Spatio-Temporal Evolution Characteristics and Driving Factors of Typical Karst Rocky Desertification Area in the Upper Yangtze River
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSpecific observations and suggestions for improvement have been made in each section of the manuscript, please address them.
All sections of the manuscript need to be improved, in particular: Introduction, Materials and Methods, and Discussion.
In the Introduction, the main characteristics of the desertification problem must be included; Furthermore, to justify the motivation of this study, quantitative data on desertification in the study area must be included in terms of surface area, species of flora and fauna affected, main problem, negative impacts or other relevant elements. At the end of this section, the objective of the study should be clearly included.
In Materials and Methods, various methodological aspects of form (writing) and content have been identified and pointed out that must be reviewed and corrected to improve the quality of this section. Some bibliographic citations that support various methodological aspects must be included.
The Discussion is deficient, it must be expanded by including arguments and reasons that explain the causes of the relevant results found; as well as the contrast or comparison with those reported in other studies with similar themes (desertification). In addition, some technical and/or political actions that must be implemented to overcome the problem of desertification in the study area must be stated.
The number of references is limited, other references should be included based on what has been observed in the different sections of the manuscript.
The meaning of all abbreviations that appear in the manuscript must be indicated. Highlighted text in the manuscript indicates that the authors should make corrections or improve the writing.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research focuses on karst rocky desertification, identified as the most serious ecological disaster in southwest China. The primary objective of the study is to understand the spatio-temporal evolution of rocky desertification and its underlying mechanisms which represent a crucial prerequisite for effective control measures. Utilizing the GEE cloud platform and decision tree classification, the study investigates the spatial-temporal evolution process of rocky desertification in Qujing City from 1990 to 2020. Results revealed a significant overall improvement in rocky desertification in the study area and highlighted a noteworthy decrease in the rocky desertification area, accompanied by an increase in the no rocky desertification area. Also, the study identified the main driving factors. In this context, this study not only contributes to the scientific understanding of KRD but also provides valuable insights for policymakers and managers. In this context, I am absolutely excited to learn from this article the magnitude of the spatial-temporal evolution process of rocky desertification in Qujing City.
To further improve the manuscript, I propose some suggestions:
- The provided introduction lacks sufficient exposition of the central issue, research question and the significance of the research topic. This introduction would benefit from improved delineation and contextualization of the topic by highlighting the central issue and the significance of the subject matter.
- The discussion section should be focused on the study's objectives and the results obtained, without delving into the benefits of using remote sensing and the GEE platform for monitoring desertification. It's important to avoid extrapolating beyond the study's findings and objectives. Instead, a comparison with other studies conducted in the same condition or in different countries would be valuable. Revisiting the discussion section to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the results, including their limitations and potential implications, is crucial. A discussion supported by only one reference may appear insufficient and could benefit from a broader literature review to enhance its depth and credibility.
It can be also enhanced mainly by a section dealing with the implications for the management of this area and can be instrumental in formulating strategies to reduce the negative impacts of KRD on society in the Qujing City.
- In terms of formatting, it's advisable to reduce the number of tables. Some tables can be combined, such as Table 10 and 11. You could merge them into a single table presenting the "Effects of different combinations of driving factors on rocky desertification," with the interaction values of different driving factors on rocky desertification in parentheses, specifying the q-value in the caption.
Additionally, certain tables, like Table 5, may be removed to streamline the presentation of the study's findings. This is particularly relevant since the text already covers the main elements of Table 5, and the information it provides is not central to the study, which focuses on the entire Qujing area. Also, Table 1 can be removed to reduce the overall number of tables and can be adequately covered in the text.
- The document relies on a limited bibliography for a dynamic topic such as karst rocky desertification. The number of cited works remains low, despite the availability of recent studies and references that could enrich the various aspects of the article. Therefore, it is imperative to incorporate more recent bibliographic references to provide better context for the topic and to facilitate a more comprehensive discussion of the results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review of our manuscript, [Spatio-temporal evolution characteristics and driving factors of typical karst rocky desertification area in the upper Yangtze River], and for providing valuable insights to enhance the quality of our work. Your expertise and thoughtful comments have been immensely beneficial in refining our research.
Thank you for the expert's patient review and valuable suggestions. Following your advice, I diligently revised the introduction and discussion sections, as well as removed Table 5 to simplify the presentation of research results. The modified places are marked in yellow. In the modification of the introduction, I emphasized highlighting the centrality of the issue, research questions, and the importance of the research topic. By clearly defining the background of the study, I aimed to make the paper more attractive and persuasive. Additionally, I introduced new references into the introduction, enabling a comparative analysis with my results. This not only enhanced the contextualization of the study but also provided a robust foundation for the subsequent discussions. I also augmented the introduction with further details explaining the background, motivation, and practical significance of the study in addressing karst rocky desertification.
Regarding the issue of merging Table 10 and Table 11, considering potential confusion among readers, especially when dealing with multiple driving factors and interactions, I decided to retain the separate presentation of these two tables. This decision was made to prevent any possible confusion among readers.
Once again, I appreciate your guidance, and I will continue refining the paper to ensure logical clarity and ease of understanding. If you have further suggestions or areas that require additional discussion, please feel free to let me know.
Best regards,
[Gao Weijie]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present a spatio-temporal evolution of karst rocky desertification in Yangtze River, and the identification of the driving factors. I recognize the effort put into the development of the research. However, the manuscript needs further improvements to be published. I detail my comments lines below. And, I attached a document with minor comments in the manuscript.
The Abstract is well constructed but lacks a proper conclusion. It only shows diverse findings but not a general main conclusion and/or recommendation.
I suggest including the main controlling factor (e.g. FVC or slope??) as a Keyword.
The introduction is poor, I highly recommend:
Give more details about the causes and effects of karst rock desertification. Why is important to pay attention a such environmental process? Why this is an environmental problem? How this type of desertification limits the sustainable development?
- Also, it lacks a proper literature review about the problem, the factor involves in the desertification in the area, the state of the art, the methods applied currently. In addition, there is not a proper text flux.
- The main objective of the research is not clearly mentioned. The authors have listed the methodology and steps in the last paragraph of the introduction but is not clear which is the gap of knowledge that they want to address.
Research data and methods.Related to the remote sensing data, it is not clear for me the temporal resolution of the collected images. Did you use daily data? Monthly? Or one per year? Please see attachment for more information.
Please explain if the all the factors’ data correspond to the year 2000, and why did you select such year.
Related to the results, they are not well organized, e.g. the section 3.2.2 Risk Analysis is not well described and not easy to follow. Probably, the methodology needs more explanation. I think that the section 3.2.4 Interaction Analysis is really important, please give more emphasis on it. On the other hand, I’d expect an error analysis of each variable, the sources are different and most of them are satellite products.
The discussion needs further improvement. It is too simple, how your results are comparable with previous studies? Do they have sense? Which is the error in your calculations? Are the results like other areas with a similar environmental context? Why do the socioeconomic factors not have much influence in the results? Which could be the next research steps? Is the statistical used method reliable?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Sometimes the text has not a correct flux of ideas. And, please avoid non professional phrases.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present a study related to karst rocky desertification in the upper Yangtze River. They have implemented many of the previous recommendations, thus the quality of the manuscript has improved considerably. Many thanks for the effort in this important research.
However, I have observed some important points to solve for a potential article publication.
Related to 2.2.1 Remote sensing data, it is not clear for me the temporal resolution of the collected images. Did you use daily data? Monthly? Or one per year?
I know that there are many satellite images per year, so I do not understand if you used (combined) all the Landsat images that you have in each year, or if you chose one month (or day) to compare between years. How do you obtain the annual maps?
Related to 2.2.2. Environmental Factor Data, why all the factor correspond to the year 2020? Because the data availability, or was there an important event that year? I asked it before and please, I expect an answer about it.
Related to Methodoly/Results, I would expect an error analysis of each variable, the sources are different and most of them are satellite products. If that is not the case, at least add a comment or recommendation in the discussion section.
Related to the Discussion, it has improved considerably. In addition, I suggest dividing the section in subsections, for example one related to the method capabilities (please add some contrast with other methods to highlight the pros and cons), another subsection to discuss the results, and a last one with the recommended policies and next steps. The ideas that you presented have to be more solid, please work abit more in that and do not forget to add references.
Please in the Conclusion section add a line or two mentioning the future steps or applicability of the study.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It has improved considerably, but I suggest a deep typos revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions and meticulous review. We are honored to receive such constructive feedback and have made corresponding revisions and supplements to the manuscript based on your recommendations.
Regarding the temporal resolution of remote sensing data in section 2.2.1
You are absolutely correct in your observation. We failed to clearly explain the temporal resolution of the data in the original manuscript. In this revision (section 2.2.1, paragraph two), we have detailed our approach of selecting 12 images per year, one for each month, and using the mean value in Google Earth Engine (GEE) to composite these into a single representative image for the year. Additionally, we chose one year every five years for our analysis, but due to missing data in some years after compositing, the actual years selected were 1990, 1995, 2000, 2006, 2011, 2016, and 2020. We have further elaborated on this method and its scientific basis in the revised manuscript.
Regarding environmental factor data in section 2.2.2
Regarding the issue of only selecting data from the year 2000 for environmental factors, we have provided a more detailed explanation in the revised manuscript. The year 2020 was chosen because the data for that year was the most complete and reliable, facilitating a more accurate analysis of the study area. We have added an explanation in the discussion section regarding the rationale behind this choice and its impact on the study results.
Regarding the error analysis of methods and results
We sincerely appreciate your concern. In the error analysis, we clarified that factors such as slope, elevation, and vegetation cover are based on satellite data, whereas other factors such as temperature and precipitation come from the Data Center for Resources and Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and governmental statistical data, which are highly reliable and accurate. Therefore, in the revised manuscript, we have discussed the sources and reliability of these data in detail and explained why a more extensive error analysis was not conducted in this study.
Regarding the suggestions for the discussion section
Following your advice, we have significantly improved the discussion section. Now, this section is divided into three subsections: one specifically discusses the capabilities and limitations of our method, including comparisons with other methods; another discusses our research findings, comparing them with related studies while highlighting our main discoveries; the last section focuses on recommended policies and future research directions. We have also added more references throughout these subsections to support our discussions and conclusions.
Once again, we thank you for your invaluable comments and hope our response meets your expectations. We look forward to further suggestions to improve the quality and impact of our paper.
Sincerely,
[Weijie Gao]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMany thanks for including my suggestions, the manuscrip has impoved considerably. Now I agree with the publication of your work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English quality is good enough for me. Maybe there is some minor error or typos, but I am not qualified to check this.
