The Changes in Dominant Driving Factors in the Evolution Process of Wetland in the Yellow River Delta during 2015–2022
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
This is indeed a lengthy manuscript, consisting of 11 figures (44 sub-figures) and 9 tables in the main text, indicating that the study has produced rich and extensive results. The manuscript presents several interesting findings, including the dominance of artificial wetlands and the role of natural factors in driving wetland change. However, it would be helpful to provide more context and interpretation for these results. Finally, the manuscript ends with a statement that the results can provide a scientific basis for wetland protection and management. It would be helpful to provide some more specific information on how the results might be used in practice, such as by identifying key areas for conservation or informing decision-making around wetland restoration or management. In such a short research period of 7 years, the influence of precipitation, topography, temperature, and vegetation appears to be more significant than that of human activities. However, I personally find the credibility of this conclusion to be low. The author needs to convince me. Here's a translation of your statement to English: "Can I understand that the author is only using geospatial detectors just for the sake of using them? Is the method suitable for the task you studied? Secondly, how credible is the inference of the dominant factors that have changed in such a short time? There are interactions between topography, temperature, precipitation, and vegetation coverage. The Yellow River Delta is dominated by artificial wetlands, yet I cannot accept that human activities are not the most important factor. The manuscript should be more concise, the total of 20 figures in the text is really redundant. The content of the research is very interesting and meaningful, but why not consider a longer time frame?
Abstract:
Based on the abstract alone, it is difficult to determine if there is any specific innovation in the study. However, the use of time series Sentinel-2 images to establish a wetland database of the Yellow River Delta and the analysis of spatiotemporal distribution characteristics and type changes of the wetlands during 2015-2022 may be considered innovative, However, the study time frame is too short and can be done in conjunction with Landsat.
The abstract could benefit from some editing to improve clarity and readability. For instance, some sentences are quite long and contain multiple ideas, which can be challenging to follow. Consider breaking up longer sentences into smaller, more manageable ones. Additionally, some of the language could be simplified or clarified. For example, it is not clear what is meant by "the average q value of 0.18" in relation to the socio-economic factors.
Overall, the abstract appears to provide a good summary of the study's objectives, methods, and results. However, there are some areas where additional information, editing, or clarification could improve its readability and impact.
Introduction:
This is an international paper, not a domestic paper. The second paragraph of the introduction is expected to be discussed from an international perspective.
The introduction of machine learning lacks a transition.
Method
Table 1 is better as supplementary material.
Isn't there a better way to show them? Table 3~Table 5
Why are the indicators used for training inconsistent from year to year? Or the authors need to introduce specific selection criteria so readers can reproduce in regions with similar problems.
Figure 3 belongs to results.
Should the full names of various indices be used for the first time?
Line 207. The “1.” What format is it?
The data sources and processing part is not sufficient.
2.3.1 Line spacing isn't even consistent??
The methods proposed by the authors themselves should be introduced in detail, and the methods updated or improved by the authors should be introduced in a targeted manner; but if the authors just use other researcher's methods, they could only cite them.
Results
Language needs to be enhanced. English needs to be improved. The resulting results are simply too many, redundant and difficult to understand, so I cannot offer constructive comments.
Discussion
Add Uncertainty Analysis
From “Reasons for the spatio-temporal change patterns of wetland” We understand that human activity is important to the study area, This doesn't match your results. Your metrics for representing human activity are problematic. Can population and GDP alone represent human power? Human influence on LUCC needs to be characterized. The subjectivity of indicator selection determines that the conclusions obtained are full of controversy. There is no problem in applying the index method, but is there a standard for what index to choose? Is it suitable for your research area? We are not just remote sensing machines, we also need to solve scientific and practical problems. Is it appropriate to follow what others say?
The author's explanation of the reason needs to be proved and supported by arguments, not empty talking.
Conclusions
The conclusion is deduced from the result, the result is different from the conclusion, please don't make it wrong.
Just take the abstract as an example. The abstract could benefit from some editing to improve clarity and readability. For instance, some sentences are quite long and contain multiple ideas, which can be challenging to follow. Consider breaking up longer sentences into smaller, more manageable ones. Additionally, some of the language could be simplified or clarified. For example, it is not clear what is meant by "the average q value of 0.18" in relation to the socio-economic factors. Overall, the abstract appears to provide a good summary of the study's objectives, methods, and results. However, there are some areas where additional information, editing, or clarification could improve its readability and impact.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Article ID : remotesensing-2369597-peer-review-v1
Article Name : The changes of dominant driving factors in the evolution process of wetland in the Yellow River delta during 2016-2022
This paper used the dense time series Sentinel-2 images to establish the wetland 21 database of the Yellow River Delta (YRD) and then analyzed the spatial distribution characteristics 22 and temporal changes of the wetland during 2015-2022.
1. Title is not clear, as the dataset from 2015-2022 but in title it has written 2016-2022. Pl justify.
2. In Section 1, authors should make clear contributions and organization of the paper
3. The literature review does not meet the requirements. I would appreciate it if you could share one table that gives a general overview about the current developments about the particular topic.
4. The contributions of the research article are either not mentioned at all or are not mentioned clearly.
5. In figure 2, it describes the wetland information extraction and classification, but all the components are tnot derived properly. Pl explain details.
6. figure 11 is not derived properly, Pl explain all its sub figure in proper manner.
7. In conclusion section, pl add future scope of the present research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The paper "the changes of dominant driving factors in the evolution process of wetland in the yellow river delta during 2016-2022" has been revised compared with last submission.
However, it contains too much redundant figures and tables. The reviewer suggest to simplify or move its content to appendixes. for example, Table 3-5 and Figure4-6 can be moved to appendix.
The other concern is that, only august to september observation data is used. please briefly discuss the probability of this limitation on the appropriate data implmentation.
it is fine now.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Please respond to the comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Need to be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is recommended that the language should be properly polished before publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper quality seems improved much better (particularly, introduction part).
However, In Result secitonL210-L224 is not adequate to be added in this section. Please just describe only result of your analysis in this section.
Another concern is that, did you carried out validation of land-use classification result? please add your classification validation result briefly (i.e., confusion matrix).
in figure 9 and 10, suddently appeared "interactive detection". please define this word's terminology and how you calibrate in Methodology part. it is confusing with your workd "transfer matrix" you meant in the methodology. please describe consistently.
since it seems it is like a correlation analysis. please discuss multi-colinearlity issue in discussion section as well too avoid misreading of your data by readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the authors presented the spatio-temporal change pattern of wetlands and its response to natural-human activities in the Yellow River Delta during 2015-2022.
Therefore, it is interesting and attractive. However, it should be major revised to enhance the quality, as follows:
1) In Section 1, authors should make three sub sections, motivation, contributions and organization of the paper
2) Literature review is not up to the mark, Pl add in section 2
3) At the final end of section 1, the authors should indicate the rest of this paper is organized how.
4) Contributions of the research paper is missing or its not clearly mentioned
5) Eq. 3 must be represented well
6) A summary table of should be provided for convenience for the readers in literature review section.
7) Figure 4 should be re-presented. Moreover, all the parameters should be explain clearly .
8) All Figures should be enhanced at the resolution of 300 dpi.
9) Finally, the authors should double-check all formation, typos, and writing throughout the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
