Delineating Non-Susceptible Landslide Areas in China Based on Topographic Index and Quantile Non-Linear Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Respected authors, 

After reading your manuscript “Delineating Non-Susceptible Landslide Areas in China Based on Topographic Index and Quantile Non-Linear Model,” I have the following comments.

• The authors should rewrite the Abstract section, avoiding exceeding the 200-word maximum required by Forests journal and making it more attractive for its readers.
• Since the authors defined the abbreviation of QNL in line 14, it is unnecessary to explain it again in line 21.
• The format of references in the text should be as indicated in the “Instructions for Authors” section of the Forests journal.
• The authors should cite Figure 1 in the text.
• Do the authors refer to the topographic index as the slope and relief of the land? Please define the “topographic index” concept used in this work. The authors probably described it, but I did not catch it.
• The authors should provide detailed information about the fuzzy logic model used in their work and how they applied it.
• What are the restrictions/constraints of the models used?
• Figure 8 needs to clarify which data correspond to each of the models evaluated by the authors. In other words, do inner data correspond to those obtained by the Italian or Chinese models?
• In lines 172-174, the authors indicated that they used the data obtained from the QNL_ITA model to validate the data obtained by the QNL_CHN model. However, the criteria used for this need to be clarified. What about the data validation of the fuzzy logic model? How was the quality of the data assured?
• Which of the evaluated models, fuzzy logic and QNL_CHN models, provides more accurate and reliable data? Please discuss your answer.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your kind letter and for reviewers’ constructive comments concerning our article (Manuscript No.: forests-2917830).These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. All the authors have seriously discussed about all these comments. According to the reviewers’ comments, we have tried best to modify our manuscript to meet with the requirements of your journal. In this revised version, changes to our manuscript within the document were all highlighted by using red colored text. Point-by-point responses to the reviewers are listed below this letter.

Reviewer 1

Respected authors,

After reading your manuscript “Delineating Non-Susceptible Landslide Areas in China Based on Topographic Index and Quantile Non-Linear Model,” I have the following comments.

1. The authors should rewrite the Abstract section, avoiding exceeding the 200-word maximum required by Forests journal and making it more attractive for its readers.

Authors’ response: Yes. We have rewritten the abstract section based on your comment.

2. Since the authors defined the abbreviation of QNL in line 14, it is unnecessary to explain it again in line 21.

Authors’ response: Yes. We have revised it based on your comment.

3. The format of references in the text should be as indicated in the “Instructions for Authors” section of the Forests journal.

Authors’ response: Yes. We have revised the format of references in the text.

4. The authors should cite Figure 1 in the text.

Authors’ response: Yes. We have cited Figure 1 in the text.

5. Do the authors refer to the topographic index as the slope and relief of the land? Please define the “topographic index” concept used in this work. The authors probably described it, but I did not catch it.

Authors’ response: Yes. We have define the “topographic index” in the abstract and main text.

6. The authors should provide detailed information about the fuzzy logic model used in their work and how they applied it.

Authors’ response: Yes. We have added the relevant details in the main text.

7. What are the restrictions/constraints of the models used?

Authors’ response: Yes. We have added the relevant discussion in the discussion section. The relevant content can be observed in line 378-414.

8. Figure 8 needs to clarify which data correspond to each of the models evaluated by the authors. In other words, do inner data correspond to those obtained by the Italian or Chinese models?

Authors’ response: Yes. We have revised it.

9. In lines 172-174, the authors indicated that they used the data obtained from the QNL_ITA model to validate the data obtained by the QNL_CHN model. However, the criteria used for this need to be clarified. What about the data validation of the fuzzy logic model? How was the quality of the data assured?

Authors’ response: In this study, the QNL_ITA model is developed based on 13 regional geomorphological, event, and multi-temporal inventory maps to fit non-susceptibility landslide models for Italy. On the other hand, the QNL_CHN model is established using landslide records from the East Asia area of the Global Landslide Catalog (GLC). The main difference between these two models lies in the distinct landslide datasets utilized, leading to disparities in the regression parameters of the QNL model. Additionally, the fuzzy logic model is derived from the regression of global landslide records from the Global Landslide Catalog (GLC). This model considers factors such as slope, faults, geology, forest loss, and road networks that may contribute to landslide occurrences. However, due to the lack of a comprehensive landslide database for the China region, quantitative validation of the model's accuracy is not feasible. We have added relevant descriptions in the discussion section to address this limitation.

10. Which of the evaluated models, fuzzy logic and QNL_CHN models, provides more accurate and reliable data? Please discuss your answer.

Authors’ response: Yes. We have added the relevant discussion in the discussion section. The relevant content can be observed in line 378-414.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

From the title and abstract it is understood that the purpose of this paper is the delineating Non-Susceptible Landslide Areas in China Based on Topographic Index and Quantile Non-Linear Model. Taking into account the large differences between the results obtained, based on the methods applied, I consider that this has not been achieved. The differences between the applied methods are major and thus, a map that clearly defines non-susceptible landslides areas did not result.

To meet the purpose of the research, I recommend the application of other methods (corroborated even with InSAR methods) or the modification of the purpose of this paper (which could be a critical analysis of the methods/data introduced in the study).

Other minor suggestions in the attached file.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your kind letter and for reviewers’ constructive comments concerning our article (Manuscript No.: forests-2917830).These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. All the authors have seriously discussed about all these comments. According to the reviewers’ comments, we have tried best to modify our manuscript to meet with the requirements of your journal. In this revised version, changes to our manuscript within the document were all highlighted by using red colored text. Point-by-point responses to the reviewers are listed below this letter.

Reviewer 2

Dear Authors,

1. From the title and abstract it is understood that the purpose of this paper is the delineating Non-Susceptible Landslide Areas in China Based on Topographic Index and Quantile Non-Linear Model. Taking into account the large differences between the results obtained, based on the methods applied, I consider that this has not been achieved. The differences between the applied methods are major and thus, a map that clearly defines non-susceptible landslides areas did not result. To meet the purpose of the research, I recommend the application of other methods (corroborated even with InSAR methods) or the modification of the purpose of this paper (which could be a critical analysis of the methods/data introduced in the study). If this option is desired, I recommend the significant development of this section and the conclusions part.

Authors’ response: Yes, we have added relevant analysis and discussion based on your comments. We compared and analyzed the prediction results of different Quantile Non Linear models, and in the discussion section, we analyzed the reasons for the differences in model results. The relevant content can be observed in Lines 341-369 and Lines 378-414.

Other minor suggestions in the attached file.

Best regards.

2. Line 101-104 In some cases you use the first author followed by et.al., in others you write all authors. You should be consistent and keep the same format.

Authors’ response: Yes. We have revised the format of references.

3. Line 167 S, R, ... should be written with italics (to be differentiated from the rest of the text)

Authors’ response: Yes. We have revised it.

4. Line 218 there is no table 1, are you referring to figure 4?

Authors’ response: Yes. We have revised it.

5. Line 310-312 these phrases are repeated.

Authors’ response: Yes. We have revised it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all my comments. Thus I do not have any other coments for this manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I believe that the revised version of the paper can be accepted for publication. I congratulate you.