Conversion of Natural Wetland to Farmland in the Tumen River Basin: Human and Environmental Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments Point 1: The citations are a bit dated and could be strengthened by adding in newer sources. Response 1: Done as suggested. We have added more references in newer sources and updated the citations according to the reviewer’s comment. Point 2: The English language translation is very poor. Response 2: Done as suggested. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have rewritten the English manuscript and invited professional English-speaking colleague to review and edit the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

    This manuscript presented a study of mapping natural wetland and farmland in the transnational basin of the Tumen River, and analyzing the conversion between natural wetland and farmland during the past 30 years. The results indicated that natural wetland experienced significant losses due to agricultural encroachment. The study’s topic is important and falls within the scope of the journal of Remote Sensing. However, some major issues make the article needed to be revised before publication. Therefore, I recommend a major revision.

 

Major issues

1. In the second paragraph in the Introduction Section, the impacts of climate change on wetland were discussed. However, this paper’s aim was to analyze the conversion between natural wetland and farmland, i.e., the impacts of human activities on wetland. In my opinion, this paragraph was redundant and should be deleted.

 

2. In the Section 2.1, the title “Study site” may not be appropriate. “Study area” might be better. In addition, in the first paragraph in the Section 2.1, the areas of Chinese, North Korea’s, and Russian sub-regions should be added and introduced.

 

3. In the Section 2.2, multiple data were used in this study, including remote sensing data, meteorological data, and socio-economic data. However, the spatial resolutions of these data were different. Authors should introduce the spatial resolution used in this study.

 

4. In the Section 2.3, the title “Analytical methods” may not be appropriate. In my opinion, “Methods” might be more appropriate. Meanwhile, the title of Section 2.3.1 should also be revised.

 

5. In the Section 2.3.1, land use classification system was introduced. For land use and land cover (LULC) maps, classification system was very important. Different classification system will lead to different LULC maps, especially for wetland. In my opinion, authors should carefully introduce the classification system used in this study. Is it the LULC classification system or the wetland classification system? How may wetland types were included in this system? The authors should also provide several references in this section, especially some important studies for wetland.

 

6. In the Section 2.3.2, the driving factors selected in this study should be carefully introduced. The authors should also add some references for these driving factors. In addition, the authors introduced the correlation analysis method. However, the scale was not introduced. In other words, which scale was used to analyze the relationship between wetland dynamics and the driving factors, sub-watershed or pixel?

 

7. In the Section 3.3, this part will be the most important in the manuscript. However, the text was short and the results were not deeply analyzed. For example, the authors should analyze the conversions between natural wetland and farmland across multiple scales, i.e., the watershed and the sub-watershed. In addition, how about the connversions between natural wetland and other LULC types?

 

8. The Future perspectives section should be added in the manuscript. Meanwhile, the second paragraph in the Section 4.1 should be placed in the Future perspectives section.

 

9. In the Section 4.2, correlation analysis results were not fully illustrated in the manuscript. I suggest that the authors should fully illustrate the relationships between natural wetland losses and driving factors, especially on multiple scales (i.e., watershed and sub-watershed).

 

10. In the second paragraph of the Section 4.3, some policies issued in 2000 were discussed. However, more policies issued in recent years should also be introduced, e.g., “Changbai Mountain Forest Ecological Function Zone” issued in 2011 and “the Northeast Tiger Leopard National Park” issued in 2016.

 

11. The Conclusions section was not highly generalized and should be rewritten.

 

Minor issues

1. In Line 97, “Korea” should be revised as “North Korea” or “the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.
2. In the Section 3.1 and 3.2, the titles were the same and should be revised.
3. In the Section 3.1 and 3.1, Figures. 3 and 4 should be placed after the text.
4. For Figures. 3 and 4, the sub-graphs should be separated.
5. The title of the Section 4.2 should be revised.
6. In Line 334, “Han agricultural population” should be revised.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments Major issues: Point 1: In the second paragraph in the Introduction Section, the impacts of climate change on wetland were discussed. However, this paper’ s aim was to analyze the conversion between natural wetland and farmland, i.e., the impacts of human activities on wetland. In my opinion, this paragraph was redundant and should be deleted. Response 1: Done as suggested. We have deleted this paragraph according to the reviewer’s comment. Point 2: In the Section 2.1, the title “Study site” may not be appropriate. “Study area” might be better. In addition, in the first paragraph in the Section 2.1, the areas of Chinese, North Korea’ s, and Russian sub-regions should be added and introduced. Response 2: Done as suggested. We have changed the “Study site” to “Study area” according to the reviewer’s comment. On the other hand, we have added the areas of the subregions and carefully introduced the Chinese, the North Korea’s, and Russian subregions in the Tumen River Basin. Please refer to Lines 110-113 for details. Point 3: In the Section 2.2, multiple data were used in this study, including remote sensing data, meteorological data, and socio-economic data. However, the spatial resolutions of these data were different. Authors should introduce the spatial resolution used in this study. Response 3: Done as suggested. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have added the spatial resolution of the data (i.e., 150 m) used in this study. Please refer to Lines 153-154 for details. Point 4: In the Section 2.3, the title “Analytical methods” may not be appropriate. In my opinion, “Methods” might be more appropriate. Meanwhile, the title of Section 2.3.1 should also be revised. Response 4: Done as suggested. We have changed "Analytical methods" to "Methods". In addition, we have revised the title of Section 2.3.1. Point 5: In the Section 2.3.1, land use classification system was introduced. For land use and land cover (LULC) maps, classification system was very important. Different classification system will lead to different LULC maps, especially for wetland. In my opinion, authors should carefully introduce the classification system used in this study. Is it the LULC classification system or the wetland classification system? How may wetland types were included in this system? The authors should also provide several references in this. Response 5: Done as suggested. We have added the classification system and some important references according to the reviewer’s comment. Please refer to Lines 158- 165 for details. References: Zhu, W.H.; Miao, C.Y.; Zheng, X.J.; Cao, G.L.; Wang, F.F. Study on ecological safety evaluation and warning of wetlands in Tumen River watershed based on 3S technology. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2014, 34(06): 1379-1390. https://doi/10.5846/stxb201211241666. Xiang, H.X.; Jia, M.M.; Wang, Z.M.; Li, L.; Mao, D.H.; Zhang, D.; Cui, G.S.; Zhu, W.H. Impacts of Land Cover Changes on Ecosystem Carbon Stocks Over the Transboundary Tumen River Basin in Northeast Asia. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 28, 973–985 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-018-1006-y. Point 6: In the Section 2.3.2, the driving factors selected in this study should be carefully introduced. The authors should also add some references for these driving factors. In addition, the authors introduced the correlation analysis method. However, the scale was not introduced. In other words, which scale was used to analyze the relationship between wetland dynamics and the driving factors, sub-watershed or pixel? Response 6: Done as suggested. According to Zheng et al. (2017) and Mao et al. (2018), we selected the driving factors and conducted correlation analysis to analyze the relationship between wetland dynamics and the driving factors on two scales, i.e., the Tumen River Basin and the sub-basins. Please refer to Lines 223-230 for details. References: Mao, D.H.; Luo, L.; Wang, Z.M.; Wilson, M.C.; Zeng, Y.; Wu, B.F.; Wu, J.G. Conversions between natural wetlands and farmland in China: A multiscale geospatial analysis. Science of The Total Environment. 2018, 634, 550-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.009. Zheng, X.J.; Sun, P.; Zhu, W.H.; Xu, Z.; Fu, J.; Man, W.D.; Li H.L.; Zhang, J.; Qin L. Landscape dynamics and driving forces of wetlands in the Tumen River Basin of China over the past 50 years. Landscape and Ecological Engineering. 2017, 13, 237-250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-016-0304-8. Point 7: In the Section 3.3, this part will be the most important in the manuscript. However, the text was short and the results were not deeply analyzed. For example, the authors should analyze the conversions between natural wetland and farmland across multiple scales, i.e., the watershed and the sub-watershed. In addition, how about the conversions between natural wetland and other LULC types? Response 7: Done as suggested. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have analyzed natural wetlands recovered from farmland at two scales. i.e., in the Tumen River Basin and the sub-basins. In addition, we have added the conversions between natural wetland and other LULC types. Please refer to Lines 302-317 for details. Point 8: The Future perspectives section should be added in the manuscript. Meanwhile, the second paragraph in the Section 4.1 should be placed in the Future perspectives section. Response 8: Done as suggested. We have added the Future perspectives and placed the second paragraph in the Section 4.1 in the Future perspectives section according to the reviewer’s comment. Please refer to Lines 443-448 for details. Point 9: In the Section 4.2, correlation analysis results were not fully illustrated in the manuscript. I suggest that the authors should fully illustrate the relationships between natural wetland losses and driving factors, especially on multiple scales (i.e., watershed and sub-watershed). Response 9: Done as suggested. We have added the relationship between natural wetland losses and driving factors at two scales, i.e., the Tumen River Basin and the sub-basins according to the reviewer’s comment. Please refer to Lines 338-390 for details. Point 10: In the second paragraph of the Section 4.3, some policies issued in 2000 were discussed. However, more policies issued in recent years should also be introduced, e.g., “Changbai Mountain Forest Ecological Function Zone” issued in 2011 and “the Northeast Tiger Leopard National Park” issued in 2016. Response 10: Done as suggested. We have added and introduced more relevant policies issued in recent years. Please refer to Lines 411-420 for details. Point 11: The Conclusions section was not highly generalized and should be rewritten. Response 11: one as suggested. We have rewritten the Conclusions section. Please refer to Lines 450-468 for details. Minor issues: Point 1: In Line 97, “Korea” should be revised as “North Korea” or “the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. Response 1: Done as suggested. We have revised "Korea" to "the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea". Please refer to Lines 85-86 for details. Point 2: In the Section 3.1 and 3.2, the titles were the same and should be revised. Response 2: Done as suggested. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have changed the title of section 3.2 to "Spatial and temporal changes of natural wetlands converted into farmland". Point 3: In the Section 3.1 and 3.1, Figures. 3 and 4 should be placed after the text. Response 3: Done as suggested. We have placed Figure 3 and Figure 4 after the text. Point 4: For Figures. 3 and 4, the sub-graphs should be separated. Response 4: Done as suggested. We have separated the sub-graphs of Figure 3 and Figure 4. Point 5: The title of the Section 4.2 should be revised. Response 5: Done as suggested. We have revised the title of the Section 4.2. Point 6: In Line 334, “Han agricultural population” should be revised. Response 6: Done as suggested. We have revised it into Han-Chinese agricultural population.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This version is much better, thanks! It looks ready for publication after another typo check (I saw a few), but I have no major edits or comments.