Quantitative Analysis of Desertification-Driving Mechanisms in the Shiyang River Basin: Examining Interactive Effects of Key Factors through the Geographic Detector Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper analyzed the desertification driving mechanisms in the Shiyang River Basin through the Geographic Detector Model. The article is organized somewhat well and clear, although some parts could be improved to increase the quality of the manuscript. I suggest the authors carefully address the following problems before publication.

(1)Please refining the abstract.

(2) The resolutions of images are too low.

(3) Suggest modifying the format of the table.

(4) Please introduce the period of the data in section “Materials and Methods”.

(5) P333-335: “Farmland areas in Gulang, Lianzhong, Wuwei, Yongchang districts, and Minqin had FVC values greater than 0.4.” The above location names should be displayed in Figure 6 or Figure 1.

(6) Suggest considering the uncertainty of the results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, first and foremost, thank you for taking your precious time to review our work and provide your valuable feedback. Your insights and suggestions are highly appreciated, and I look forward to addressing your comments and improving our work based on your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study will combine human and environmental factors data to understand the desertification driving mechanism through quantitative analysis of interactive effects between envi-ronmental and anthropogenic factors in the Shiyang River Basin.The research content has certain significance, but there are some problems, as follows:

1.The abstract is too long and requires major modifications. The main manifestation is that the purpose and significance of the research are too vague, the results and analysis are not concise enough, and the final conclusion is indeed true.

2. The introduction issues in the preface are not very clear, and there is no focus or good summary of others' progress. Suggest rewriting the introduction.

3. Study area description.There is too much content in this section, which is scattered and lacks a clear theme.

4. Quantitative analysis of factors governing the ecological status and dynamics in the Shiyang River Basin.The factor analysis in this section is poorly written, and specific factors cannot be identified at present. Moreover, the analysis of these factors is too simple, and their relationship with rocky desertification is not very significant.

5. At present, the discussion section is not very good, especially regarding the understanding of rocky desertification. It is recommended to carefully read the literature and cite it. such as :1、Zhang ,Z. et al. Factors influencing the evolution of human-driven rocky desertification in karst areas. Land Degrad Dev. 2021;32:817–829. 2、Zhang ,Z. et al. Spatial heterogeneity of soil organic carbon in a karst region under different land use patterns Ecosphere 11(3):e03077.

6. Figures 1, 3, and 6 have poor quality, and it is recommended to increase clarity.

Some sentences in the introduction, methods, and discussion are too long

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, I want to take this moment to express my gratitude for the valuable time and effort you have put into reviewing our work. Your insightful comments and feedback will help us improve our research quality. We appreciate your valuable contribution and are eager to respond to your comments and suggestions to strengthen our manuscript. We are very grateful again for your dedication to this review process.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript ID: remotesensing-2363147

Title: Quantitative analysis of desertification driving mechanisms in the Shiyang River Basin: Examining interactive effects of key factors through the Geographic Detector Model

Comments: The authors investigate the Shiyang River Basin as fragile and prone to desertification, and recognise its relative contribution, which remains an unresolved issue. This study used Fractional Vegetation Cover (FVC) and the Geodetector model to quantify desertification's spatial extent and driving factors.

1.	Originality:	Authors have used novel thought in their study however after some revision it could be made suitable for this journal.
2.	Scientific Quality:	The work with the title "   Quantitative analysis of desertification driving mechanisms in the Shiyang River Basin: Examining interactive effects of key factors through the Geographic Detector Model " is simple, and has a scientific orientation.
3.	Relevance to the Field(s) of this Journal:	The article is relevant to this journal as the aim and scope have been matched.
4.	General Comment:	The article should be restructured before publication. Authors should provide enhanced figures so that a reader can at least read it.
5.	Abstract and Keywords	1. Authors write well in this section. It is all fine. 2. Authors may think about some different keywords replacing “ Driving factors”.
6.	Introduction:	Authors have written it in a scientific way.
7.	Literature Review:	Authors have studied a good amount of literature.
8.	Materials and methods:	Authors should enhance figure 1. It is not clearly visible. Figure 3 should also be enhanced.
9.	Results:	Authors may use correlation matrix diagram instead of Table 4.
10.	Discussions:	1. It is all fine.
11.	Conclusions:	Authors have presented it very well.
12.	References / Bibliography:	All fine
13.	Figures:	Mentioned earlier
14.	Tables:	Mentioned earlier
15.	Others:	Nothing More
16.	Reviewer’s Decision Comment:	Some revisions are essential before the final acceptance. 2.     The research paper was composed methodically. I highly suggest running a few quick checks first to enhance the overall quality of this manuscript.
Best wishes

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we want to take this moment to thank you for taking your golden time to review our work and provide your thoughtful and professional comments. We appreciate your feedback and look forward to addressing your comments in our revisions. Thank you again for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1、The clarity of Figures 1, 3, 6, and 8 is insufficient, and a new drawing is needed.

2、The abstract needs to be rewritten, there is too much content, mainly reflected in the need to simplify the purpose and significance, and the content of the results is not focused.

3、There is too much content in the preface, and the author has spent a lot of time describing conceptual knowledge, only summarizing it without elaborating, which is not very concise and needs to be rewritten

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am writing to express my sincere appreciation for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and for providing valuable feedback that has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work.

We are pleased to inform you that we have successfully addressed all the concerns and suggestions raised during the initial and second reviews. In addition, we have included a detailed response letter addressing your comments, highlighting the changes made in the revised manuscript.

Once again, we express our sincere gratitude for your valuable contribution to our manuscript. Your dedication to maintaining high scientific standards and your constructive feedback has played a pivotal role in refining our work. We truly appreciate your time and expertise.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx