Multi-Temporal and Multiscale Satellite Remote Sensing Imagery Analysis for Detecting Pasture Area Changes after Grazing Cessation Due to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study area is of great interest; however, at this stage the manuscript is not publishable.
1. The title differs from the objective stated in the introduction. It lacks originality.
2. In the abstract, the description of the subject should deal much more with the problem associated with image resolution. The objective needs to be clarified and the results fleshed out.
3. The introduction should be placed in an international and regional context. It should be with more examples. The relevance of the study region and the need to compare the resolution of satellite images for monitoring environmental phenomena should be clearly justified.
4. The description of the study environment should be completed by expanding on the biophysical, socio-economic and political aspects. Give the scientific names of the plant species mentioned.
5. The dates of the images chosen and the sensors should be justified. Why have you combined satellite images from different dates? Lines 122-123 & 129-130: explain the approach used and why.
Section 2.2.3 should be expanded.
The classification approach used is obsolete (see Olofsson et al. 2014). Specify the spatial structure indices calculated and argue for their choices.
6. Sort the relevant results based on the hypotheses.
7. The current discussion looks like an interpretation of the results. What is needed is a real discussion of the results that explains the main trends in the results and compares them with results obtained in a similar context. It should also give the implications of the results, the strengths and limitations of the study.
8. In the conclusion, the results should be set against the hypotheses put forward.
9. The references should be expanded, contextualised and updated.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions, which have greatly helped in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript based on your feedback and have detailed our responses to each of your comments below. The changes made in response to your comments are highlighted in yellow and gray.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper introduces a range of statistical methods that make use of high and moderate-resolution satellite images to examine the spatiotemporal changes in the distribution of various vegetation species within a pasture. It also explores the interplay between vegetation development and environmental factors. Additionally, the paper features an in-depth case study as a practical illustration of its effectiveness. The promising outcomes imply its potential utility in other fields. With a few minor adjustments, this paper could be prepared for publication.
I recommend the following specific changes.
1. Please provide the value of mean OA for sentinel-2, just as giving this value for others observation in the paper, around line 186.
2. Could the authors provide references on how to use satellite images for the detection of grass, broadleaf, and coniferous trees in paragraph '2.2.3 Land cover classification'?
3. Could the authors please describe the nature of the RGB image in Figure 4 and provide some statements about this RGB image?
4. On line 362, there appears to be a typographical error: '… this period (Figure 6a).' I believe this should be corrected to: '… This period (Figure 3a).'
5. I kindly request the author to include a description in Figure 3 specifying that the P-value is derived from the Mann-Kendall significance test and to provide a brief explanation of its meaning.
6. Could the author please include the following statements in the Figure 6 description: 'Violin plots (d, e, f) are based on the Kruskal-Wallis H test,' and 'Statistical significance is determined using the Dunn Post hoc test.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable comments which have greatly helped in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Below, we have addressed each of your comments in detail. The changes made in response to your comments are highlighted in green and gray.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript focuses on the use of remote sensing to measure the dynamic changes in ranch area, which is in line with the scope of this journal and my research interests. I suggest the author consider the following comments when revising:
Abstract: The abstract lacks limitations of previous literature and the novelty of this study. This should be put in the first sentence of the abstract to show the contribution and necessity of this study.
Introduction: The author here introduces the grassland ecosystem and remote sensing image evaluation of vegetation cover changes. It's concise and powerful. But the lack of literature review and critique, similar to my previous comment, resulting in readers not understanding the necessity of this study and what limitations of the previous literature have been remedied.
Materials and Methods:
1. Figure 1 lacks a north arrow, which can be deleted if latitude and longitude are marked with south latitude and east longitude, but Figure 1 does not.
2. Lines 115-116, how does the author combine and process these remote sensing images from different sources?
3. Theil-Sen estimator is a simple linear regression estimator. Currently, more and more studies are starting to use non-linear methods to analyze vegetation changes. Do the authors have considerations in this regard?
Results: The accuracy verification is acceptable; the spatiotemporal analysis of ranch cover change is conventional and lacks interesting information. All the Figures in this manuscript are not high definition. I'm not sure if it is a result of the MDPI system compression.
Discussion: The study design of this manuscript is very conventional, and I find it hard to find its differences with other published studies. Therefore, I suggest the author emphasize limitations in the discussion. Please explain in the reply letter what are the main contributions and innovations of this study? Could you consider adding non-linear analysis research in the revision?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
We greatly appreciate your thorough and constructive feedback which have greatly helped in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Below are our responses made based on each of your comments. The changes made in response to your comments are highlighted in blue and gray.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMost of the comments made earlier have been incorporated by the authors, which I welcome and appreciate. However, the authors still need to include the hypothesis of the study in the introduction to justify the entire methodology developed. In addition, in lines 145-146, the scientific name of Carex should be completed and the names of the sponsors added after each scientific name. Finally, it is important to develop a short section on the limits of the study in the discussion.
Author Response
We greatly appreciate your thorough and constructive feedback which have greatly helped in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks to the author for his revisions and efforts. The author addressed almost all of my concerns and now I vote for it.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions, which have greatly helped in enhancing the quality of our manuscript.
