Assessing Ecological Impacts and Recovery in Coal Mining Areas: A Remote Sensing and Field Data Analysis in Northwest China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript titled "Assessing Ecological Impacts and Recovery in Coal Mining Areas: A Remote Sensing and Field Data Analysis in Northwest China" by Song et al. provides a comprehensive analysis of the ecological impacts and recovery processes in coal mining areas in Northwest China. Through the utilization of remote sensing technology and field data, the study illuminates the environmental changes resulting from coal extraction and subsequent restoration efforts. The topic is both interesting and significant. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed before it can be accepted for publication.
The logic of the introduction is disjointed. The first two paragraphs are overly lengthy for a background introduction. The transition from discussing remote sensing technology for vegetation dynamic monitoring to human impacts on the ecosystem is abrupt, and the main objective of the work is not clearly articulated. Therefore, a careful restructuring of the introduction is necessary. Additionally, attention should be paid to improving sentence clarity and coherence. For instance, in line 64-65, the sentence "The response of surface vegetation to the change of ecological environment More sensitive." requires revision for better clarity.
In section 2.3.3, it is noted that the Remote Sensing Ecological Index (RSEI) already includes NDVI information, rendering a separate analysis of NDVI unnecessary.
The description of how the soil indicators in Table 4 were obtained is missing. It is essential to include details on the data description for clarity.
Interpreting Figure 13 is challenging due to overlapping areas. Consider revising the figure to enhance clarity.
The discussion should address how the findings of this study align with or diverge from existing literature on ecological restoration in coal mining areas. Additionally, emphasize the unique contributions that this study offers to the field.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript contains weak language, numerous typographical errors, and redundant sentences. A thorough proofreading is imperative to rectify these issues and enhance the manuscript's overall quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I have reviewed your manuscript and commented in the enclosed PDF.
The topic is up to date and it is important to publish studied on post-mining recovery. The results and chosen methods are well-known and used many times before. However, their combination is the key point of your work and this I feel was not highlighted enough. I suggest to highlight the (scientific, methodological) novelty you want to present and to formulate the scientific problem on the base of it. This problem will serve as starting point of your discussion and also proof for your conclusions.
One of the biggest weaknesses is insufficient introduction. There are not enough reference papers, major papers from this field are missing. I am also missing proper remote sensing background from this field. The introduction deals with non-remote sensing topics on most of the space, which in its current state would fit rather in a kind of land use/mining journal.
Another weakness of the presented manuscript lies in the quality of the text from structure and content mixup point of view. There are fragments of discussion and conclusions within the methods section, likewise paragraphs with methods in results section. This should be cleaned and corrected. The text could be significantly shortened given the information you want to describe. Methods chapter is usually strictly filled with methodology. Results section is usually filled strictly with results without any opinions on the results. These belong to the discussion section. I suggest you to think about your results presentation, minimizing text and maximizing figures and tables to provide clear overview of what was reached.
To summarize, this manuscript needs to be significantly improved in order to be publishable in Remote Sensing journal.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The level of English is fine with several small typos, i.e. capital letters missing, extra spaces, sometimes complicated sentences or not usual vocabulary. I highlighted where I could.
Author Response
I would like to express my deepest gratitude for taking the time to review this manuscript. Below, you will find a detailed response to your comments, and the corresponding corrections have been highlighted in the resubmitted document. Additionally, I have addressed each of your guiding suggestions in the attached PDF. I am truly appreciative of the thorough and thoughtful recommendations you have provided, and I am confident that, with your assistance, the quality and scientific rigor of the paper have been significantly enhanced. Thank you very much!
Comments 1: The topic is up to date and it is important to publish studied on postmining recovery. The results and chosen methods are well known and used many times before. However, their combination is the key point of your work and this I feel was not highlighted enough. I suggest to highlight the (scientific, methodological) novelty you want to present and to formulate the scientific problem on the base of it. This problem will serve as starting point of your discussion and also proof for your conclusions. One of the biggest weaknesses is insufficient introduction. There are not enough reference papers, major papers from this field are missing. I am also missing proper remote sensing background from this field. The introduction deals with non-remote sensing topics on most of the space, which in its current state would fit rather in a kind of land use/mining journal.
Response: We acknowledge that while the methods employed and the results obtained have been widely accepted in the relevant field, the innovation of this study lies in the unique combination of these methods and their application. Accordingly, we have extensively revised the paper, adding a section dedicated to elucidating the scientific and methodological innovations, and have redefined the scientific question based on this. This not only helps to clarify the new starting point of the research but also provides a solid foundation for the discussion and the rationality of the conclusions. Additionally, we have expanded the introduction, incorporating more key references from the current field and providing a more comprehensive introduction to the relevant background knowledge in the field of remote sensing, ensuring that the content of the paper is more closely aligned with the theme of remote sensing.
Comments 2: Another weakness of the presented manuscript lies in the quality of the text from structure and content mixup point of view. There are fragments of discussion and conclusions within the methods section, likewise paragraphs with methods in results section. This should be cleaned and corrected. The text could be significantly shortened given the information you want to describe. Methods chapter is usually strictly filled with methodology. Results section is usually filled strictly with results without any opinions on the results. These belong to the discussion section. I suggest you to think about your results presentation, minimizing text and maximizing figures and tables to provide clear overview of what was reached.
Response :We have thoroughly reviewed the structure and logical flow of the paper, particularly distinguishing and defining the sections on methods, results, and discussion to ensure each part is focused and coherent. On this basis, we have condensed the text, using graphical data as the primary means of presentation and streamlining the descriptive language, thereby making the presentation of research findings more efficient and intuitive.
Once again, I deeply appreciate your guidance and the opportunity to improve my paper through this revision process. Thank you again for your invaluable contribution to my research.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript reviewed is entitled “Assessing Ecological Impacts and Recovery in Coal Mining Areas: A Remote Sensing and Field Data Analysis in Northwest 3 China”. According to the authors, the aim of this work is “to conduct a detailed quantitative assessment of the impact of pit mining in arid and semi-arid regions of China on the ecological environment”.
English language needs moderate revising. For example:
Line 55-56: The phrase “tense contradiction between people and land through land reclamation” is not very clear especially for an area where, according to the authors, there is “small population density” (Lines 57-58). Do they refer to “mine reclamation”? Perhaps the authors could rephrase.
Line 60: rephrase in better English
Lines 64-65. Idem
Lines 158-159. Remove the reference “Meinen and Robinson (2020)” and keep [28]
Line 183. Correct to “a DEM” and correct “were employed” to “was employed”
Line 106. Correct “he initial” to “The initial” and use better syntax
Bibliography should be improved both in number (mainly in the Introduction) and by adding a more significant international aspect. For the latter, the authors should use more references from the international bibliography. From the 44 references, only 7 references are publications of non-Chinese authors. This will show the impact and the potential novelty and contribution of the authors’ work to the international community.
Overall, although this work is of average scientific innovation in terms of data, measurements and adopted individual processing methods (for example, the use of global known spectral indices which may be practical and easy to implement but in some cases, certain indices do not provide the most accurate results nor are the best method to adopt), however, it is an interesting work because of (i) its specific application to monitor coal mining areas, (ii) the environmental and socio-economical impact and (iii) the combined use of different types of measurements (Landsat, UAV and field). Therefore, I would recommend this work to be published provided that the authors take into consideration my aforementioned suggestions/recommendations.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language and syntax needs moderate revising.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article addresses the very topical issue of the use of ecological indices such as the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Fractional Vegetation Cover (FVC), and Restoration Ecosystem Index 594 (RESI) to provide a comprehensive analysis of the specific disturbances to the terrestrial ecology caused by mining activities. The study area was a coal mining area (the Erlintu Mine) located in Xingjie Mining District in central China. The paper presents a case study.
The most interesting issue addressed in the article is the formula for determining the the Remote Sensing Ecological Index (RSEI) - an integrated ecological index based on remote sensing technology, using natural factors to evaluate the regional ecological state. It is a reflection of the ecological environment quality with the formula T=𝑓(𝑉𝑁𝐷𝑉𝐼,𝑉𝑤𝑒𝑡,𝑉𝐿𝑆𝑇,𝑉𝑁𝐷𝐵𝑆𝐼). The paper presents calculation formulas for wet component of Vegetation Cover Conversion (Wet), along with NDBSI and LST, which are used to represent aridity and surface temperature, respectively.
It is very valuable to present methodological framework for assessing impact of underground mining on land and ecological environment using combined long-term sequences of remote sensing images, results from UAV aerial photography, and onsite-collected soil data (figure 2).
The mining areas on the figures could be presented in better quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I find your revised manuscript significantly imnproved and I support its publication after minor revisions.
Here are only few issues which may be still corrected:
- generally, put space in front of each reference number, e.g. hectares [1].
-improve English at these rows: 44, 97, 104, 105, 107, 128, 151-154,
Sentences on the rows 100-102 are redundant, it would be good to reduce and reformulate
Map scales: it is usual to write "km" after number instead of the bar
!! Row 136: Regarding Landsat 7, this imager malfunctiones from 2003. The data are practically not usable. How did you use them?
Row 138: "Vegetation index" - which one, none defined until now. Do you mean vegetation status?
Row 140: "up to 54 IMAGES"
Row 141: "strong vegetation images" - factically wrong, you did not calculate
Row 146: please state how many bands did the X5S camera feature, just RGB?
Row 167: "Methods"
Row 192: please add reference to the "Surface rougness", is this common index?
Row 195: same for Topographic relief
Row 208: "In the fifth .."
Row 210: "background processing" - what does it mean? Please explain
Rows 221-224 - To get a single value for each image?
Formula 1: Please exchange T for RSEI, please explain variable f, we do not know what does it stands for?
Row 310: Smaller - capital S
Row 320: typo in Erlintu mine name
Row 406: double dot in the end
Discussion: It would be good to discuss differences in resolution of the DEMs, which might have influence on the results. The first paragraph of 4.2 is very similar to the paragraphs in results. In general, please discuss more with the literature and synthetize different results together rather than repeat what was already said in results.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish level is fine, only minor issues indicated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
