Habitat Quality Assessment in the Yellow River Delta Based on Remote Sensing and Scenario Analysis for Land Use/Land Cover
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript, the authors examined the habitat quality of the YRD region based on past and future land use with the help of land use change modelling. The manuscript's structure is logical, and the figures and graphs are of adequate quality.
The authors build the logical arc of not only the entire article but also the individual chapters well, making the text easy to read. Although the YRD region is a well-researched area from an economic development point of view, this article provides a new perspective on the processes.
Basically, I would like to make three comments about the manuscript:
1/ The PLUS modelling environment selected for land use change modelling is little known, perhaps the authors could include additional references (preferably in the English language) to its application in the text. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly an advantage that it is freely available software that anyone can try.
2/ The description of the three scenarios used in land use modelling is inadequate. It would be nice to know the differences between them and how the authors incorporated them into the model.
3/ The Discussion section should be expanded, including references to similar research carried out worldwide, trying to highlight differences or similarities in approaches and/or results.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We appreciate the valuable comments from you. We addressed each of your comments in the revised manuscript. Please see the attachment（Responses to reviewer #1.docx）.
We also appreciate your helpful suggestions. If you have any further suggestions for changes, please let us know.
Kind regards,
Yubin Liu，
Qilu Normal University
Wenbo Road 2#, Zhangqiu District, Jinan, Shandong,P.R. China
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
The manuscript presents an important analysis of habitat quality assessment in the Yellow River Delta based on remote sensing, in China. The article fits the scope and is unpublished for the study region. It is an interesting manuscript, but the manuscript must be improved. The manuscript can be accepted after attending the suggestions. Next, I place my suggestions:
Keywords: I suggest using more common and simple keywords. You can use the WOS or Scopus databases to see which keywords have the largest number of documents, which is understood as the most widely used in the scientific world. Personally, I do not see attractive to use the extensive keywords (It's just a suggestion, It's not mandatory. I leave it at the judgment of the authors).
Introduction: The authors require to place a general context of the different LULC changes worldwide. It is necessary to expand this section. For example, perform the overview of the effects on LULC in different parts of the world, associated with agricultural expansion, urban expansion and engineering projects such as access, energy, among others. I place several manuscripts that can help develop this: Agricultural expansion (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606377103, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111374109), Urban expansion (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.143), Engineering projects (https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10030191, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9100583).
The goal of the paper is not clear. I suggest leaving only the general objective and close the paragraph with a justification of what the study will be the study
The Figure 1 needs to be improved. I suggest that the countries around the study area. This thinking more of your non-Asia readers, who may not be very familiar with the territory of Asia. I suggest showing China's neighboring countries. The red border is too thick, they should decrease it
The titles of all the figures should be more explanatory
Conclusion: This section should be synthesized. Comment exclusively as relevant. This section must respond to the objective of the paper, since the objective is not clear, I do not see the conclusions very clearly.
The manuscript must be written impersonally. Check the terms “We”, check lines 346 and 354
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We appreciate the valuable comments from you. We addressed each of your comments in the revised manuscript. Please see the attachment（Responses to reviewer #2.docx）.
We also appreciate your helpful suggestions. If you have any further suggestions for changes, please let us know.
Kind regards,
Yubin Liu，
Qilu Normal University
Wenbo Road 2#, Zhangqiu District, Jinan, Shandong,P.R. China
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have systematically undergone the manuscript. The study is well-designed and includes formation, methodology, and data quality issues. However, a few revisions are required before publication.
o The abstract section needs to be improved highlighting the study’s important findings.
o Introduction section requires adding some recent publications. Authors can refer to these interesting papers.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10030191
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610221
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031630
o The methodology section is very weak it does not clearly state what methods have been followed for the computer-based classification of land use/ cover. Similarly, if the author can prepare a flowchart of the methods adopted for the habitat quality assessment it would be easy for the reader to understand.
o The conclusion section should be short and precise, clearly stating the study's findings, and not include a general statement.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We appreciate the valuable comments from you. We addressed each of your comments in the revised manuscript. Please see the attachment（Responses to reviewer #3.docx）.
We also appreciate your helpful suggestions. If you have any further suggestions for changes, please let us know.
Kind regards,
Yubin Liu，
Qilu Normal University
Wenbo Road 2#, Zhangqiu District, Jinan, Shandong,P.R. China
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
This is the second revision of the manuscript, the authors attended to all the suggestions made. It presents a case study and, as far as I can be competent to judge, it is a good paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been improved in the revised version and it can be accepted.
