Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis of Multi-Scale Damaged Vegetation in the Wenchuan Earthquake-Affected Area, Southwest China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please consider all my suggestion and comments added in the pdf file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Question: In which part of the earth is located this place? Please add more geographical information about it.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. The authors of this manuscript fully accept the reviewer’s comment. We added “,Southwest China” to the final of title. (Please see Lines 2-4 on Page 1)
Question: which you have processed to demonstrated it.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We revised it as “vegetation destruction (Cui et al., 2012a), heavy economic losses (Allen et al., 1999), biodiversity reduction (Cheng et al., 2012), aggravated sedimentation (Cheng et al., 2010), and landscape fragmentation (Zhang et al., 2011).” (Please see Lines 37-39 on Page 1)
Question: xxx m a.s.l. please add in elevation data in all the paper.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. The authors of this manuscript fully accept the reviewer’s comment. We add a.s.l. in all elevation data.
Question: I suggest to add more layer on tectonics (e.g. main faults alignment), this to demonstrate better your results obtained
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. The authors of this manuscript fully accept the reviewer’s comment. We add fault alignment in our manuscript. (Please see Line 143 on Page 4)
Question: I suggest to use satellite multi temporal image from April to June to evaluate the maximum sprouting and growth activities of forest vegetation.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. The authors of this manuscript fully respect this. However, some researchers have studied the contents that the reviewer suggested (Please check the paper named “The Application of CBERS Data to Rapid Assessment of Forest Resources Loss in Wenchuan Earthquake Region” and published in Journal of Mountain Science). Therefore, we did not use satellite multi temporal image to evaluate the maximum sprouting and growth activities of forest vegetation in our manuscript.
Question: please specify the definition of "economic forest".
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. The authors of this manuscript fully accept the reviewer’s comment. We add the definition of economic forest in our manuscript. (Please see Lines 153-154 on Page 5)
Question: There are some troubles with this elaboration. This is typical results of aspect analysis from plain areas. Please consider it.
I suggest also to calculate the aspect, due the circular values of compas, by the use of trigonometry formula. Please consider it
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We misused the aspect map in our manuscript, but we analyzed the relationship between the aspect and vegetation type based on the use of trigonometry formula. Therefore, we corrected the aspect map and please see Line 172 on Page 6.
Question: Convention? or what? e.g. National Protected Areas for biodivesrity act
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. It should be Conservation International and World Wildlife Fund. (Please see Lines 440-441 on Page 19)
Question: Altitude? please specify better.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. It should be “high-high associations in high coverage of damaged vegetation”. (Please see Line 443 on Page 19)
Question: I don't think that you results are sufficient to define the restoration of damage vegetation due to the ecological factors not explored in this paper and research on the dynamics and structure of plant communities that survive in the Wenchuan by millions of years in the area always characterized by powerful tectonics activities. Please consider it in your final assumption due to the ecological factors not explored in this paper on vegetation communities that survive by million years in the area always affected by tectonic strength. Please consider it in your final.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. The authors of this manuscript fully accept the reviewer’s comment. We changed some expressions according to the reviewer’s comment. Please see Line 29 on Page 1, Lines 70 and 90 on Page 2, Line 351 on Page 17, Line 438 on Page 19, and Lines 464-468 on Page 20.
Reviewer 2 Report
See attached sheet.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Question: PP2 line 49. RMB acronym needs spelled out.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. We fully accept the reviewer’s comment. We added RMB acronym (Ren Min Bi) in our manuscript. (Please see Lines 52 on Page 2).
Question: PP2 line 70. Also assume random distribution of residuals in regression models.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. We fully accept the reviewer’s comment. We revised the sentence as “Conventional statistical methods based on linear and logistic regressions assume the data and random distribution of their residuals to be statistically independent and identically distributed (Cliff & Ord, 1981)”. (Please see Lines 73-74 on Page 2).
Question: Aside from models why do we care about spatial autocorrelation? What does it tell us? This is required to better understand the need for this work. Readers may wonder why we should care.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We added the meanings and advantages of spatial autocorrelation in our manuscript. (Please see Lines 77-80 on Page 2).
Question: PP7. Under what circumstances would you use global v local spatial autocorrelation statistics?
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We added a new sentence to explain the circumstances in our manuscript. (Please see Lines 198-199 on Page 7).
Question: PP8. What advantages do spatial autoregressive models have over other approaches? Would be nice to know why three models are presented (local, global, SA).
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We fully accept the reviewer’s comment. We added the advantages of spatial autoregressive models in our manuscript. (Please see Lines 208-210 on Page 8).
Question: PP10. First paragraph needs to be re-wrote earlier in the paper as a justification of the work-if you want to create statistical models to explain vegetation destruction, then models that handle spatial autocorrelation are necessary.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We fully accept the reviewer’s comment. We added a sentence to describe the process of regression models. (Please see Lines 236-238 on Page 8).
Question: General comments-The science and statistical approaches are valid but there needs to be a better articulation of why this work is important in the introduction.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We edited the introduction according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (Please see Lines 48-50 and Lines 77-80 on Page 2)
