GEE-Based Spatial-Temporal Dynamics in a Ramsar Wetland, Honghe National Nature Reserve, Northeast China from 1985 to 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

The topic addressed by the authors is current, pertinent, and the procedures for characterizing and obtaining the results are interesting. However, I believe that the presentation of the results could be improved. Part of the results could be put into tables and thus reduce the descriptive text of the variations, which would make it easier for the reader to analyze. And, the analyses could approach if the changes are significant in temporal and spatial terms and, what are the reasons that generated the changes (environmental, uses, etc...). A flowchart in the Materials and Methods section would facilitate understanding, as would a more detailed explanation of the equations and parameters in Table 1. The conclusions could address the efficiency of the procedures to reach the objectives and the reasons of the changes instead of presenting % of changes, etc...Uncertainties associated to measures, limitations, 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction is very descriptive, citing many unnecessarily references, some parts belong more to the discussion (l. 60-81, 101-124). In the field of landscape ecology, it is not customary to use one term - land use and land cover changes (LUCC), it would be useful to separate these two terms - land use and land cover - and distinguish the differences in their meaning and application in your research.

What is the aim of the study? - if the idea cited in the line 131-135, part of the research "and further explore the driving factors such as hydrological situation and meteorology that affect the evolution of wetlands." is not included in method description, neither in result session. The discussion sounds more like continuation of results description, of this partial aim.

2.1. Study Area - add more details regarding the study area, reflecting and explaining the zoning in Fig. 1 - core zone, buffer zone, experimental zone.

2.2.1. Remote Sensing Data Sources and Pre-processing - provide references for indeces used

l. 188-191 - it  is not clear from the sample point numbers to which land cover category they belong, if some sample poits were repeated or where the changes occurred.

2.2.3. Historical Hydrological Data, 2.2.4. Climatic Data - add references to data sources

2.3.2. Dynamic Change Transfer Matrix - what do you mean by "landscape type"? Specify exactly, wchich landscape type did you used. Do you mean landscape elements or landscape category?

2.3.3. Landscape indices selection and calculation - add references for indices used, explain in more details the process of indices selection

Title of table 1?

3.1. Spatial-Temporal Changes in HHNR Landscape

There are discrepances between methodology and result description - e.g.  each five-year period from 1985 to 2021 - add to the methodology exact years of study

My main objections are to the discussion and counlusion. Discussion is continuation of results description. Conclusion sounds more like summary of the research results of local study. I recommend to rewrite this sessions, and clearly identify the strenghs and weakness of the method used, and their applicability in international context.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I had the opportunity to read your paper. I found it rather interesting. Apart from the general methodology, I would say that the implications of your results and the way you comment on the outcomes can provide beneficial results for the study area.

Some minor comments follow:

Abstract: There is basically a sentence from line 17 to 26 which is problematic, this should be cut down to smaller sentences or just keep the most important information from the ones mentioned.

L37: You refer to the abbreviation LUCC (which is not used in the rest of the paper) and then also introduce LULC, which is the abbreviation used commonly.

L39-40: This is basically the same thing mentioned 2 times

L51: "mean"

L83-84: You use the word "important" 2 times

Table 1: The caption is incorrect. Also, you need to have an index about the signs that you use and what do they mean

Figure 3: I suggest using a simple bar chart to show these results. This also applies to Figure 6

Figures 4 and 5: These are difficult for the reader to understand. I strongly suggest that you choose another way to present this result (e.g. a flow chart)

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Land.