Effect of Topographic Factors on Ecological Environment Quality in the Red Soil Region of Southern China: A Case from Changting County
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made revisions in response to the reviewer’s suggestions, and the manuscript has been significantly improved. The analysis of the ecological environment quality (EEQ) in relation to topographic factors in the red soil region of southern China is now clearer and more comprehensive. The findings are well-supported by the data, and the manuscript effectively highlights the importance of topography in shaping regional EEQ. I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort invested by the reviewers in evaluating our manuscript. Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I would like to express my gratitude to you for the manuscript.
This study aims to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the relationship between topography and ecological environment quality. The authors identified these relationships by combining RSEI with Landsat imagery from 2000 to 2019, analyzing topographic factors such as elevation, slope, aspect, relief amplitude (RA), and topographic position index (TPI), as well as using the Geodetector model. In general, the authors assessed the correlation between various topographic features and EEQ.
Firstly, I would like to commend the well-structured and clearly written introduction section, which provides a comprehensive background to the study and clearly outlines the aims of the authors. The Materials and Methods section is well-structured and presented in a clear manner, leaving no room for ambiguity or confusion. In general, the authors' conclusions are fully supported by their findings and are evidently presented. There are a few minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings in the text (e.g. 321 line - "Geomphographic"), but overall it is understandable and conveys its intended meaning.
However, I guess the following points should be considered prior to acceptance.
1) The RA and TPI are metrics that are calculated. I believe that the parameters for their calculation should be described in the relevant section (2.2.2). In particular, I would recommend including the general formulas used for calculation and the size of the area within which the calculations were conducted (size of moving windows).
2) The values for the year 2010 in the "worse" EEQ class, as shown in figures 4-8, raise concerns in my opinion. Why do they differ so significantly from those of 2019 and 2000? It is demonstrated in Figure 4, for instance. In all other EEQ classes, the values for 2000, 2010, and 2020 are only slightly different. However, in the "worse" class, 2020 and 2000 have similar values, with the maximum values ranging from 212 to 385, but the maximum value for 2010 is between 655 and 1000. A similar situation can be observed in figures 5, 6, 7, and 8. The values for years 2000, 2010, and 2020 are generally similar across all classes, but there is a significant difference in the values for 2010 in the "worse"class.
The authors explained this phenomenon in lines 197-198 and 272-274. However, this explanation is not obvious. I would like to suggest adding a separate paragraph with detailed explanations and examples regarding the specific regions that are considered to be "relatively steep terrain regions" and "challenging to govern or in the process of natural recovery". In other words, could you please provide a clear explanation of the above-mentioned phenomenon, supported by relevant examples?
I believe that this paper would benefit from further refinement and the inclusion of the aforementioned additional information.
Author Response
Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors tried to evaluate the ecological environment quality the red soil region of southern China. The theme is meaningful and the result is sufficient. However, this article can be accepted if the following issues are addressed:
(1) This article employs Landsat imagery to conduct the inversion of RSEI. However, it does not specify either the source or the level of the Landsat imagery. Meanwhile, given that there are numerous Landsat images available each year, it is essential to clarify which specific image was utilized and the reasons underlying the selection of that particular image.
(2) Section 2.2.2. This section is rather concise, and a great deal of key content has not been expounded upon. For example, the selection of classification methods for different topographic factors remains unexplored.
(3) Line 97: it is recommended to change "Introduction to the Study Area" to "Study area".
(4) Line 127: km2 is wrong.
(5) Lines 150-151: There is a lack of necessary references for the geographic detector.
(6) Line 334: it is recommended to change "Limitation" to "Limitations".
Author Response
Please see the attachment!
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
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe analytical approach of this article is lacking and the depth does not seem quite adequate. It is recommended that a more in-depth study be conducted before publication. Specific recommendations are as follows:
Title:
the Red Soil Region is appealing, but the body of the text does not highlight the uniqueness of the Red Soil Region and the need or importance of conducting this research work.
Introduction:
(1) Do the references to Global Moran's I and Local Moran's I have any relevance to this study? It is not sufficient to demonstrate the novelty of this study. If conditions permit, I would instead suggest adding this paper's analysis of spatial aggregation characteristics.
(2) The third paragraph mentions geoprobes as well as other models, but this paper is not innovative in this regard. If possible, I would also recommend adding the use of geodetectors to this paper.
Figure 1:
(1) Differential changes in elevation do not appear to be visible in the graph. Can you show the legend in segments.
Figure 2:
(1) Is the 9 in “DEM of the Study Area9” redundant?
(2) Is it necessary to repeat NVDI, WET, NDBSI and LST four times?
Table 3:
(1) Why was manual categorization chosen? Please explain its necessity and justification.
Lines 167-171: Is this explanatory text supported by the literature? Please provide.
4.1. Application Scale of the RSEI:
(1) What does the discussion in this section have to do with the results of the study? The discussion should be in the context of the results of this study, not in some unrelated and unfocused broad strokes.
(2) Where does this paper reflect the “Scale of the RSEI”?
4.2 Suitability of the Evaluation Indicators
(1) The deletion of the following text has no effect on the quality of the text. “In the research, four key indicators, including Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Wetness Index (WET), Normalized Difference Built-up Soil Index (NDBSI), and Land Surface Temperature (LST), generated from Landsat images in three study periods (2000, 2010, and 2019), were selected to construct the RSEI and evaluate the EEQ of the study area combining with PCA,”
(2) The second paragraph likewise needs to be condensed and simplified; in its current state it makes it impossible to find the point.
Author Response
Please see the attachment！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript titled "Gradient Effect of Topographic Factors on Ecological Environment Quality Evaluation in the Red Soil Region of Southern China: A Case Study of Changting County" investigates the relationship between topographic factors and ecological environment quality (EEQ) using remote sensing data from 2000 to 2019. The authors aim to evaluate the EEQ in Changting County and analyze how topography influences this quality, contributing to the understanding of ecological conditions in a region affected by soil erosion.
Major Concerns
While the manuscript presents valuable insights, several major concerns need addressing:
1. Methodological Clarity: The methodology section lacks sufficient detail regarding the statistical analyses performed, which is crucial for reproducibility.
2. Results Interpretation: Some results are not adequately discussed in terms of their implications for environmental management and policy.
3. Literature Gaps: Certain key studies relevant to topographic influences on EEQ are not cited, which may weaken the literature review.
Specific Concerns
1. Clarify what is meant by "gradient effect" in the context of topography and EEQ.
2. Missing references for claims about the effectiveness of RSEI in various regions; please provide citations.
3. The discussion on PCA could benefit from more explanation on how it relates specifically to this study's findings.
4. Consider providing more details on the "effective soil erosion control measures" mentioned—what specific strategies were implemented?
5. The sample point generation process should be elaborated upon to clarify how these points were selected and their relevance.
6. Ensure that all equations are clearly defined and that variables are explained to avoid confusion for readers unfamiliar with these methods.
7. Grammar/Spelling: Minor grammatical errors were noted throughout, such as inconsistent use of commas and some awkward phrasing that could be refined for clarity.
By addressing these concerns, the authors can enhance the clarity, rigor, and impact of their research, making it a more valuable contribution to the field of environmental science.
Author Response
Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUnder the hypothesis that selected indicators of greenness, wetness, dryness, and heat can capture most of the geographical characteristics of the study área, the authors carry out a study to construct the RSEI model of the study area based on the selected evaluation indexes originated from Landsat TM and OLI/TIR images from 2000 to 2019; In addition to analyze the change characteristics of the EEQ from 2000 to 2019 and try to reveal the topographic distribution gradient characteristics of each grade EEQ for different topographic factors. The paper in its standing form is not suitable for a publication. To try to improve the text I arise to take into account the following:
Keywords: ecological environment quality (EEQ); remote sensing ecological index (RSEI); topogra- 24 phy; red soil; southern China. In Keywords better to avoid the repeating of words mentioned in the Title.
Clarifying the main objectives of the manuscript more explicitly in the introduction would provide readers with a clearer overview of what to expect. I propose to the authors to be more specific, explanatory and simplified in order to be easily understandable from the readers.
Line 68. The evaluation results the results… Please correct.
Line 95… spans an area of 3104.16 square kilometers… Does two decimals really make sense?.
Line 100. The soil in Changting County is predominantly red,.. This terminology is not very precise. It is possible to add the type of soil using an international classification such as WRB FAO.
Please improve figures 5 - 9.
I suggest not using acronyms in conclusions section.
What is new about this article and what are the limitations of this study?
The authors do not follow the journal's rules regarding references. It is necessary to modify them accordingly, also citing in an appropriate way.
Author Response
Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors of the paper have made many efforts to improve the quality of the paper, which I sincerely appreciate.
.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI recommend publication, my comments were taken into consideration.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort invested by the reviewers in evaluating our manuscript.
