Vegetation Trend Detection Using Time Series Satellite Data as Ecosystem Condition Indicators for Analysis in the Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall quality of the paper and usefulness to the community is good. 

1. Suggest rewording the following sentence in section "2.2 Data" for further clarity and readability: "The compositing technique applied for MODIS is aiming at the extraction of ..." 

"The maximum NVDI value compositing technique applied by the MODIS NDVI product preferentially extracts the single best value that represents each pixel over a given 16-day period [38], and this is an advantage in reducing the effect of clouds on the NDVI product, especially during the summer season in the study area."

2. Suggest mentioning which if any of the MOD13Q1 NDVI quality flags were used to check the quality of the NDVI data used in the construction of your time series. 

The following sentence reads awkwardly since it begins with a reference number: 

"[39] stated that MODIS data is effective to monitor human-driven vegetation changes aimed at assuring sustainable land manage- ment that require localized implementation of best management practices."

Suggest rewording to 

 MODIS data is effective for monitoring human-driven vegetation changes aimed at assuring sustainable land management that require localized implementation of best management practices [39].

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Major revision

Please refer to the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.zip

the manuscript suffered from severe language problem with grammatical errors, logical flow and clarity problems. I have critical concern to consider it for publication as it stands. Therefore, it should undergo major revision and resubmitted 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see word doc

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The language can be improved in parts of the manuscript, please see word doc

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Aims of the study were not stated clearly and specifically enough.

Table or flowchart representation of workflow (methodology) would be a good addition. It should clearly show data source, what/how parameteres were derived, how derived paramteres were analysed, what was the intended output.

In the introduction please cite other studies that are similar to the current studyin terms of using similar methods or aims.

There was a lot of repetition of results in the discussion. This sections needs to evaluated again. It was very hard to follow.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The structure of the sentences is very poorly formulated. Throughout thier are many language mistakes that makes the content not only unappealing but difficult to understand.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved the manuscript, thus I recommend publication of the paper

Author Response

Just to make active to upload the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The methodology section remains quite unclear. I would still suggest to include a flowchart or table to specifically state the main steps from start to end.

Reformulation needs to done thoroughly in my view

Discussion section is still filled with repetition of results, remain void of insighful analysis. However section 4.2 was much better.

in my view conclusion is quite long and repeats the results wich is not neccesary. The conclusion needs more insight.

Comments for author File: Comments.zip

Language mistakes still exist and needs to be corrected

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf