sensor data of Landsat – 5 (Thematic Mapper), Landsat – 7 (Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus) and Landsat – 8 (Operational Land Imager and Thermal Infrared Scanner) imagery are utilized for measurement of surface temperature and analyzing biophysical parameters [50]” – this allows the reader to know exactly from which datasets the data we have derived.
Similarly "we chose Landsat thermal bands based LST computations (ll.132-22) is unclear. Do you mean 'we chose Landsat thermal bands based on LST computations,' or something else? - Yes. Thank you.
I also cannot understand ll. 137-141; please rewrite these sentences for clarity.
- As explained in the next sentence, owing to failures in the satellite data we have calculated data from Landsat 5 and 7 accordingly.
- 153: I think you mean this: The city boundary was used to delimit the urban areas. If so, please change the wording, and if not, explain what you do mean. - changed as suggested
The paragraph starting on l. 194 is not clear, and I do not understand its meaning and am thus unable to provide suggestions for clarifying it. - Reworded and the two sentences coalesced. Hope now the message is understandable.
A few writing errors:
Sentence on ll. 50-52 is incomplete. - Thank you. Corrected.
Ll 52-54: rewrite for clarity. - merged with previous sentence. A full-stop was not in the correct place.
- 56-57: There should not be a comma between subject and verb or before the period at the end of the sentence. - Deleted.
- 63: Modis-based daytime and nighttime LSTs.... - Corrected
- 90: This was defined as a plural, so you should not use LST's, and if you did want to consider LST as singular then the plural would be LSTs. This error occurs in other places; do a word search to find them. - Thank you. Corrected throughout.
- 92: Replace 'in respective of' with 'to examine.' - Corrected
- 124: Put a comma after 'analysis.' - Corrected
- 135: 'a mono-window algorithm' -- Corrected
- 146: Use 'by' rather than 'as.' Also add 'as' before mentioned to make this phrase complete. - Corrected
- 192, 201, etc.: 'LST's' is a plural term, so correct verbs to agree with their subjects. – Corrected throughout
- 194: This is a sentence fragment. – Rewritten.
- 220: Rewrite for clarity. - Reworded
Clarify legend for Fig. 12, which does not currently explain the figure well. - Corrected
- 258: 'lower' not 'low' Also reword - 'witness' is not appropriate here. – Corrected; replaced witnesses with “has”
Ll. 265-66: Unclear. How is the absence of crops differ from the presence of barren lands? – deleted “presence of” and hope it makes the reasoning clear.
- 289: Instillations?? – replaced with infrastructure
- 294-5 Should be 'services' rather than 'service.' Also, add a comma after 'climate' and remove the hyphen in 'heat-stress.' - - Corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
The article "Land Surface Temperature Regulation Ecosystem Service: A Case Study of Jaipur, India, and the Urban Island of Jhalana Forest Reserve" is of great importance for publication by this journal. The role of the forest as a heat sink is absent, which is very important for greener city programs.
Here are some considerations:
- The Introduction must clearly state that this is a study comparing urban and rural areas. Throughout it, inform which studies cited relate to urban or rural areas.
- About the objectives (lines 87-91): rewrite to leave only one objective.
- Line 103: A. senegal, change to Acacia senegal.
- If you have photos of JRF, it would be interesting to insert them so that we can observe the vegetation and its limits with the city.
- Lines 171-172: inform why you used the Kruskal-Wallis test - were data non-parametric?
- Lines 187-189: also say about JRF.
- In the discussion, it became clear why in rural areas there may be higher LST. But in cities, could not gray areas (built-up) increase the LST? Discuss about this.
- Line 294, in addition to references 55 and 56, you could cite a work from every other area of ​​the planet, which agrees with your sentence, for example:
https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10064
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083235
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00023-6
- Finally, Lines 302 -307, including Table 3, move to your introduction.
Author Response
Reviewer 2 –
The article "Land Surface Temperature Regulation Ecosystem Service: A Case Study of Jaipur, India, and the Urban Island of Jhalana Forest Reserve" is of great importance for publication by this journal. The role of the forest as a heat sink is absent, which is very important for greener city programs. – Thank you
Here are some considerations:
- The Introduction must clearly state that this is a study comparing urban and rural areas. Throughout it, inform which studies cited relate to urban or rural areas. – Now included in introduction and Discussion
- About the objectives (lines 87-91): rewrite to leave only one objective.- Second objective deleted
- Line 103: A. senegal, change to Acacia senegal. – Changed
- If you have photos of JRF, it would be interesting to insert them so that we can observe the vegetation and its limits with the city. - Now included
- Lines 171-172: inform why you used the Kruskal-Wallis test - were data non-parametric? - Added sentence: ‘since the data does not have fixed parameters and hence cannot be modeled because it is sample observation data from satellite imagery’
- Lines 187-189: also say about JRF. – Now included.
- In the discussion, it became clear why in rural areas there may be higher LST. But in cities, could not gray areas (built-up) increase the LST? Discuss about this. Added sentence in the lines : ‘In contrast, Urban areas exhibit lower LSTs in other seasons than rural surroundings since convection gets more efficient compared to rural areas containing bare soils mainly by presence of trees and gardens and also by building shade which reduces incident solar radiation in Urban areas’ along with reference Rasul et al. 2017.
- Line 294, in addition to references 55 and 56, you could cite a work from every other area of ​​the planet, which agrees with your sentence, for example:
https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10064
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083235
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00023-6
- All three now included
- Finally, Lines 302 -307, including Table 3, move to your introduction. – Moved and reworded accordingly.
