Eco-Environmental Assessment and Trend Analysis of the Yangtze River Middle Reaches Megalopolis Based on a Modified Remote Sensing Ecological Index
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough this article presents a valuable work, there are several issues that need to be clarified:
1. What are the scientific questions, pivotal innovations, and significant findings of this study?
2. Compared to existing similar researches, what are the main knowledge gaps, and have these gaps been addressed? Given that most of the current literature reviews are merely listings of existing work, it is difficult to judge.
3. Compared to existing researches, what improvements or innovations have been made in the methodology of this study?
4. What is the difference between the discussion and results? In section discussion, at least authors should not repeat something similar to that of section results
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors assessed the ecological quality of three provinces in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River using a modified remote sensing ecological index. The content of the study meets the requirements for sustainable publication, but the following issues need to be clarified:
1. is MRSEI implemented in the GEE platform? If yes, please give the code link.
2, Why is AOD put into the index and how to justify it?
3, The result of ecological quality decline in the middle reaches of Yangtze River is doubtful, and the authors are suggested to talk about MRSEI and regular RSEI to compare the proof.
4、In sen-mk trend analysis, did the authors do the trend analysis through 20 years of data or, 5 of them (2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020)?
5, How to ensure the consistency of Landsat data due to the long time series, which spans a large period of time? And consistency between Landsat and MODIS products?
6, The discussion should start with a comparison of improved remote sensing ecological indices and conventional ecological indices
7、How to explain the change of weights of indicators in MRSEI in different years, please analyze it with previous studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article entitled Eco-environmental Assessment and Trend Analysis of the Yangtze River Middle Reaches Megalopolis Based on a Modified Remote Sensing Ecological Index addresses an interesting topic: in the context of the fast growing urbanization process and its profound pressure on eco-systems, the authors used a modified remote sensing ecological index in order to monitor and assess the eco-environmental quality.
The article contains the appropriate structure. It is correctly divided into relevant sections and their content coincides with their titles. Bibliography is correctly formulated. The scientific language of the article is mature.
Abstract - the authors have to clarify the aim of the study. I see the result, but the purpose is obviously not clear to me.
Introduction – this chapter is comprehensive, providing extensive information on
different models for ecological environment assessment (such as normalized index vegetation index, leaf area index, enhanced vegetation index), also discussing their shortcomings and therefore the need for using an ecological index totally based on remote sensing. However, I would advise the authors to expand the literature on ecological environment quality in general, also including information on traditional assessing methods, for the sake of comparison. Normalized index vegetation index, leaf area index, enhanced vegetation index.
Study area profile – Please indicate the source of the figure; if it is an own contribution, please state as such. What does Figure 2 represent? It is not about location, it is about physical-geographical characteristics.
Data sources and preprocessing - this chapter should also include information on the programs used.
Methods - Does the model you include have any limitations?
Results and analysis - this part is very well implemented and supported in a satisfying manner by arguments, explanations and graphical and cartographical materials.
Conclusions – seem to be logically constructed and have consistency, but they MUST better outline the added value of the paper. Why is there a need for such a study?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has revised the manuscript in detail and recommends its acceptance for publication.
Author Response
We are pleased to learn that our revisions have been acknowledged by you. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
