Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The ms remotesensing-1539089 with the title of Where anthropogenic activity occurs, anthropogenic activity dominates vegetation net primary productivity change investigated vegetation photosynthesis model to reveal the spatiotemporal variations in NPP in Xinjiang from 2000 to 2019. The ms is well organized, but here are some comments to make the ms suitable for publication in such high quality journal.

Keywords: please start the keywords with capital characters.

The references within the text and at the end of the ms are not written according to the format of the journal. Please revise this issue.

L53-54 cite this ref. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.053 , https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8857589

L65 the name of the ref is wrong (DeJong), revise it.

L114-118 revise the aims please.

L121 correct km2,

Material and methods section is not well written; the authors have to revise this section. Please describe all mentioned methods and describe all materials that were used in the ms.

The discussion section was not written in a good way, the authors have to focus on their findings and make a good interoperation with other investigations using how and why?

The conclusion should be rewritten and focus on the most important findings.

 

Best regards, Reviewer

 

 

Author Response

Please find the attachment for my reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 76 – please use the land use land cover (LULC) as is the 1st time you are using it after the abstract in line with the “net primary productivity (NPP)” on line 36

 

Fig 1 -  the used scale bar is somehow confuse. Please try to simplify and reduce the number of scale marks.

A land use land cover map could be an added value for the work. It could be of great help for the readers. Please consider this maps was it would enrich the paper.

Line 202 -  with the correlation achieved a R² of 0.60? could/should it be somehow better?

Line 260 - the residual analysis method needs further details and biblio references

Fig 3 – the use of white color within the “failed the significance test” map class is not helping to understand the map information. Please use also use a dark color for the outline of the items and change the white color for the above mentioned map class and also for the background. The quality of the information in the map is constrained by this.

The “obvious reduction” map class should be renamed as “obvious decrease” in line with the other classes on the map.

Should a “obvious increase” be ranked with a green color? Does it represent a positive increase on the NPP? In this sense, the used ramp color should be order in reverse as green will represent  a positive and red a negative, Case this makes sense

Line – 359 Why obvious? Please explain

Fig 4 Please use the same order on the map legend. The “failed the significance test” was the first class in the legend of NPP trent map (fig 3). Can you consider color somehow different from the fig 3? Be the end of figs 4 and 5 some confusion can be delivered and force the reader to get back in the text to better understand the classes.

Fig 5 6 8 -  the use of white color in  the map class legend does not provide  an easy understanding of  the map information

Fig 7 ab – please use the land use name directly on the map. Don´t need to make it double for the 2 maps case the classes are the same

Not totally sure what was the period for the climate change (CC) assessment. Throughout the text several references to climate change are made. This work does not intent to addresses or assess climate change impacts but brings some focus to CC. for the 2000 to 2019 period I believe that addressing climate change can be somehow “fragile” as climate change is linked with (at least) 30 year time frame period. In addition, case temperature and precipitation are only the focus is not totally the climate change. Perhaps it should be stated shifts on meteorological conditions rather than climate change

Table 3 -  don´t quite understand the -124.69 value. Please provide further details and explanation.

 

The Uncertainties and limitations section should was stress the shifts on meteorological factors or even climate change impacts.

 

 

 

The proposed paper is very well written with very good use of English language. Except some minor grammatical mistakes, this paper is written with a very good scientific style.

 

Author Response

Please find the attachment for my comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find the attachment for my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find the attachment for my comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

I do not find your improments in the revised version because you submitted the clean version. You should submit the revised version with track change, so I can check your revising and responses. 

Some comments from my first round were not revised at all. Please check all my comments.

Also, the references within the text and at the end of the ms are not written according to the format of the journal. Please revise this issue.

Best regards, 

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

 

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. Last time, the revised version with track change was put in a zip compressed file. Sorry to have confused you about its location. We have read all your comments carefully again. Based on the suggestions, we have made a further modification on the revised manuscript. We will re-upload the revised version with track change and the clean version respectively.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory.

 

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx