Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Finland’s Boreal Forests and Types over the Past Four Decades

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Analysis of spatial and temporal dynamics of Finland's boreal forests and tree species over the past 4 decades" presents a comprehensive study on the changes in Finland's boreal forest cover and tree species composition from 1980 to 2020. Utilizing Landsat TM/OLI images and Google Earth Engine, the study employs the random forest algorithm to classify forest cover and analyze spatial and temporal dynamics. The findings reveal significant changes in forest cover, particularly in coniferous forests, across different latitudinal zones, reflecting the impacts of climate change. Additionally, the study examines the conversion between coniferous and broadleaf forests, highlighting the dominance of coniferous forests and their vulnerability in the face of climate change. Nevertheless some issues should be addressed. In particular:

1. It would be helpful to provide more detailed explanations of specific steps in the methodology, such as the process of image preprocessing, selection of sample points, and the rationale behind using certain vegetation indices. This would enhance reproducibility and assist readers in understanding the technical aspects of the study.

2. The discussion section at this point is very poor. It has the same size with the conclusions. Therefore, the major task in this manuscript is to enrich the discussion part. Esecially:

a. While the manuscript reports high classification accuracies, it would be beneficial to elaborate on the validation methods used to assess the accuracy of the classification results. Providing insights into how validation samples were selected, the criteria for validation, and potential sources of error would strengthen the credibility of the findings.

b. The manuscript presents comprehensive results on forest cover changes and species composition, but further interpretation of these findings is needed. Discussing the ecological implications of observed trends, such as the potential impacts on habitat suitability, biodiversity, or carbon storage, would add depth to the discussion and enhance the significance of the study.

c. While the study attributes changes in forest cover to climate change, it would be prudent to acknowledge and discuss other potential drivers, such as land use change or natural disturbances. Considering alternative explanations would provide a more holistic understanding of the factors influencing forest dynamics.

d. Provide more detailed explanations of why commonly used vegetation indices have low accuracy in identifying certain land cover types, such as low-density vegetation, cultivated land, and bare land. Discuss specific characteristics of these land cover types that make them difficult to differentiate using traditional indices.

e. Expand on the discussion regarding the performance of classifiers incorporating texture features. Elaborate on the observed side effects and provide insights into why texture features may not work well in this context. Discuss potential strategies for improving classifier performance without relying on texture features.

f. Discuss the implications of the study findings for forest management in Finland and Europe more broadly. Consider addressing how the observed forest dynamics and climate change impacts may influence future management practices, adaptation strategies, and policy decisions.

By expanding on these key points, the discussion section can provide a more thorough analysis of the study findings and their broader implications, enhancing the overall quality and significance of the manuscript for publication.

Also. some minor revisions.

1. Use passive voice within the manuscript.

2. Provide a map for the study area

3. Section 2.4. Random Forest classification and accuracy assessment should be moved to Results

4. Figures 2, 3 and 8 should be enlarged. At this point are not well readable.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A minor editing of the English language is required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!

I enlarged the review of the article according provided questions.

The reviewed article presents an analysis of the spatial and temporal dynamics of the boreal forests of Finland from 1980 to 2020. The article is a completed study, executed at a high scientific level. The article is relevant and interesting for a range of specialists. The work is well-presented, written in clear scientific language. The structure of the scientific article is fully observed. The aim of the work was to identify which latitudinal belt is more sensitive to forest changes and to provide information obtained as a result of the study to explore the response of boreal forest territories to global climate change. The authors rationally used remote sensing data, as well as statistical data processing methods. As a result, new important data on the reduction of forest area were obtained. The conclusions obtained correspond to the set goal and fully reveal it. The conclusions are supported by the results obtained during the study and their analysis.

Some minor adjustments are needed.

In Figure 2, the legend labels (a) and (b) appear twice. To avoid confusion, choose different legend labels.

Figures 2, 3, and 8 are very small in size, which makes it difficult to understand the information they contain. I strongly recommend the authors to provide these figures in the article in good resolution and larger size.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Title: Analysis of spatial and temporal dynamics of Finland's boreal forests and tree species over the past 4 decades

Manuscript ID: forests-2936556

This is an interesting paper that adds new information related spatial and temporal dynamics of Finland's boreal forests and tree species over the past 4 decades. However, the paper needs more technical editing to improve its form. While this paper would be useful for global climate change and sustainable development research but can also provide support for further research on the response of boreal forest changes to climate change, but the current form of the manuscript requires revisions.

Specific comments as follows:

The abstract is not well-formulated, for instance, the method of image classification is not introduced.

Some sort of recommendation should be included at the end of the abstract.

Introduction: the introduction is not inclusive. The authors did not say anything about the tree species which has been decline, although the concept is included in the title.

Methodology: The methods section of the paper is fine, but too lengthy and I believe can be shortened and improved for clarity.

Results are fine

Discussion needs improvement.

Conclusions need major revisions: The authors are repeating their results. The authors can conclude their findings based on their results rather than repeating results again. For instance, line 404 to 409 is purely results and conclusions. The overall conclusion of the manuscript should be changed entirely as it is not the conclusion you should mention based on your findings. This section is poorly executed. Overall, the paper may provide useful information for global climate change and sustainable development research and the current form requires effort to improve the work.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing my comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed my comment.