Multisource Remote Sensing Monitoring and Analysis of the Driving Forces of Vegetation Restoration in the Mu Us Sandy Land

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Multisource remote sensing data and multiple indicators were used to quantitatively monitor and evaluate the vegetation restoration status in the Mu Us Sandy Land and the driving factors of vegetation restoration were analyzed and discussed in this paper. The work confirmed the fact that the vegetation in the Mu Us Sandy Land has improved significantly in recent years, from a quantitative perspective. It is also interesting to discuss the spatial differences and driving factors of vegetation restoration in the study area. However, the authors should revise the paper to make their contributions clear to readers.

The authors need to explain what type of data were collected at 45 sampling points. What is the relationship between the sampling data and the vegetation monitoring results in this paper?

The authors should explain in more detail the principle of the risk detection method and the relationship with the results of this paper. It is not very clear in the current manuscript.

It is suggested that the authors should add further analysis of the consistency and difference between multi-sensor results and multi indicators results in the discussion section.
Minor comments:
Line 30:  What is the meaning of the kilometre grid GDP?

Line 137: The information in figure.1 is messy, which could be further optimized

Line 208-209: “we used the empirical values of 0.05 and 0.7 for NDVI_soil and NDVI_veg, respectively.” Why used the empirical values of 0.05 and 0.7 for NDVI_soil and NDVI_veg,
Line 273: “Temporal and spatial variation of the FVC;” Spatial and temporal variation of the FVC is better?

Line 389-391: Among the 9 more important factors, the q value of LUCC was the largest (27.29), followed by AI (23.44), PRE (20.65), kilometre grid GDP (19.88), TEM (13.41), SRI (12.32), AH (10.77), and ALT (10.37), and the river buffer (RBD) was the smallest (8.79).  ( 27.29% or 0.2729)…I guess it is percent.

Line 432: Figure 9. Importance ranking results for the RF algorithm. Whether bold title text is necessary?

Line 515-517: The results of the analysis of the driving factors indicate that regional vegetation restoration was a complex and dynamic process that was affected by the interaction of multiple factors (4.2.2 Conclusion). There is not a corresponding section in the text. Is it section 3.2.2?

 

 

 

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled " Multisource remote sensing monitoring and analysis of driving forces of vegetation restoration in the Mu Us Sandy Land" is interesting and easy to understand. Authors study the driving forces of vegetation restoration in Mu Us sandy Land using Multisource remote sensing data. In my view, the title of the manuscript is clear, abstract well written, related studies described in introduction, results clearly presented and discussed in comparison and contrast with previous studies. The analysis is done well but the manuscript needs a complete overhauling for sentence framing and grammar corrections. Still there are many issues present in the manuscript which should be explained properly. The manuscript needs some major revisions as given below: General comments  The text of this paper in general needs a thorough review, as there are multiple spelling and grammatical errors. Many sentences do not mean any sense. Moreover, there are several sloppy errors that should be fixed.  Some abbreviations does not show full name of this, like MODIS, GDP etc. Please check all abbreviations and write full name in first.  Citation does not contain in proper way in main text, Please set it as journal style.  All figures resolution is very low and hard to read it. Please increase its resolution.  The conclusions should focus on the summary of the study, main findings, and possible implications.  Write the future recommendation of your research in conclusion. Specific comments  Page 18; Write full name of MODIS  Page 49-58; give the suitable reference in this paragraph  Pahe 59-60; Not necessary, delete this.  Page 137; fig 1, image does not read in proper way. I suggest that save your all image resolution in 500 dpi.  Page 161; What mean LUCC ??? I think it should be land use land cove (LULC).  Page 160-163; (Social and human factors included) this line does not clear, please rephase it  Page 188-196; give the reference  Page 357; fig 5, give the title of all images, this form this confused  Page 472; Yan et al. write as Yan et al. [45]. 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

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This study evaluated the vegetation restoration status in the Mu Us Sandy land using multiple remote sensing indices and interpreted the important factors for the restoration. This topic is meaningful and interesting. It could provide insights into the mechanism of human, environment and climate interactions on land restoration and transformation. Before accepting for publication by land, there are several points need to be improved.

 

There are several detailed comments that authors should consider

Line 119-121

In the introduction, there are many redundant information which is not directly relevant to the scope of this study. Please revise and make it sharper.

Figures

The resolution of the figures needs to be improved.

Method

there are many variables considered in this study. I recommend to include a flowchart to indicate the procedures of data collection, processing, modeling and interpreting.

Section 2.3.4 RF

please cite relevant reference in this section to support your statements.

the following reference might be useful for you.

Zhao, D., Arshad, M., Wang, J., & Triantafilis, J. (2021). Soil exchangeable cations estimation using Vis-NIR spectroscopy in different depths: Effects of multiple calibration models and spiking. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 182, 105990.

Zhao, D., Li, N., Zare, E., Wang, J., & Triantafilis, J. (2020). Mapping cation exchange capacity using a quasi-3d joint inversion of EM38 and EM31 data. Soil and Tillage Research, 200, 104618.

Discussion

More information on how the previous studies considered the research questions of this study and what conclusions have been driven and comparing the results to give a thoughtful interpretation of the mechanism.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript titled " Multisource remote sensing monitoring and analysis of driving forces of vegetation restoration in the Mu Us Sandy Land " intends to answer the follow questions: 1) Has the vegetation of the Mu Us Sandy Land recovered? If recovery has occurred, in what area, when, and to what extent? 2) Which environmental factors have an important impact on the dynamic changes in the vegetation of the Mu Us Sandy Land? How much do they contribute to the vegetation dynamics, individually and in combination? The manuscript select data from Mu Us Sandy Land in China from 2000 to 2020 by using GIS and the study area is the Mu Us sandy land, one of the four major sandy lands in China and an important part of the ecological security barrier in northern China.

The research is original; it could be characterized as novel and in my opinion important to the field, it also has an almost appropriate structure, and the language has been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has a nice extent (about 7484 words) and it is comprehensive. The tables (3) and figures (11) make the paper to reflect well to the reader. For this reason, paper has a "diversity look", not only tables, not only numbers, not only words. It is advised to revise figures, compare them (for ex. Figure 3 & 4 and Figure 8 & 9) or use appendix if you agree.

The title, I think, is all right. The abstract did not reflect well the findings of this study, and it has not the appropriate length. Please revise the abstract of the manuscript and do not forget abstract need to encourage readers to download the paper. The Abstract needs further work. It is not clear. Abstracts should indicate the research problem/purpose of the research, provide some indication of the design/methodology/approach taken, the findings of the research and its originality/value in terms of its contribution to the international literature. The abstract has a long length (about 357 words). Please, revise the abstract, it must be up to 200 words long, for this reason I would be good to reduce [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot)].

The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized; it really introduced and put into perspective what research is negotiating. For the Methodology chapter, the research conduct has been tested in several areas of the world, with similar results and will probably be tested in others. Appropriate references to the methodology included in the already published bibliography. It is advised to revise the Discussion and Conclusion. Both sections should be consistent in terms of Proposal, Problem statement, Results, and of course, future work. Your conclusion section is short and does not justice to your work. Make it your key contributions, arguments, and findings clearer. You must refer to the literature and previous studies in your discussion section.

I would be much more satisfied if the number of references was slightly higher (about 15 - 20 references) and I would appreciate it if it also included data other than Asia for example America, Europe or Australia, because it has many references from Asia. In this way it is documented that a method that is tested in a place with its own characteristics can be implemented in other places around the world.

Landsat satellites have the optimal ground resolution and spectral bands to efficiently track land use and to document land change due to climate change and a host of other natural and human-caused changes. I would be good to include (ex. In the first paragraph of subsection 3.1.1. Spatial distribution of the FVC, lines 316 - 318) the numbers of images were used [ex. Landsat-8 Enhanced Thematic Mapper 30 m resolution image for 2019 covering the study area was downloaded (LC08_L1TP_185032_20170xxx_20170xxx_01_T1) from the U.S. Geological Survey (http://www.usgs.gov/)]. Probably the same for MODIS datasets, you can use. I also know most of the images, data, and related products available from the USGS are federally created data and therefore reside in the public domain and may be used, transferred, or reproduced without copyright restriction.

More discussion is needed, comparing the results of this work related to attributes with those of other studies. I believe that the conclusions section or discussion should also include the main limitations of this study (as you did) and incorporate possible policy implications. I think, something more should be said about practical implications.

Please revise the references of the manuscript and include references which are already exists in bibliography. References must have an appropriate style, for this reason I would be good to change [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation / Back Matter / References: - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions or https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references)]. Do not forget, DOI numbers (Digital Object Identifier) are not mandatory but highly encouraged and make the review easier.

For example, for reference 5 you write “Wei, X.; Wang, S.; Wang, Y.; Li, R. Spatial and temporal change of fractional vegetation cover in North-western China from 2000 to 2010. Geological Journal 2018, 53, 427-434, doi:10.1002/gj.3030”. I think must be revised as “Wei, X.; Wang, S.; Wang, Y. Spatial and Temporal Change of Fractional Vegetation Cover in North-Western China from 2000 to 2010. Geol. J. 2018, 53, 427–434, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.3030”.

 

The reference 44 must be revised as “Sun, W.; Song, X.; Mu, X.; Gao, P.; Wang, F.; Zhao, G. Spatiotemporal Vegetation Cover Variations Associated with Climate Change and Ecological Restoration in the Loess Plateau. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2015, 209–210, 87–99, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.05.002”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your response. Authors give the detail response of all comments. Now this manucript is ready for publication.

 

Author Response

亲爱的审稿人

我们非常感谢您花在我们的手稿上的时间。非常感谢您对我们题为“多源遥感监测与Mu Us Sandy Land植被恢复驱动力分析”（land-1840196）的手稿的考虑和反馈。我们非常感谢您的宝贵意见和建议，这些意见和建议对改进我们的稿件非常有帮助。

致以最诚挚的问候，

真诚的你。

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have well addressed my concerns.

Author Response

亲爱的审稿人

我们非常感谢您花在我们的手稿上的时间。非常感谢您对我们题为“多源遥感监测与Mu Us Sandy Land植被恢复驱动力分析”（land-1840196）的手稿的考虑和反馈。我们非常感谢您的宝贵意见和建议，这些意见和建议对改进我们的稿件非常有帮助。

致以最诚挚的问候，

真诚的你。