Three Decades of Oasis Transition and Its Driving Factors in Turpan–Hami Basin in Xinjiang, China: A Complex Network Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1-In line 106-107 you wrote “Natural oasis was defined as the basic ecological environment, including forest, shrubland, grassland and waterbody. Is this an accepted definition? According to this definition, a natural oasis must have these 4 types of land use?

-2Please check 2 line 232-233. in these two lines, You have written that Artificial oases has increased slightly(area increasing from 3127.17 232 km2 to 4054.41 km2) but in percentage, you have written “it has decreased (decreasing from 21.79% to 20.29% ) in the period of 1990-2020”. The result for area and percent must be the same (increase or decrease).

3-In line 227- 230, according to figure 3, the percentage value of the ratio seams not correct.

4-In figure 3, the color separation of forest and shrubland is not recognizable.

5-The discussion of the article needs more revision. Similar research using the same method has been done in other regions of China and in that same region ( Xinjiang). Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the similarities and contradictions of this research with the results of other researches. Some of these research are seen in your reference and some are as follow that I saw it:

Tianyi Cai et al, July 2021,  Remote Sensing 13(15):2949

Xu Sijing et al,  February 2023 ,  Ecological Indicators 147(4):109941

Fan Yi et al, Ecological Indicators 149 (2023) 110139

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

Thank you for inviting me as a reviewer for manuscript “Three decades of oasis transition and its driving factors of Turpan-Hami Basin in Xinjiang, China: a complex network approach”. The manuscript is well organized and presents a very interesting topic with an applicable methodology. Nevertheless, there are some issues though that need to be changed or clarified by the authors to improve the quality of the paper. All remarks and comments are listed below.

Major comments

-          The manuscript needs thorough revision on language use. Many grammatical errors were noted.

-          The authors should enhance the clarity of the paper's contribution by incorporating recent and pertinent articles into the introductory section and discussing their contributions in relation to those presented in the papers.

-          One of my main concerns is about the spatial resolution of the data used. Do the authors believe that the data used are appropriate to identify oases?

-          On page 3, line 123, the authors point out that there is overlap in land cover types. Why do the authors use already classified data? It was possible to rely on the Landsat archive and perform the appropriate classification through supervised classification algorithms.

-          The results lack field verification. In my opinion, the current results are highly questionable.

-          Please add a coordinate system to the maps.

 

 

Best regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The manuscript needs thorough revision on language use. Many grammatical errors were noted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides an in-depth analysis of oasis transition dynamics and driving factors in the Turpan-Hami Basin in Xinjiang, China, from 1990 to 2020. The study employs a complex network approach to examine spatio-temporal patterns, transition processes, and driving forces for oasis changes.

- Using a complex network model for studying oasis transitions is innovative and adds a unique dimension to the analysis, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamic processes involved.

- The article follows a clear structure, with well-defined sections, making it easy for readers to follow the logical flow of the research from introduction to conclusion.

- The article introduces metrics such as degree value, betweenness centrality, and average path length but needs to provide more explanation or interpretation of these metrics. A brief clarification could aid readers less familiar with complex network analysis.

- The article introduces metrics such as degree value, betweenness centrality, and average path length but doesn't provide sufficient explanation or interpretation of these metrics. A brief clarification could aid readers less familiar with complex network analysis.

- While the Oasis data source is mentioned, a brief clarification or acknowledgement of potential limitations in the data, if any, would enhance the transparency of the study.

- The discussion section could delve deeper into the implications of changing transition dynamics between oasis types, providing a more nuanced understanding of the structural shifts observed in the oasis network.

1.  

 

1. • The article categorises oases into natural and artificial types, but there needs to be more clarity on the specific criteria used for this classification. A clear definition and explanation of natural versus artificial oases would enhance the study's transparency.

2.  

   • While the study mentions the growth of oasis areas and changes in types, there needs to be more information on the specific transitions between oasis types. A more detailed analysis of the transition processes and the factors influencing these transitions would provide a more comprehensive picture.

3.  

   • The article covers a substantial time span from 1990 to 2020, but detailed temporal analysis is lacking. A breakdown of the findings into shorter intervals or key periods would reveal if there were critical turning points or accelerated changes in oasis dynamics.

4.  

   • The driving forces behind oasis transitions are briefly mentioned, including climate change and human activities. However, there needs to be more specificity regarding how these factors manifest and interact. Providing more details on the mechanisms through which temperature, urbanisation, and industrialisation influence oasis changes would strengthen the study.

5.  

   • The article introduces the concept of oasis structural stability but needs to elaborate on its significance or how it was measured. A more thorough explanation of this aspect and its implications for the sustainability of oases is crucial for the reader's understanding.

6.  

   • The study references previous research on oasis dynamics but needs to compare its findings with those of earlier studies effectively. A more in-depth comparison, discussing similarities, differences, and potential reasons for variations, would provide valuable context for readers.

7.  

   • The use of technical terms such as "degree value," "betweenness centrality," and "average path length" without sufficient explanation may alienate readers unfamiliar with complex network analysis. A more reader-friendly approach, with additional explanations or a glossary, would make the content more accessible.

8.  

   • While the conclusion provides recommendations for sustainable development, it needs a detailed discussion of the feasibility, challenges, and potential limitations of implementing these suggestions. A more thorough exploration of the practical implications of the recommendations would enhance the conclusion.

9.  

   • The article sources data from various datasets, but it needs to address potential biases or limitations in these sources. Acknowledging the limitations and uncertainties associated with the data would improve the study's credibility.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

/

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

GENERAL COMMENTS

This study uses a complex network model to analyze different parameters of oasis such as degree value, betweenness centrality and average path length to characterize oasis transition, oasis key land types and oasis structural stability; in addition, also driving forces for oasis transition have been assessed.

The manuscript in general is well organized; however, the organization could be improved and become more consistent at several places, mainly at the Material and Methods section.

The complex network analysis that has been performed is rather simple. Thus, I wonder if a more thoroughly analysis could be performed using other different indices, for example, fractional parameters.

Redeability of this manuscript should be ameliorated.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Abstract

Lines 22-23. I suggest to state here the six factors you mentioned, because this is a relevant issue.

 

Please, consider to enhance the readability of the abstract. Several suggestions are giving in the comments below (please see comments on the Quality of English), but they are not exhaustive. Authors should carefully revise all the sentences.

 

Introduction

The complex network analysis in this work has been performed using a very general and simple method. Other more sophisticated approaches are available, see for example Newman, M.E, (2003) quoted as reference (17). Please, indicate why the current methodology and not a more robust methodology has been chosen.

Lines 86 to 89. Assessment of the structural stability is not an objective?

Please, consider to enhance the readability of the Introduction section.

 

 

Materials and Methods

I was not able to find Figure 1 mentioned in the text.

Lines 96-97. The topography should be more precisely described. The present sentence is difficult to understand. “drop beyond 5000” results imprecise. See also lines 110 to 113. Please, be consistent using terms like “basin” “plain”, etc.

Lines 98 to 104. Climate parameters should be more detailed stated. For example, if there is snow presence in mountains, minimum temperature at this position would be a relevant parameter.

Lines 122 to 124. Here 9 land types are mentioned. However, legend of Figure 1 contains only 8 (c ) contains 8 land types.

Lines 105 to 113 and 122 to 124 show several redundancies regarding the land types. Please, try to avoid these redundancies.

Line 139. Please, delete “2.3. Methods”.

Lines 140 to 209. Please, taken into account the scheme outlined in Figure 2, consider to change the heads of subsections 2.3.1 to 2.3.5 as follows:

2.3. Complex network construction.

2.4. Complex network analyses.

2.4.1. Oasis transition

2.4.2. Identification of key land types

2.4.3. Oasis structural stability

2,5. Driving force for oasis transition

 Lines 152 to 154. Please, include here the mentioned “six directional phases.

Line 152. Please, briefly describe “degree value”

Lines 212 to 215. Driving forces and driving factors used should be stated in this section.

 

Again, please, consider to enhance the readability of the Material and Methods section.

 

Results

While the results are detailed (e.g., oasis changes, transition analysis, etc.), they could be better linked to the study's objectives. Suggestion: Explicitly connect the results to the research objectives to demonstrate reliability and validity.

Also, please try to simplify and avoid redundancies, for example Lines 350-352 and 370-71 are similar.

 Please, pay attention to secondary legend of Figure 3.

 

 

Discussion

The discussion section should more explicitly connect the results to the broader agricultural production and environmental context; also implications for oases management should be taken into account. Discussing the potential applications of these findings in practical scenarios and their relevance to current environmental challenges would add value. Also, a comparison with other relevant studies or methodologies could provide a better understanding of the study's contributions.

 

Conclusions

The conclusion section could be strengthened by providing precise and actionable recommendations based on the study's findings. It should also reflect the study's limitations from the methodological point of view.

What about the findings of principal component analysis?

 

References

The references section appears to be well-cited. However, ensuring the most recent and relevant literature is included would enhance the manuscript's credibility. This is particularly important for rapidly evolving fields like remote sensing.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Abstract

The abstract is generally clear but could be ameliorated for better readability. Next I’m providing example of potential changes. Authors should be aware that, in addition to these examples,

Line 18. I wonder if the term sophisticated is appropriated in this context.

Line 22. What means “corresponding” in this context. Please, consider “respectively”, instead

Line 30. What means driving analysis in this context? Are you meaning “driving forces analysys”?

Lines 33-36. This sentence is very difficult to understand. Moreover, 

Lines 37-30. Please, pay attention to font’s size.

 

 

Introduction

There's a complex sentence structure in the methodology that could be simplified for clarity. For instance:

Lines 50-51. Tis sentence is difficult to understand. Please, try to ameliorate.

Lines 50 and 53. Some content in these two lines is redundant.

Lines 64-67- This sentence is difficult to understand.

Line 76. I don’t understand “which concluded” at this place.

Again, please, consider to enhance the readability of the Introduction. Also my suggestions are not exhaustive and various other issues of Language Quality should be addressed.

 

Material and Methods

There are instances of unclear sentence structures. Moreover, the use of technical terms to be consistent and clear throughout the section. For example, Lines 164 to 170 or Lines 184 to 186.

Thus, the English Language of this section also should be tightened up. Please, carefully revise it.

 

Legend of figure 1. “Corpland” or “cropland”?

Lines 174 to 179. Please, pay attention to line spacing.

 

Results

 The results section is generally clear but could benefit from more straightforward sentence

 

constructions. Thus, several sentences need tightening up  to enhance its readability and comprehensibility.

 

Discussion

This section is clear but could use simpler language and sentence structures for better accessibility. Long sentences could be made more concise.

 

 

 

Conclusions

 Again, this section contains complex sentences that might benefit from simplification for clarity. Please, pay attention to grammatical accuracy and try to remove any ambiguous phrasing. For example, Lines 454-455 and Lines 458-460.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

Greeting

Thank you for inviting me back to review this interesting manuscript. The authors responded to my concerns well. Accordingly, I recommend accepting the paper.

 

Best Regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs minor revisions regarding the use of punctuation devices.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

/

Comments on the Quality of English Language

/

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of this manuscript has been very much improved. Mostly, my suggestions have been addressed. Therefore, no I´m recommending minor revisions.

Still, various sentences need tightening up to enhance its readability and comprehensibility; this is because of unclear structures or complexity. Such sentences would benefit from simplification for clarity. In particular, the Conclusion section could benefit from more straightforward sentence constructions.

Next I’m providing examples of unclear sentences or sentences with ambiguous phrasing. Please, authors should be aware that this is not exhaustive, and therefore a thoroughly review of all the sections is recommended.

Lines 35 to 39

Lines 148-151

Lines 172-175

Lines326-330

Lines 485-488

Lines 522-526

Lines 611-613

Lines 617-619

Lines 726-627

 

Etc., etc.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As before stated, English Language should be ameliorated for increasing readibility and conprehensibility. Simple, precise language is recomended in several instances.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf