Research on the Coastal Landscape Pattern Index in the District of Nansha
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There are spelling mistakes and repetitions in the manuscript, please check and correct (i.e line 160, 274)
Author Response
Response 1:Spelling errors and duplicates in the manuscript have been corrected.(i.e line 160, 274)
Response 2:It is difficult to capture the flow direction and intermediate process of landscape type transformation from the first and last changes in land area.(line160)
The main purpose of this paper is to study the index of landscape ecological pattern,To Identifing the ecological risks of the Nansha coastal landscape and evaluate their ecological vulnerability.(line274)
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitles "A Study on Landscape Pattern Index of Coastal Zone: The Case of Nansha District" by Xiaojuan et al. reports
an interesting overview of the relationship between changes in landscape pattern and ecological processes in the coastal zone of the Nansha District
taking in consideration the consequence of urban development and giving insights for sustainable development of the ecological environment of the urban cluster based on the integration of 33
sea and land. Therefore, I believe that this manuscript will be of great interest for the readers of "Sustainability".
Introduction includes and summarizes relevant references, material and methods are clearly stated, results and discussion are well explained.
I have few suggestions:
- Figures 2-3-4 are too small and the numbers can be barely seen
- in Table 5 and 6, all the labels and abbreviation should be explained in the figures/caption, the tables/figures should be self-explanatory with the captions
Author Response
Point 1: Figures 2-3-4 are too small and the numbers can be barely seen
Response 1:Figures 2-3-4 have been replaced with high-definition images
Point 2:In Table 5 and 6, all the labels and abbreviation should be explained in the figures/caption, the tables/figures should be self-explanatory with the captions
Response 2:The labels and abbreviations in Tables 5-6 are explained in the chart and the icons are accompanied by corresponding headings.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I have carefully reviewed the submission about the determination of spatial and temporal changes in landscape patterns in the coastal urban coastal zone of Nansha district, Guangdong Province, China. The authors presented the data with tables and figures in detail. The text is generally written briefly and concisely. However, I noticed there are some repetitions in the text. These parts should be revised to it rising the flow of the text for the reader. By the way, I recommend moving tab 2 to the supplementary section. I indicated my other comments in the text. In my opinion, the article should be worth publishing after minor revision. Best regards,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: Have carefully reviewed the submission about the determination of spatial and temporal changes in landscape patterns in the coastal urban coastal zone of Nansha district, Guangdong Province, China. The authors presented the data with tables and figures in detail. The text is generally written briefly and concisely. However, I noticed there are some repetitions in the text. These parts should be revised to it rising the flow of the text for the reader. By the way, I recommend moving tab 2 to the supplementary section. I indicated my other comments in the text. In my opinion, the article should be worth publishing after minor revision. Best regards.
Response 1:Double-check the article, modify the partial structure and duplicate parts of the article.
Move Table 2 to the supplementary section
Response 2:Other modifications are contained in the annex
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Title: A Study on Landscape Pattern Index of Coastal Zone: The Case of Nansha District
Manuscript Number: sustainability-2163381
This paper concerns a study about the landscape pattern index of Coastal Zone, Nansha District from 1987 to 2020. All in all, before this manuscript can be published, a major revision is needed. Please, see my detailed comments below and find the detail comments in the attached file the amendments which I believe are required prior to considering the paper.
General comments:
Comment 1: Abstract, this section should be more concise, some sentences and words should be enhanced and strengthen the significant findings.
Comment 2: Introduction. Divide the first paragraph into two paragraphs, it is too long. Moreover, the lit. review needs to be developed to situate the case study in the broader literature.
Comment 3: Specifically, a detail information is missed in this section 1.2.1. Which two data and sources? with a slice interval of approximately 5 years, which years? I found in Figure 3, it is not with a slice interval of 5-year. Moreover, the sources? Spatial resolution. Dara processing, “accuracy determination to ensure the correct 112
classification rate of over 70%.” And in the conclusion, “The precise value of carry- ing landscape type is raised to 70% as the benchmark”, which? The detail information is needed, how to acquire the results?
Comment 4: Research method. The method part is not clear, this section should be enhanced.
Comment 5: Results section. The detail information and introduction is needed. To many words of “A large amount of”, “a small amount of”, “a large number of”. They should be avoided and used to many, instead of the figures in a research paper. Moreover, some section of the manuscript needs to be restructured and enhanced as a result. For example, the table 3 is strange, and figures in the table 3 and the content is not clear. Section 3.3.1, “In general, due to the accelerated urbanization, the spatial pattern of landscape types and their composition on land tends to be more complex, especially in the central urban area, while the water patches still maintain the dominant landscape categories.” It is not clear and understand for the readers. 4, discussion, “marine resources” which？
Comment 6: I stop correcting editoral things like grammar/wrong tenses, format, language style, punctuation, symbols, references et cet. This is not my task but should have been done by the authors before submission and checked by the editor team at MDPI before sensing out a manuscript to the reviewers.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1:Abstract, this section should be more concise, some sentences and words should be enhanced and strengthen the significant findings.
Response 1:Enhance meaningful discoveries with greater clarity
Point 2:: Introduction. Divide the first paragraph into two paragraphs, it is too long. Moreover, the lit. review needs to be developed to situate the case study in the broader literature.
Response 2:The introduction has been divided into two paragraphs, with a few additional cases
Point 3: Specifically, a detail information is missed in this section 1.2.1. Which two data and sources? with a slice interval of approximately 5 years, which years? I found in Figure 3, it is not with a slice interval of 5-year. Moreover, the sources? Spatial resolution. Dara processing, “accuracy determination to ensure the correct 112
classification rate of over 70%.” And in the conclusion, “The precise value of carry- ing landscape type is raised to 70% as the benchmark”, which? The detail information is needed, how to acquire the results?
Response3:Add two data sources of land use are satellite remote sensing data and UAV orthophoto data.
Modify to the time slice of the data.
In the conclusion,classification rate of over 70%.
Point 4: Research method. The method part is not clear, this section should be enhanced.
Response 4:The research methodology is clearly emphasized in the article
Point 5: Results section. The detail information and introduction is needed. To many words of “A large amount of”, “a small amount of”, “a large number of”. They should be avoided and used to many, instead of the figures in a research paper. Moreover, some section of the manuscript needs to be restructured and enhanced as a result. For example, the table 3 is strange, and figures in the table 3 and the content is not clear. Section 3.3.1, “In general, due to the accelerated urbanization, the spatial pattern of landscape types and their composition on land tends to be more complex, especially in the central urban area, while the water patches still maintain the dominant landscape categories.” It is not clear and understand for the readers. 4, discussion, “marine resources” which？
Response 5:Strengthen the structure of the article and explain the contents of Table 3.
3.3.1“In general, due to the accelerated urbanization, the spatial pattern of landscape types and their composition on land tends to be more complex, especially in the central urban area, while the water patches still maintain the dominant landscape categories.”modified ：Therefore，Urbanization construction and ecological protection of water landscape are the research topics of sustainable development in Nansha District
Point6: I stop correcting editoral things like grammar/wrong tenses, format, language style, punctuation, symbols, references et cet. This is not my task but should have been done by the authors before submission and checked by the editor team at MDPI before sensing out a manuscript to the reviewers.
Response 6:The article has been professionally revised
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Much improved. Whereas there are a number of typographic errors (punctuation, space, capital or lowercase) that should be caught before submission. Moreover, the English language and styles must be greatly enhanced.
Special comments:
-Figure 1: North Arrow should be improved.
-The title name of the table should be in the front of the table.
-Figure 3: The figures in the table should be improved.
-Figure 4: The text number is wrong, they are "A, B,C,D,E,F......" instead of "A, B,A,B,C,D......". No explation in the title of the Figure.
-Figure 5: No unites in the y-label, "m2, or km2".
-Figure 6: The quality of the figure should be greatly enhanced. The errors have not revised enough in the frist review.
-Figure 7: No unites in the y-label, "m2, or km2".
-Figure 8: No unites in the y-label, "m2, or km2".
-References: should be carefully checked.
-Table 2: No grassland & green land in 1987, the change amount "76001571.19" is really?
Author Response
Point 1:Much improved. Whereas there are a number of typographic errors (punctuation, space, capital or lowercase) that should be caught before submission. Moreover, the English language and styles must be greatly enhanced.
Response 1:Correct typographical errors in the text.And let English professionals control English language and style to improve English level
Point 2:Figure 1: North Arrow should be improved.
Response 2:Figure 1,North Arrow has been improved.
Point 3:The title name of the table should be in the front of the table.
Response 3:The title of the table has been changed to the front of the table
Point 4:Figure 3: The figures in the table should be improved.
Response 4:Figure 3,The figures in the table have been improved.
Point 5:Figure 4: The text number is wrong, they are "A, B,C,D,E,F......" instead of "A, B,A,B,C,D......". No explation in the title of the Figure.
Response 5:The text number in Figure 4 has been changed.
Point 6:Figure 5: No unites in the y-label, "m2, or km2".
Response 6:Figure 5,Add unites in the y-label.(㎡）
Point 7:Figure 6: The quality of the figure should be greatly enhanced. The errors have not revised enough in the frist review.
Response 7:The quality of Figure 6 has been greatly improved.
Point 8:Figure 7: No unites in the y-label, "m2, or km2".
Response 8:Figure 7,Add unites in the y-label.(k㎡）
Point 9:Figure 8: No unites in the y-label, "m2, or km2".
Response 9:Figure 8,Add unites in the y-label.(k㎡）
Point 10:References: should be carefully checked.
Response 10:References have been carefully reviewed for revision
Point 11:Table 2: No grassland & green land in 1987, the change amount "76001571.19" is really?
Response 11:grassland & green land in 1987：68981610.5，the change amount 7019960.574.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
