Spatiotemporal Dynamic Characteristics of Land Use in the Typical Watershed of Wenchuan Earthquake-Affected Areas—A Case Study in the Longxi River Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper reports a study aiming at the characteristics of land use change in the Longxi river basin before and after the Wenchuan earthquake. This is an original and interesting topic presenting both research and practice issues. 

English language in general is OK, but needs final reading by any English expert. The methodology of the study looks to be quite comprehensive. The results have been well presented with 6 tables and 5 figures. The applied methodology is mainly well documented and transparent and also the results shown in tables and figures are clearly explained and interpreted in the text. The conclusions drawn are consistent with the presented findings. Because its structure and content are relevant with a great effort from the authors to provide an accomplished manuscript, I recommend its publication with very minor revision with through editing. My general remarks and suggestions are detailed below. 

 

Specific comments:

Please control the number of words in the abstract, it is a little redundant.

The introduction is well documented but the authors should introduce the effects of major disturbances on land use and land cover change more carefully.

Specific comments:

L133: Forest land or forest? Please make sure.

L134: Please introduce the components of unutilized land.

L693: In all table, grass land should be changed to “grassland”. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment: Response to Reviewer 1 Comments.docx

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript uses high-resolution remote sensing to compare Land use and land cover (LULC) change in the Longxi River basin in the Wenchuan earthquake Affected area. The manuscript shows that a lot of work has been done, and LULC change before and after the earthquake has been demonstrated in great detail. The research results maybe provide information for ecological restoration, ecological security, and soil erosion control in earthquake-affected area. This is an interesting and useful topic. However, there are still doubts to be clarified as follows:

1) Line 141-145: What types of spectra do "The spectral profiles of six categories"  refer to?  If they refer to  spectra of a pixel in the remote sensing image, you should point out the sampling location of  six categories.

2) You make sure that "Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University" or "Key Laboratory for Forest Ecosystem Process and Management of Fujian Province“  has authorization of ENVI5.3 and ArcGIS 10.9 softwares.

3) Whether the classification of remote sensing images can confirm LULC change. And the manuscript lacks the data of field investigation.

4) Line 281-295: How to determine the gravity center changes in 6 land use types during the period of 2005 to 2015?

5) Could you speculate on the causes of LULC change?

In short, this manuscript is well structured. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of this paper is very interesting, and the choice of research area is also very suitable for the this topic. This paper focuses on the changes of land use types in small and medium-sized regions after the Wenchuan earthquake and in the later recovery process, and obtains interesting and valuable research results. The research is very meaningful.

However, the paper has the following problems that need to be improved.

1. The abstract needs to be further simplified and condensed.

2. The interpretation results of remote sensing images in 2009 are very important for the presentation of the whole article. However, compared with other years, the 2009 remote sensing image has obvious differences in spatial resolution and temporal phase, which reduces the persuasiveness of the article. Suggest whether the author can make some improvements.

3. Figure 2 should be presented in results section, not the method section.

4. It is suggested to add the remote sensing image map of the study area, so that readers can have an intuitive impression of the distribution of the ground objects in the study area.

5. In Figure 4, the results of each phase show an obviously relatively stable spatial structure. It is suggested to add the content of relative analysis and discussion.

6. The conclusion needs to be further refined to highlight the main conclusions and views of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This article took the Longxi river basin as a typical region to study the characteristics of land use change before and after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, using 4 different remote sensing satellite images, and calculated land use dynamics, degree, transition matrix, and gravity center using spatial analysis in ArcGIS. 

(1) The data selected in this paper are Quickbird in 2005 and 2011, SPOT-5 in 2009 and Worldview-2 in 2015. The imaging date of the four images is different, including February, April and June. Will this effect on the data analysis results?

(2) Please explain the cloud's effect on the data analysis.

(3) Please show whether there is original content in theoretical analysis of the article?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

In this manuscript, the authors present a study on the land use change in Longxi river basin before and after the Wenchuan earthquake. This work is interesting and worth publishing. The paper is well organized. I would like to suggest some changes before the publication of the paper. First, there are some typos throughout the paper. For example, the scripts of the variables in Eq. (2) and in line 172 are not consistent. "Where" in line 172 should also be revised as "where". The legends of Fig. 2 are not clear enough. Second, the reason why the Wenchuan earthquake causes this land use change in Longxi river basin should be summarized in the conclusion section.

Overall, the manuscript addresses an interesting problem and should deserve attention; however, further review is expected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made appropriate modifications and improved the quality of their papers. Recommended acceptance

Reviewer 5 Report

There is no further question.