A Quantitatively Divided Approach for the Vertical Belt of Vegetation Based on NDVI and DEM—An Analysis of Taibai Mountain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Good job! Please check my comments below.
Introduction:
1. Why using “summer NDVI to define vegetation zones” is restricted?
Methodology:
2. Please Italic the Latin name.
3. What is the accuracy of the handheld GPS?
4. Line 110, which month(s) do you use for summer and autumn?
5. Lines 142-144, how did you classify the vegetative pixels to different species?
6. How many ground truthing samples did you collect for each class?
Results:
7. Line 176, figure 4, how did you categorize the six zones? What are the criteria?
8. Lines 213-215 and table 2, how did you know the vegetation type of each altitude layer?
Discussion and conclusions:
9. Consider separate discussions and conclusions. This version seems to have no end.
10. Remove last paragraph.
11. Missing information of “Conflicts of Interest”.
Author Response
Thanks very much for your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all yourcomments and suggestions. We have considered these comments carefully and triedour best to address every one of them.
Comment 1：Why using “summer NDVI to define vegetation zones” is restricted?
Our response: For the forest ecosystem, summer vegetation is lush, both deciduous forest and evergreen forest have high NDVI values, as shown in Figure 3 (a). It is impossible to distinguish the two planting types, so the use of summer NDVI to divide vegetation zones has limitations for the mountainous forest ecosystem.
Comment 2：Please Italic the Latin name.
Our response: The full Latin names have been checked one by one and revised in italics.
Comment 3：What is the accuracy of the handheld GPS?
Our response: The accuracy of the handheld GPS is 3 meters.
Comment 4：Line 110, which month(s) do you use for summer and autumn?
Our response: Summer is from June to August，autumn is from September-November. This is described in 2.2Materials.
Comment 5：Lines 142-144, how did you classify the vegetative pixels to different species?
Our response: The image interpretation of vegetation types on the southern slope of Taibai Mountain protected area was carried out by combining object-oriented method with decision tree method．The construction of decision tree is shown in the figure below. Since image interpretation is not the core content of this paper, it is not presented in this paper.
Comment 6：How many ground truthing samples did you collect for each class?
Our response: The number of ground truthing sample is 33, as shown in the table below.
|
Sampling time |
Altitude |
Dominant vegetation |
Sampling time |
Altitude |
Dominant vegetation |
|
The year 2015 |
934 |
Quercus variabilis |
The year 2016 |
|
|
|
1050 |
Quercus aliena |
|
|
||
|
1220 |
Quercus aliena |
|
|
||
|
1356 |
Quercus aliena |
|
|
||
|
1503 |
Quercus aliena |
|
|
||
|
1654 |
Quercus aliena |
1655 |
Quercus variabilis |
||
|
1800 |
Quercus aliena |
1811 |
Quercus aliena |
||
|
2121 |
Quercus wutaishanica |
1984 |
Quercus aliena, Betula albosinensis |
||
|
2221 |
Quercus wutaishanica, Pinus armandii Franch |
2098 |
Quercus aliena ,Betula albosinensis |
||
|
2414 |
Pinus armandii Franch, Betula albosinensis |
2249 |
Betula albosinensis. Pinus armandii Franch, Pinus tabuliformis |
||
|
2560 |
Pinus armandii Franch, Betula albosinensis |
2398 |
Betula albosinensis. Pinus armandii Franch |
||
|
2699 |
Betula albosinensis |
2554 |
Betula albosinensis, Betula utilis |
||
|
2840 |
Betula albosinensis, Abies fabri |
2679 |
Betula albosinensis |
||
|
3030 |
Abies fabri |
2849 |
Betula albosinensis, Abies fabri |
||
|
3166 |
Larix potaninii |
3002 |
Abies fabri |
||
|
3300 |
Larix potaninii |
3151 |
Larix potaninii |
||
|
3450 |
Scrub meadow |
3303 |
Larix potaninii |
||
|
3609 |
Scrub meadow |
3468 |
Scrub meadow |
||
|
3750 |
Scrub meadow |
3600 |
Scrub meadow |
Comment 7：Line 176, figure 4, how did you categorize the six zones? What are the criteria?
Our response: The section in Figure 4 is judged from the fluctuation pattern of the scatter plot and the available sample data and historical data. This is just a rough structural judgment, the specific partition segment is calculated in Section 3.3
Comment 8：Lines 213-215 and table 2, how did you know the vegetation type of each altitude layer?
Our response: The determination of vegetation type at each altitude in this part is based on the prediction of vegetation zone structure in Part 3.2.
Comment 9：Consider separate discussions and conclusions. This version seems to have no end.
Our response: Conclusion and discussion have been written separately, see the revised draft for details.
Comment 10：Remove last paragraph.
Our response: Last paragraph has been removed.
Comment 11：Missing information of “Conflicts of Interest”.
Our response: “Conflicts of Interest” has been uploaded.
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, I want to congratulate the authors for their efforts in this manuscript. In the paper, the authors detailed the use of remote sensing to identify the different forest types in the Taibai Mountain region. The topic is aligned with the journal's scope and is interesting for the readers. There are some issues to be addressed before considering the paper for publication. The major problem is linked to the low number of references. Following, a series of comments aimed at enhancing the quality of the paper are added:
Abstract and Keywords:
The introduction of the problem is not presented in the abstract. A new sentence at the beginning of the abstract introducing the problem that the paper is facing must be provided.
In the abstract, the authors have to highlight their results, including numerical values of the performance of their proposal.
Avoid using, as a keyword, terms already used in the title. Deleted keywords included in the title and provided new keywords.
Introduction:
|
The aim of the paper must be presented in an independent paragraph and extended. |
|
Authors must include in the introduction of a short paragraph that details the structure of the rest of the paper. |
|
The authors have to highlight the novelty of their proposal. What are the novelty of this paper? What are the differences with currently published papers? |
Materials and Methods:
The paragraphs of subsection 2.2. Materials are too short. Consider extending the provided information and merging some of the paragraphs.
Clearly add the data of used pictures.
Results:
Subsection3.2. Determination of the vegetation's vertical zone structure using a NDVI-DEM scatter plot is composed of many short paragraphs. The authors have to increase the Infomation about the Sections.
Check the use of italics in the names of species in the main text.
Discussion and conclusions
The content of this section must be enhanced and split into two sections. On the one hand, the conclusions must be included in a new section focusing on this section in the discussion.
The discussion section should be divided into different subsections presenting each key aspect of their research. Moreover, the authors have to compare their results with the obtained results in similar research. In this part, the authors have to add a considerable number of refenreces to provide and adequate context for their results. Other aspects to be analyzed include the impact of these results on forestry and related areas management and the limitations of conducted research.
The second section is the conclusion. In this section, the authors must summarize the problem, the aim and the contributions of their work in a short paragraph. Then, the authors will detail the future work related to this paper.
Author Response
Thanks very much for your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all yourcomments and suggestions. We have considered these comments carefully and triedour best to address every one of them.
Comment 1：Abstract and Keywords:
The introduction of the problem is not presented in the abstract. A new sentence at the beginning of the abstract introducing the problem that the paper is facing must be provided.
In the abstract, the authors have to highlight their results, including numerical values of the performance of their proposal.
Avoid using, as a keyword, terms already used in the title. Deleted keywords included in the title and provided new keywords.
Our response: ①A new sentence at the beginning of the abstract has been added——“Vertical vegetation differentiation is the most important form of spatial pattern of vegetation in mountainous areas. It is of great significance to divide vegetation vertical zone accurately for the study of mountain ecosystem and ecological protection.”
②Emphasize the accuracy of the results in the abstract, and the modification is as follows: “Six vertical belts could be accurately identified to the meter level on Taibai Mountain's south slope.”
③New keywords has been provided——“vegetation type，altitude，scatter plot，vegetation zone”.
Comment 2：Introduction:
|
The aim of the paper must be presented in an independent paragraph and extended. |
|
Authors must include in the introduction of a short paragraph that details the structure of the rest of the paper. |
|
The authors have to highlight the novelty of their proposal. What are the novelty of this paper? What are the differences with currently published papers? Our response: The introduction has been revised as suggested, including further clarifying the purpose of the research and placing it in a separate paragraph, explaining the content of each part of the paper completely, and further clarifying the innovation of the research. |
Comment 3：Materials and Methods:
The paragraphs of subsection 2.2. Materials are too short. Consider extending the provided information and merging some of the paragraphs.
Clearly add the data of used pictures.
Our response: Combine the description of the paragraphs in the material section.
Comment 4：Results:
Subsection3.2. Determination of the vegetation's vertical zone structure using a NDVI-DEM scatter plot is composed of many short paragraphs. The authors have to increase the Infomation about the Sections.
Check the use of italics in the names of species in the main text.
Our response: Part 3.2 is combined into three paragraphs, one is the specific description of the method, the second is the analysis of the vertical belt structure of the south slope, and the third is the analysis of the vertical belt structure of the north slope.
The full Latin names have been checked one by one and revised in italics.
Comment 5：Discussion and conclusions
The content of this section must be enhanced and split into two sections. On the one hand, the conclusions must be included in a new section focusing on this section in the discussion.
The discussion section should be divided into different subsections presenting each key aspect of their research. Moreover, the authors have to compare their results with the obtained results in similar research. In this part, the authors have to add a considerable number of refenreces to provide and adequate context for their results. Other aspects to be analyzed include the impact of these results on forestry and related areas management and the limitations of conducted research.
The second section is the conclusion. In this section, the authors must summarize the problem, the aim and the contributions of their work in a short paragraph. Then, the authors will detail the future work related to this paper.
Our response: List the conclusions and discussions separately. The conclusion part strengthens the improvement of the content and emphasizes the results of the research. The discussion part starts from the significance of the research and the comparison with the research results of others.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1. line 96, citation might be [26,27]
2. Figure 4, captions of panel a and b are the same. Similar issue for table 3.
3. Consider discussions first, and then conclusions.
Author Response
Thanks very much for your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all yourcomments and suggestions. We have considered these comments carefully and triedour best to address every one of them.
1.line 96, citation has been modified to [26,27].
2.Figure 4 Change the title to" Scatter plot of NDSA versus DEM on the south slope of the Taibai Mountain(a); Scatter plot of NDSA versus DEM on the north slope of the Taibai Mountain(b)."
The title of Table 3 is changed to "Vertical belt distribution of Taibai Mountain based on Spot image interpretation."
3.The conclusion has been reversed from the order of the discussion, and the content of the discussion has been expanded.
Reviewer 2 Report
The Discussion and conclusions must be splited into two different sections, extending the content of the discussion as previously requested:
The discussion section should be divided into different subsections presenting each key aspect of their research. Moreover, the authors have to compare their results with the obtained results in similar research. In this part, the authors have to add a considerable number of refenreces to provide and adequate context for their results. Other aspects to be analyzed include the impact of these results on forestry and related areas management and the limitations of conducted research.
Author Response
Thanks very much for your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all yourcomments and suggestions. We have made a comprehensive revision to the conclusion and discussion section.
The discussion and conclusion have been divided into two parts, the discussion before, the conclusion. To expand the discussion part, mainly from the research materials and methods, the comparison with the previous vegetation zone, and the shortcomings and prospects of this paper.
