Land-Use Changes on Ob River Floodplain (Western Siberia, Russia) in Context of Natural and Social Changes over Past 200 Years

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done a good job on systematization of spatial information about land use of the study area for 200 years period. On the whole, the manuscript looks like a finished work, however, it needs to be finalized.
There is no information on the accuracy of the historical maps reference. It is necessary to add this information. What is the density of reference points? Provide a drawing of the location of the points.
2. The work uses information that is scattered in spatial resolution. To what final resolution was the work applied and to which authors classify their study?

3. Section 2.3.  We can assume that it does not exist. What specific classification methods were used? What was the error? How was it estimated? How was the sample selected? What interpretation features were used to identify particular land-use classes? The same is true for historical images. This section needs a serious revision.

Author Response

There is no information on the accuracy of the historical maps reference. It is necessary to add this information. What is the density of reference points? Provide a drawing of the location of the points.

– The density of reference points is determined by the number of places on the map that have remained unchanged, namely, the places where roads cross, where rivers flow. This information has been added to the revised version of the manuscript.

2. The work uses information that is scattered in spatial resolution. To what final resolution was the work applied and to which authors classify their study?
3. Section 2.3. We can assume that it does not exist. What specific classification methods were used? What was the error? How was it estimated? How was the sample selected? What interpretation features were used to identify particular land-use classes? The same is true for historical images. This section needs a serious revision.

Section 2.3 has been completely rewritten.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is good, the authors evaluate the ‘’  Land use changes in the Ob River floodplain (Western Siberia, Russia) in the context of natural and social changes over the past 200 years’’. It is an interesting and great contribution to the scientific community; however, the material method, discussion and references of the paper should be improved. Still there are many issues present in the manuscript which should be explained properly. The manuscript needs some major revisions as given below:

 

·         Abstract is too long and there are some unnecessary contents in the abstract of this article that can be deleted. It is suggested to modify them carefully and refine the main contents of the article again.

·         Please write the main results and outcomes in Abstract.

·         The paper should be reviewed by a native English speaker, there are some fairly fundamental issues, which detract from the understanding of the manuscript.

·         Clearly indicate your aim at the end of the introduction. Try to contextualise of why this work is necessary and to whom it will benefit.

·         2.2 Write full name of CORONA and RGB

·         Your citation style does not match the journal style in various sections, set it in whole manuscript.

·         Resolution of all figures should be improved.

·         In discussion section; Discussion: As per the instruction given by the journal “The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and the limitations of the work highlighted”.

·         Write main results and future recommendation in conclusion.

·         Reference does not meet to journal style, set these.

 

 

Overall, the study conducted is interesting but a major revision of the entire manuscript is essentially required for publication in this journal. Hence, I recommend reconsideration after a major revision of the manuscript.  

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Abstract is too long and there are some unnecessary contents in the abstract of this article that can be deleted. It is suggested to modify them carefully and refine the main contents of the article again.

Please write the main results and outcomes in Abstract.

– The abstract has been shortened and rewritten.

The paper should be reviewed by a native English speaker, there are some fairly fundamental issues, which detract from the understanding of the manuscript.

Clearly indicate your aim at the end of the introduction. Try to contextualise of why this work is necessary and to whom it will benefit.

– The recommended changes were made to the manuscript.

2.2 Write full name of CORONA and RGB

– The name "CORONA" is not an acronym. RGB wrote completely.

Resolution of all figures should be improved.

– Corrected

In discussion section; Discussion: As per the instruction given by the journal “The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and the limitations of the work highlighted”.

Write main results and future recommendation in conclusion.

– We have made the suggested edits to the Discussion and Conclusion sections.

 The English has been proofread by a native speaker with the help of MDPI's professional publishing service.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear all,

Many thanks for the invitation to review this paper. In fact, it was interesting to read this work. Besides, it has scientific soundness and could add to the thematic literature.

However, the authors should add a final section regarding the study limitations and future research lines.

Best,

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comment. The manuscript was revised according to all the comments of the four reviewers. The English has been proofread by a native speaker with the help of MDPI's professional publishing service. We have added a section regarding study limitations and future research directions.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is devoted to the important problem of assessing the impact of anthropogenic activity on the development of the landscape. A 200-year retrospective shows the development of the Ob River floodplain in the Tomsk region (Western Siberia, Russia). A large amount of work has been done, significant material has been analyzed and presented. The work was carried out at the modern scientific and technical level. The advantage of the study is the wide use of archival historical maps and the combination of the analysis of archival data with satellite imagery data. At the same time, images from different years are used for analysis. The time slices are also justified: they reflect the main significant milestones in the history of the development of this region. The question remains to the conclusions, they are not of a global nature, but are trivial. I would like to see what might happen in the future if we do not interfere with nature. How much more difficult it will be for a person to exist in this case in the places of their current residence. Also, how quickly you can return the ecological situation, if you start the development of the territory again, as in the USSR.  I recommend the article for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comment. The manuscript was revised according to all the comments of the four reviewers. The English has been proofread by a native speaker with the help of MDPI's professional publishing service. We have added a section regarding study limitations and future research directions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors seriously revised the manuscript.
The manuscript can be published after editorial revisions.

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments are completed. Now it is ready for publish.