Investigating Forest Cover Change Using Historical GIS Technologies: A Case Study with an Example of Jurbarkas District of the Republic of Lithuania
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Puziene, Sustainability
My overall reaction to the article is positive, and feel that it should be published with only modest alteration. The manuscript is a tour de force in geospatial data acquisition, synthesis, analysis, and presentation. Here is an enormous effort offering clear foundational value to other researchers, not only for the resulting maps and trends, but also for the general approach. The work paints an unprecedented detailed picture of Lithuanian forests trends. I found no major deficiencies, and all my comments range from “minor suggestion” to copy-editing.
The narrative is obviously very long, so suggestions of adding anything else must be limited by that. (It is so extended and structurally complex an index would be useful!) It is bothersome for an uninformed reviewer to explicitly or implicitly “change the purpose or parameters” of submitted work, and to assume that suggestions for additions are feasible. Thus the following suggestion is merely a general sense that limited broadening of the context might be a plus if doing so is possible and does not impact the basic purpose of the article. As a reader I wondered about details of the forests, such as dominant tree species and their distributional uniformity; and about edaphic/geologic variables influencing forests and agriculture other than slope; and about predominant crops and agricultural trends; and about social-industrial-demographic trends such as demand for forest and agricultural products; what are the patterns of land ownership? Are forests mostly on public lands? Do changing demographics matter? All that said, of course such associated interesting variables are infinite, and if the author’s opinion is to maintain sharp boundaries around the data analysis as it stands, that seems reasonable and acceptable.
Editorial notes:
Title: Although future researchers may apply the results to climate change management, I do not see, “the context of climate change management” in the present paper.
Line 96: replace comma with period
199: wouldn’t Jurbakas be in group V, not group I?
208: only 11 names listed, not 12
213 and beyond: is the term “massif” used correctly?
229: the reference to German border is confusing to contemporary faraway reader. Historic E. Prussia?
254: typo
304, 305 and through manuscript, including captions: change 1nd to 1st
309: Change “insanely” to “inconveniently” or “bewilderingly” or “excessively dense” or similar term
Fig. 4. As the paper is already very long, could the Python code be moved online into supplementary data? Also, is a screenshot needed, or could the just be presented as text?
346: “worthless” seems an overstatement , if preserved as “forest,” temporarily clear areas have future worth
Forests mostly on public lands?
Page 13. How is land favorable for agriculture defined? Flatness alone?
P. 13 etc. Are forest fires an issue? Are there prescribed burns?
Table 6 is redundant within itself. The info could be mentioned in the narrative instead of a table. Alternatively, tables 6 and 7 could be combined.
P. 23. What types of trees are very old? Mostly oaks?
Table 11 Caption not clear that the numbers represent percent change in the given time period. It might help to look at all the table captions with an eye to clarification so that the reader does not have to determine the details of the table from the text narrative.
Table 12 caption is confusing in relation to Table 11. It would help to be more specific than, “in percent of the forest area,” and the line 816 referencing that table, “in relation to former forest cover areas.” Is the Juodaiciai Eldership up in column 5 356.7% over its all-time lowest coverage? What is the reference point? No doubt this is clear to the author, but other readers may stumble as I have in interpreting Table 12, its caption, and references to it in the text. The full derivation of the numbers should be in the caption.
Line 822 exactly which Elderships? On line 824 where did the 8.4% come from?
Line 828: “future” repeated redundantly
Table 13. Indicate units in caption (years)
Fig. 16-top portion: blue color code used twice. This a problem in other figure(s) too. Can the color coding be more differentiated?
Throughout, would it simplify reading to establish easily remembered abbreviations for the time periods at the beginning of the paper, something like “1st half of the 20th century” = 20-1, the second half being 20-2, etc? Maybe that would make reading easier, especially the column headings in tables.
Table 15. That info could be merged into the text with no table needed. Or merged with Table 16.
Is Fig. 19 needed? That info could be stated in the narrative.
Line 1260, 1261: percent signs missing
Line 1314: word “forests” missing?
Could a list of all software and packages used be added in one place to the online supplementary data? And web addresses for data sources all brought into one list?
A difficulty of a descriptive paper, and who would expect otherwise?---is ending with a compelling conclusion. So much easier to end with a “bang” when the purpose is to convince readers of a theoretical point. I’m not suggesting any problem whatsoever with such a descriptive data-presentation paper, but maybe there is a way to give the conclusion a little more “punch” somehow, rather than mere ending with percentages? Maybe a verbal summary of major trends (without repeating individual statistics) along with where the trends may lead. Maybe suggestion for future research with the missing tie-in here with climate change---how can your analysis be applied to that? Maybe something about the intersection of past forest trends and emerging social/economic/political/technical trends?
In any case, congratulations on a masterpiece of geospatial data science! I look forward to seeing the finished paper, and hope it serves as an example and foundation for forest science in Lithuania and far beyond.
Author Response
Please find attached the reply to the reviewer comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article contains an attempt to use GIS tools to assess long-term changes in the area of forest areas in Lithuania.
However, certain aspects of the work require clarification and supplementation.
Is DEM as TIN or GRID? If GRID, what is the spatial resolution and why was thinning used? How many points were removed during thinning? If TIN, why was it used?
Chapter 3.1 does not contain geostatistical analyses, only a simple description of slopes and aspect in the analyzed area. Line 443 states that the aspect was determined by slope reclassification, which should be corrected. I believe that the term aspect (or land exposure) should be used when describing slope directions.
Table 2 - What is the basis for the division into unequal terrain slope classes with values above 13%? And why is it different from the one used in Figure 7?
Table 3 - Why were angles 320-39.9 (40-129.9, ...) used and not 315-45 when specifying aspects? Additionally, the names of the cardinal directions require improvement.
The uncertainty of the results obtained requires explanation, especially in the case of historical maps. It can be assumed that on a paper map scale of 1:100,000, the accuracy of reading the location of a point from such a map is +- 50 m. (It is difficult to say what it is for 19th-century Russian maps). The question then arises whether a change in area by, for example, 1% is significant or whether it is smaller than the error resulting from the inaccuracy of first mapping and then digitizing the maps.
Table 21 What does "Percentages of forest cover area" and values greater than 180 mean?
What does the term "ward" mean, for example in Figure 25?
I think the title of the work needs to be changed. The author did not refer in any way to climate change, mentioned in the title of the work. Moreover, there is no description of the climatic conditions of the analyzed area.
Also the first part of the title is difficult to understand.
Author Response
Please find attached the reply to the reviewer comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The title is too long, it is recommended to refine it and highlight the main research methods and innovative features.
2. I suggest the author rewrite the abstract to strengthen the main findings and contributions of the research, especially with quantitative research conclusions.
3. The review of literature research progress should focus on "research" rather than just work progress.
4. The map is poorly drawn, for example, Figure 1 requires necessary mapping elements such as legend, scale, longitude and latitude, and compass.
5. The accuracy of various data sources in different historical periods needs to be carefully considered and demonstrated, especially whether they can be compared in the same context.
6. Python programming statements should not be placed in the main text, nor should they be directly screenshot displayed. It is recommended to display them in the form of supplementary materials in the appendix.
7. The description of research methods lacks organization. It is recommended to discuss them in a logical and segmented manner.
8. It is strongly recommended that the author supplement the technical roadmap or flowchart for the research.
9. The terrain analysis of the research area (Section 3.1) is very simple and not closely related to the main research core of this article. The author should refine this section or extract the main purpose.
10. This article only extracts forest cover data through collected historical data (not very old), and the innovation is not prominent. Suggest the author to summarize and express the innovation and characteristics of the paper.
11. The extraction results of forest cover in the article are presented in a lengthy manner (including text, images, and tables), and the scientific questions behind it need to be condensed.
12. How to verify the extraction accuracy? In addition, it is recommended that the author supplement uncertainty analysis.
13. What are the main driving factors of forest cover change?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please find attached the reply to the reviewer comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made modifications or explanations to most of the suggestions and issues, but there are still some issues that have not been resolved. Specifically, as follows:
1. As a necessary content, the uncertainty analysis of research results needs to be supplemented in a certain section.
2. The extraction results of forest cover in the article are presented in a lengthy manner (including text, images, and tables), and the scientific questions behind it need to be condensed.
3. What are the main driving factors of forest cover change?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please find attached the reply to the reviewer comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
