Remote Sensing Monitoring of the Spatial Pattern of Greening and Browning in Xilin Gol Grassland and Its Response to Climate and Human Activities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks to the author for modifying the manuscript and concern all my previous comments it seems the quality in this stage is much better, just may chack English errors, quality of images, and references.
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachmen
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
Please find my review of a manuscript titled " Remote sensing monitoring of the spatial pattern of greening and browning in Xilin Gol grassland and its response to climate and mining activities" by Jiawei Hui, Zanxu Chen, Baoying Ye, Chu Shi, and Zhongke Bai submitted for consideration for possible publication in MDPI Special Issue: Remote Sensing for Land Degradation and Drought Monitoring.
Using remote sensing data, this study investigates the degree and spatial extent of the influence of climatic conditions and mining activities on grasslands in arid regions, in a case study of monitoring the vegetation of the Xilin Gol grassland over 20-year period. The results presented in this manuscript showed that the vegetation conditions of the Xilin Gol grassland were slightly improved from 2000 to 2020. An area with the most serious vegetation degradation was mainly affected by human factors. The study found coal mining has become the main driving factor in the most significant areas of vegetation damage in Xilin Gol through direct damage and indirect effects (pulling population and economic growth to expand built-up areas). The subject of this study is suitable for this special issue of Remote Sensing journal. Data and methodology are robust.
Some revision is required before publishing the manuscript.
Lines 26 – 27. The results showed that the vegetation condition of the Xilin Gol grassland was slightly improved from 2000 to 2020. => vegetation conditions … were
Line 29. Keywords: NDVI and LUCC. Acronyms should be explained, not all readers may know that NDVI stands for the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index and LUCC –
Lines 57, 59 and 148. NDVI and EVI are first mentioned on line 57; acronym for NDVI is first introduced in line 59, and then again – in line 148. EVI – never introduced.
Lines 57-58. … is the most common remote sensing vegetation monitoring method => one of the most common …
Lines 58-59. As the most commonly used remote sensing vegetation index … as above => one of the most commonly used…
Line 67. MODIS => the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)
Line 69. … the most widely used methods are => commonly used methods are
Line 125. at latitude 42°32′～46°41′ north, longitude 111°59′～120°00′ east => latitude range; longitude range
Line 140. exploitation of coal resources… => exploration
Line 148. ideal parameter => highly suitable parameter
Line 150. the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) => MODIS
Line 162. 1 NDVI image => one NDVI image
Line 226. the most classic method = a common method
Line 283. Formula (2) => equation (2)
Line 614. Data source: Inner Mongolia Statistical Yearbook 2021). => should be referenced in the same style as other references.
Lines 620 – 621. Data source: Inner Mongolia Statistical Yearbook 2005. => should be referenced in the same style as other references.
General comment: as English is not the first language of the authors, I recommend using MDPI editing service for improving quality of this manuscript.
This reviewer recommends accepting the manuscript after suggested minor revision.
Yours faithfully,
The Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachmen
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
[General comments] This paper is very innovative to develop a novel method that integrates correlation analysis and buffer analysis to analysed mining-induced vegetation degradation. Moreover, the analysis in this paper is robust and reliable through analysing the vegetation variations from 2000 to 2020. Overall, I believe this paper is acceptable after some revisions.
[Q1] Abstract: I believe it will be more attractive if authors can add the research significance at the end of abstract, around line 37.
[Q2] Keywords: Please you are suggested to use the full name of LUCC.
[Q3] Line 75-77, the content in this sentence is tricky so that I suggest authors should rewrite this sentence.
[Q4] Line 103-114, authors do not need to describe the method authors used in this paper here. Authors can add the originality and research significance briefly here.
[Q5] Authors are encouraged to add the new method they developed through integrating correlation analysis and buffer analysis in the research method section. Currently, I did not see the method they mentioned in the abstract, whilst they used in the data analysis.
[Q6] Line 386, please add the figure caption of this image. Moreover, the image should be redrawn to make the word font of all figures consistent.
[Q7] Since authors have presented many abbreviations, I suggest author should add a nomenclature before introduction.
[Q8] The subtitle of section 4.3 should be rewrite to follow the whole paper style.
[Q9] Some references are of interest:
Zhao, D., Arshad, M., Wang, J., & Triantafilis, J. (2021). Soil exchangeable cations estimation using Vis-NIR spectroscopy in different depths: Effects of multiple calibration models and spiking. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 182, 105990.
Zhao, D., Li, N., Zare, E., Wang, J., & Triantafilis, J. (2020). Mapping cation exchange capacity using a quasi-3d joint inversion of EM38 and EM31 data. Soil and Tillage Research, 200, 104618.
Zhao, Z., Sharifi, A., Dong, X., Shen, L., & He, B. J. (2021). Spatial Variability and Temporal Heterogeneity of Surface Urban Heat Island Patterns and the Suitability of Local Climate Zones for Land Surface Temperature Characterization. Remote Sensing, 13(21), 4338.
Overall, this paper is very good and it can be accepted after revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachmen
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
The authors implement a time-series analysis across 2000-2020 timeline in order to classify vegetation trends and detect the drivers of vegetation change. They adopt an approach of buffer analysis, studying vegetation trends in correlation with the pressures applied on the ecosystem. The manuscript is not easy to follow, since many many sentences must be re-written in less extensive syntax and some paragraphs could belong in different sections. In my point of view, existing methods of similar parameterization could have been cited or tested in order to provide a straight-forward comparison, thus justifying the progress of the analysis in ecosystem pressures. In addition, limitations of existing methods that lead to the advancement of previous studies could have been presented to integrate the proposal. Overall, considering the current state of the manuscript I am afraid that I cannot provide a fair judgement for the analysis within it.
More specific comments:
Line 33: “..with significantly optimized vegetation conditions..” not clear
Line 54: “..Using the vegetation index to invert..” 1. Which vegetation index? 2. Invert is ambiguous. Please be more specific
Line 60: NDVI is also known to be sensitive to saturation effects
Line 70-93: This paragraph should be moved in the Study Area section
Line 142: “8 pieces of NDVI data” / “..21 time-series NDVI.”. The English language style and terminology used must be definitely improved
Line 147: “Considering that the NDVI in the wetland range in the study area is prone to be missing”. Why? Wetlands is a dynamic LC-how did the authors accounted for this?
Line 180-181: There’s no clear phrasing.
Line 207: Please add a reference to support this statement (i.e. Multi-loop buffer analysis …)
Line 208 “filtered MDA”?? Filtered how?
Line 219 What is the MDA range?
Line 273 – Line 407: Text format must be justified
Line 286-304: The way of MDA identification belongs in the methodology section, not in the results’ presentation.
Line 307-317: The calculation process of MIA belongs in the methodology section not in results.
Line 317-320: Could belong in the discussion section, regarding further analysis.
Line 324-341: Seems to also describe methodology rather than results.
Line 357-359: This could belong to discussion section.
Line 364-366: This could belong in discussion. Also, studies shown that in arid and semi-arid regions of high-altitude vegetation growth does not always have positive correlation to precipitation (on some occasions precipitation could be mainly negative correlated to vegetation), and rather depends on vegetation cover types. “different vegetation types have different demands for precipitation or may be related to the lag between them” (https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/24/5046/htm#B16-remotesensing-13-05046)
Line 253: the natural breakpoint method (Jenks)
Line 321: Chart axis missing
Table 1: Font format
Line 356-357: Reference to graphs
Lines 415-429. Materials and methods
Line 561: Could you provide concerns and proposals regarding future research?
Line 562: Conclusion section could be significantly shortened.
Section 4.1 Belongs to Results
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
After reading the manuscript some questions and comments are as follow;
- The introduction needs to modify and clearly mentioned the goal and what is the main input of the research? you mentioned 4 items but not clear which is main. Is it the climate and mine affective? either spatial variation change method? however, I think you couldn't cover all these aspects clearly. Based on previous study we know grassland is induced by mining and climate variables, therefore you no need to find this just can investigate the spatial variation by new methods? new data integration? but you used low-resolution Modis data and simply use NDVI index?
- Why use Modis not other satellite medium resolution like Landsat?
- You mentioned the period for study in abstract 2000-2020 but, apply the climate variable from 2000- 2015?
- Did you use annual Tem, Rainfall data? and when you use the maximum NDVI how to consider the spatial variation in time series?
- In Fig.6 it seems elevation also affects the change how did you consider that?
- How did you decide about 8 km ring for buffer analysis?
- The conclusion does not support the research goal, not clear. Conclude the grassland increasing by precipitation or government rules? I guess vegetation mostly increases by temporal rain in the spring like pioneers veg that have living shorting time so if you remove the spring NDVI section you might see the NDVI decreasing.
- There is no Figs or maps of the spatial trend with ring and buffer analysis you mentioned? and no fig of mine, grassland change?
- How did you validate the changes you mentioned that occurred in 20 years?
- Finally, although the research target not bad but the research design, goal, presentation are not clear, not well written. It seems re-design the methods and concludes again, besides improving the text.
- A lots of grammatical errors and mstakes
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study focused on grassland monitoring and its response to climate and mining activities. This is an extremely simple study and I do not see any novelty whatsoever, even with a trivial “new method” based on buffer analysis and correlation analysis, which is not new at all. This study should be useful as a professional study for a local environmental protection agency but it has zero scientific contribution (especially for a respected journal, such as Remote Sensing). The core of this study is the multitemporal NDVI, climate dataset, and correlation analysis, which are basic components for any better student seminar and have no novelty.
The Discussion section is accordingly abysmal, as it dominantly focuses on the interpretation of local specifics (even containing some parts which should be a part of the Results section). There are zero references regarding the discussion of the methodology (?!), which actually makes it useless regarding the repeatability and advancement on the international scale.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors improved the manuscript and clarified many sections and approaches, that were difficult to follow in the original version.
Reviewer 3 Report
The Materials and Methods were improved by adding some minor explanations. In its core, the methodology of the study remained based on the already known and widely implemented methods and techniques, having no scientific contribution regarding the methodology. The entire manuscript largely remained unchanged, other than the improved English language and minor reshuffling of the paragraphs.
In the response to the reviewer, the authors noted that “...this research received funding from the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Science and Technology Major Special Project “Inner Mongolia Typical Mining Area Ecological Restoration Technology Integration and Demonstration” (2020ZD0020), the initial purpose of this research was to The project provides support...”. Congratulations on the funding, but this should have no impact on whether your manuscript would be published or not. Moreover writing “Although the vegetation index slope model used in this paper is simple, it is unexpectedly ideal for identifying the extent of mining damage. This is also a commonly used vegetation change monitoring model, and related research results have been published in respected remote sensing journals” confirms that there is no novelty regarding the scientific contribution of the methodology. Based on what did you determine that it is “unexpectedly ideal”, I cannot judge and neither can readers as there is no objective proof. “I think using simple methods to reach stable conclusions is also an important way to advance science”. So do I, but you did not reach stable and reliable conclusions, nor did you gave the fundamental basis of reproducing this method in other cases. This way, it has a professional character of a study which is interesting for some governmental agencies and it is definitely not suitable for a respected Remote Sensing journal in my opinion.
The Discussion section has not been improved (aside from English language corrections), despite previous fundamental suggestions that it contains parts that should be a part of the Results section has zero references regarding the discussion of the methodology. The authors basically moved a few paragraphs within the Discussion and that is it.
