Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

 

Thank you for considering the central part of my comments. However, I should extend my review with some new observations:

 

• The abstract is too long.
• Reduce keywords.
• The author/s should use uppercase before an acronym (f.e. line 42 - LISA)
• The authors will be able to present more evidence of why they select this study area. In my opinion, some extra information about the factors that explain current forest quality degradation. For example, the paper affirms that "rapid socioeconomics development " cause it; however, there are no details about it in the research area.
• Where Can I find this data "As a result, the area of forest land in China has increased in the last 10 years"?
• The author/s should read and apply the author guidelines to cite other researches. A lot of references is not correct.
• The paper presents some spelling errors, for example, in line 78: "Ninth". The author/s should revise it. 
• In line 98, the author/s mention that wildfires affect 225,000 has, how many forest area it represents?
• In line 290, repeat, again, a citation error. I mention this in the previous report, and in your replay say: "Thank you. I have corrected it in the 2.3.1 Evaluation indicator system. "
• In line 308: use Equation instead of "function". Please use Journal references to cite the equations.
• The authors should include a brief description at the end of the introduction in which describes the research goal and how the paper structure helps to achieve it.
• The authors should cite all the software: Python is not referenced. 
• The authors overload several sections with subitems which are very confused to the reader. I recommend removing all of this or, at least, some of them. For example, in the section entitled "Evaluation indicator system", the authors could draw a flow-chart with the indicators and exclude the subitem numeration 1,2,3,4..... The authors could be more graphical instead of overuse subitems. 
• The paper is not well concluded. As I mentioned in my first report, the authors should remove the subitems. I should also expand my previous review and recommend that the conclusions include paper limitations and future extensions. 

 

In my opinion, author/s should improve the paper to be published. 

 

I hope to hear from you.

 

Regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

    Thank you for taking your time offer me so many valuable suggestion. I have amend my manuscript followed by your suggestion. My short reply for your comment is in the attachment . Also, all the specific changes please read the new version of my manuscript marked yellow.

    Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 42: General abbreviation used for Local Spatial Autocorrelation is LISA - Local Indicator for Spatial Association, I am wondering if the paper followed the Anselin (1995) coefficient, then the abbreviation LISA should be ussed  

Line 50: First time using the abbreviation, may use the full version and later use in this way  

Line 53-54: Then what is the use this study, why can't one follow the forest land quality alone...? Have you performed the correlation analysis of forest land quality index and LISA / LSA....? I think it is interesting to see this one before making any inferences? 

Line 60: 32 lines of abstract is it okay by the journal standard or should be reduced...?

Line 79: 324 million Ha is easier for a reader

Line 98: round it to 225625

Line 131: Fuzzy assessment and grey correlation analysis also subjective.......? I think each methods strength and weakness should be described before move on.

Line 147 & 150: Is numbering correct for the citation?

Line 157: I think citation numbering should be corrected accordingly in the rest of the sections.

Line 187: Celcius ..............?

Line 193-194: Is it the Local Indicator of Spatial Association (LISA) proposed by Anselin 1995 or some other method..............? 

Line 221: should go to the next page ?

Line 225: has it defined elsewhere, if not better do it help the reader.

Line 287: The values can be displayed with 2 decimal points unless it is it required. This tables require to some formatting fixes.  

Line 288: Do all these calculation procedure should go under annexture .........it is for editor's judgment based on the journal's format. 

Line 290: Some citations are missing in the reference list and some citations in the reference list are not cited in the text. Further, the manuscript requires more consistency in terms of citation in the text with proper numbering, it helps reader to refer easily. 

Line 324: Should be in the reference list, looks like the newly added citation were not included in the reference list.

Line 327 -328: Add more reference with its usage in various parts of world as examples to make a strong case, otherwise, it is mere statement. 

Line 350: I think the citation requires serious consideration provided that in one place name of the authors and numbers are used and in other cases only number is used, I am not sure about these, be consistent with guidelines provided by the journal to prepare the manuscript.

Line 365: 

Looks like the manuscript follows the Anselin (1995), ie. Local Indicator of Spatial Associtaion - LISA. If yes, then, it should be cited properly and few more text should be added. Further, the abbreviation LISA should be used instead of LSA.  It is an established method, authors should clarify this. If it is different, They have to explain the differences to facilitate the readers. 

https://geodacenter.github.io/workbook/6a_local_auto/lab6a.html#lisa-principle 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919205000795

Line 370: 

HH is both X and Y positive and LL is Both X and Y negative, isn't it. Alternatively, one can use the spatial similarity and dissimilarity, it is better to follow the norms in the literature.

 Please refer: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919205000795

Line 389: LISA????

Line 400: Have you performed a significant test for this, if not better to present it with the use of sub - compartment or village as replicates, even an analysis of variance may help separate the towns based on FLQI. 

Line 403-404: May be 2 decimal will be suffice unless there may be some other reason.

Line 408: round the figure with complete number and place ha only once at the end as full word.

Line 443-445: It appears that forest quality is greatly influenced by the elevation that is the single most important factor. In that case, one can easily say the forest quality with the elevation. Hence, what is the extra knowledge the study is adding to the existing body of literature, authors should add more in this direction provided that elevation is highly influence the slope and other soil parameters. Have to bring the extra point to strengthen the findings of the study. Below, map shows those difference in low elevation, so the authors should highlight those specifics rather than bring the general well known results.

Line 446-458: This is text answers to my above comment but author can rephrase those text to connect this paragraph by making some statement that lead for further reading to find the important points of this study. 

Line 459: 

Area can be presented in full number with closer approximation and follow elsewhere it is applicable.

Under the area column heading, can mention the area is in '000 Ha and reduce the number in the table to make it more attractive.

Line 466-472: Use of similarity and dissimilarity is more appropriate than positivity and negativity given that it is confusing some times the readers and in line with previous literature  in this area.

Figure 4: Mab be the village boundaries display may help identify the clusters in addition to the provincial boundaries. Super imposing those boundary will help.

Table 4: NS instead of NI?

Figure 5: May be the Figures 4 and 5 can be displayed side by side or above and below for better comparison. 

Line 534: 

Area can be presented in full number with closer approximation and follow elsewhere it is applicable.

Under the area column heading, can mention the area is in '000 Ha and reduce the number in the table to make it more attractive and follow the same wherever possible.

Line 535: Excellent, I am in agreement with other reviews comments. Hope all of those are addressed.

Line 650: NS instead of NI??

Please make sure the reference list is updated and consistent with citation mentioned in the text with correct sequence.  

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer2,

    Thank you for taking your time offer me so many valuable suggestion. I have amend my manuscript followed by your suggestion. My short reply for your comment is in the attatchment. Also, all the specific changes please read the new version of my manuscript marked yellow.

    Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I find very interesting your paper. It is a good point of view of your research and how you address the topic. However, I have some questions about it.

The first, I consider that two topics are not included in the paper: climate change and wildfires occurrence. This two factors could prove a global visión of the study area, so I recommend to introduce these points in the first part of the paper. Also, I suggest you comment on how it affects your results, therefore it should be considered in the discussión. Finally, maybe, in the same section, you should consider include a subitem in which you describe what social applications will have this technique and how the policymakers could apply it.

In my opinion, the authors should expand the introduction by including more data and references related to the socioeconomic effects in the forest lands. In this section, also, there is no official reference about the China General Secretary Xi strategy about the forestlands. 

In section 2.2, the field research should be expanded to understand more this process.

In the same section, the websites should be in the references. Also, ArcGIS software should be cited.

"by J. Kennedy and R. C. Eberhart et al. in 1995," is not correctly cited. 

In section 2.3.4., the structure is unclear, so it is too difficult to understand.

The authors should introduce initials FLGI before. I don't understand if it means the forest land quality index or forest land grade index.

The authors should describe the Moran's I and which the contiguity level employs in the paper. 

The author could make more attractive figures, for example, Fig. 4 or Fig.5.

The authors should rethink the conclusions without subitems.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

From my perspective, this paper is unclear, wordy, and written using awkward English. Clearly defined aims are missing. Scientific context broader than just Hubei province is also missing. The sentences are extremely long, with unnecessary details. The terminology used in this study is ambiguous; for example, what does "grade of forest land" really mean? I guess that an evaluation of these grades is the main aim of this study, so it should be clearly explained in the manuscript, including the abstract.

I am sorry for this short evaluation being not positive to you. I hope this will not discourage you to improve this ms. First, I would suggest rewriting it in a way it is clear and interesting readership. Otherwise, I would suggest submitting it to the local journal dealing with environmental management.