Integrating Hyperspectral Imaging, Plant Functional Diversity, and Soil-Lithology to Uncover Mountainscape Disturbance Dynamics Induced by Landsliding

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Generally speaking， I think the aspect of this paper in reviewing the studies of mountainscape disturbance dynamics across different fields is interesting, and the authors have provided relatively comprehensive reviews of related works. However, both from the width and depth, I think the quality of this paper needs to be improved to a large degree. My detailed comments are as follows:

1) As it is a review paper, more references published after 2020 are needed to tell the reader about the new developments.

2)  This review mainly focuses on tropical and subtropical mountainous regions.  This limits the generalizability of conclusions about landslide-ecosystem interactions across diverse biomes. So, I suggest expand the discussion to include more different types of mountainous regions.

3) As an important technique, the introduction and review about remote sensing is far from adequate. For example, discussing the limitations of different sensors in observing the earth, introducing more works about the fusion of multi-source remote sensing images, discussing the issue that temporal mismatches often exist between field surveys and remote sensing acquisitions.

4) The conclusion outlines goals which seems to be too broad and   lacks some ideas of how we can solve the problems using pratical  technical means.

5) As Comment 4), I suggest to add a new Section to summarize the main issues in this field, and how we can solve the problems using pratical  technical means, or, what are the development trends in the future.

Author Response

• As it is a review paper, more references published after 2020 are needed to tell the reader about the new developments. (R1)

Response: We included references that acknowledged work conducted by different groups and that were relevant to address our aims and the overall scope of the paper. Counting the number of references after 2020 will clearly leave aside important work while revealing the a limited number of papers.

• This review mainly focuses on tropical and subtropical mountainous regions. This limits the generalizability of conclusions about landslide-ecosystem interactions across diverse biomes. So, I suggest expand the discussion to include more different types of mountainous regions. (R1).

Response: We are not clear about what R1 means with studies about landslide-ecosystem interactions across diverse biomes. This comment raised the following questions: 1) Do these studies refer to field- or remotely sensed-base data? Do these studies focus on functional traits and functional diversity metrics derived from remotely sensed data, in particular hyperspectral data? We ask, because we were completely agnostic regarding the regions were the studies on functional traits, functional diversity, ecosystem function, and rock-soil attributes were conducted. In fact, we never specified the terms tropical or subtropical in our searches. We are aware that pioneering and important work on hyperspectral data and functional traits was conducted by one group that happened to work in the tropics but including this work was not at the expense of citing work conducted in temperate areas. The word tropical was listed three (3) times, now appears it appears only once.

• As an important technique, the introduction and review about remote sensing is far from adequate. For example, discussing the limitations of different sensors in observing the earth, introducing more works about the fusion of multi-source remote sensing images, discussing the issue that temporal mismatches often exist between field surveys and remote sensing acquisitions. (R1).

Response: Our paper focuses on the use of remote sensing data, in particular hyperspectral data, to characterize functional traits and functional diversity, and how this knowledge can be applied to the study of ecosystem function and dynamics of mountainscapes driven by landsliding. In MS-or and MS-v1 we cite reviews that specifically focus on hyperspectral and LiDAR from a technical point of view. We highlighted this in the RR-v1. We hope that changes made in the Introduction and then in Section 5 may help address this comment.

• The conclusion outlines goals which seems to be too broad and lacks some ideas of how we can solve the problems using pratical technical means. (R1)
• As Comment 4) (see Comment 15 above), I suggest to add a new Section to summarize the main issues in this field, and how we can solve the problems using pratical technical means, or, what are the development trends in the future. (R1).

 

Response: We think that comments 13-16 (2 of the 4 comments are of Review 2) are related and therefore are address altogether. These comments led to a full revision of sections 5 and 6. More specifically, we identified three dimensions of our “ecosystem-centered” view of landsliding that can benefit from the use of hyperspectral data. The first dimension, centers on the role of diversity on slope resistance and susceptibility to failure and landslide recovery. Here we refer to different approaches, including limitations, to highlight the insights that air- and spaceborne hyperspectral can contribute to. The second dimension focuses on the characterization of the substrates exposed by landslide activity, in an effort to understand soil fertility, soil mechanical properties, and degree of weathering. The third dimension, centers on the functional significance of landsliding.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The authors’ approach is innovative in that it combines data from different sources to create a more comprehensive picture of the mountainscape.  This is a valuable contribution to the field, as it allows for a more nuanced understanding of the factors that contribute to the dynamics of mountainscapes.  The authors’ findings have important implications for the management of mountainscapes, as they provide insights into the factors that contribute to the stability of these ecosystems.    
2. The authors provide a detailed overview of the different methods and approaches used to study functional traits, functional diversity, and mountainscape dynamics. However, they do not provide a critical discussion of the limitations of these methods.
3. A more critical discussion of future research directions would provide a more practical guide for researchers working in this field.

 

Author Response

 

• The authors provide a detailed overview of the different methods and approaches used to study functional traits, functional diversity, and mountainscape dynamics. However, they do not provide a critical discussion of the limitations of these methods. (R2).
• A more critical discussion of future research directions would provide a more practical guide for researchers working in this field. (R2)

Response: We think that comments 13-16 are related and therefore are address altogether. These comments led to a full revision of sections 5 and 6. More specifically, we identified three dimensions of our “ecosystem-centered” view of landsliding that can benefit from the use of hyperspectral data. The first dimension, centers on the role of diversity on slope resistance and susceptibility to failure and landslide recovery. Here we refer to different approaches, including limitations, to highlight the insights that air- and spaceborne hyperspectral can contribute to. The second dimension focuses on the characterization of the substrates exposed by landslide activity, in an effort to understand soil fertility, soil mechanical properties, and degree of weathering. The third dimension, centers on the functional significance of landsliding.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, a comprehensive approach using hyperspectral imaging, plant functional diversity, and soil-lithology data is employed to advance our understanding of landslide-induced mountainscape disturbance. The structure of the manuscript is well-organized, and the need for this review is clearly described, based on a review of current problems and relevant literature on the topic. The figures presented are necessary and clearly explained, and the references are relevant, up-to-date, and accessible.

In conclusion, the study highlights key aspects of advancing mountainscape disturbance dynamics: integrating hyperspectral imaging, plant functional diversity, and soil-lithology attributes in landslide studies. It makes valuable contributions to the development of a remote sensing perspective on landslides, particularly focusing on hyperspectral imaging, plant functional diversity, and soil-lithology attributes to deepen our understanding of mountainscape disturbance dynamics caused by landsliding. It is therefore recommended that the paper incorporate minor revisions.

Comments to the Authors:

1. Although the language of the manuscript is generally understandable, some improvements in grammar, sentence structure, and overall coherence are needed.
2. Shorten and modify the title to: "Integrating Hyperspectral Imaging, Plant Functional Diversity, and Soil-Lithology to Uncover Mountainscape Disturbance Dynamics Induced by Landsliding"

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the language of the manuscript is generally understandable, some improvements in grammar, sentence structure, and overall coherence are needed.

Author Response

• Although the language of the manuscript is generally understandable, some improvements in grammar, sentence structure, and overall coherence are needed. (R3).

Response: Comments 5-7 refer to different aspects of the writing. Where specific comments were provided, we revised the text and changed it accordingly. Otherwise, we went over text and made extensive changes to sections 1, 5, and 6, and less extensive changes to sections 2, 3, and 4.

• Shorten and modify the title to: "Integrating Hyperspectral Imaging, Plant Functional Diversity, and Soil-Lithology to Uncover Mountainscape Disturbance Dynamics Induced by Landsliding" (R3)

Response: Great suggestion. We changed the title accordingly.

• The references are relevant, up-to-date, and accessible. (R3)

Response: Great

• The figures presented are necessary and clearly explained (R3).

Response: Thanks for mentioning this.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, remote sensing technology combined with hyperspectral and LiDAR data was used to monitor and assess ecosystem functional diversity and restoration dynamics in landslide areas. Through the application of key spectral indices, such as normalized vegetation index (NDVI), functional richness (FRic) and functional dispersion (FDis), the study revealed the impact of landslides on ecosystems and their recovery process. Specifically, the effects of landslides on vegetation health, soil properties, and lithology distribution are analyzed, and the differences in the recovery of different landslide types (such as precipitation induced and earthquake induced landslides) under different geological and vegetation conditions are discussed. The results showed that the functional diversity of vegetation changed significantly after landslide, especially in the area affected by alternating high precipitation and drought, and the rate of vegetation recovery was strongly influenced by lithology and soil type. However, there is still room for improvement in the processing details of remote sensing data, the comparative analysis of landslide and non-landslide areas, and the operability of policy recommendations.

 

1. The impact of landslides on ecosystems and functional diversity is mentioned in the manuscript, but the description is more general. Additional specific case studies are recommended, in particular the effects of different landslide types on vegetation, soil and lithology characteristics.
2. In the introduction, the research hypothesis and core issues are clearly stated, and the relationship between functional diversity and landslide restoration is clearly defined, especially how to quantify these factors with remote sensing data.
3. The manuscript mentions the need for stricter regulations on landslide monitoring and ecological restoration, but lacks detailed proposals for implementation.
4. Describe in detail the specific methods of remote sensing data pre-processing, feature extraction, data fusion and spatial analysis, especially how to use hyperspectral, LiDAR and other data to extract vegetation features and measure functional diversity.
5. Further explain how to use functional indicators such as vegetation index of remote sensing data to estimate functional diversity of landslide area, and extract functional characteristics and quantify functional diversity combined with remote sensing data.
6. Combined with remote sensing time series data, a quantitative model of landslide recovery was established to discuss the vegetation recovery and soil quality recovery after landslide and their impact on slope stability.
7. Discuss how to analyze landslide recovery process from local scale to regional scale, and use multi-scale data analysis framework to conduct spatial and temporal dynamic analysis of landslide recovery combined with remote sensing data.
8. It is suggested that spatial regression models or structural equation models should be established by combining remote sensing data with geological data to analyze the interaction between ecosystem and geomorphic processes and their impact on landslides.
9. Add specific landslide cases and field data verification, and combine field investigation data (such as soil and vegetation) to correct remote sensing results, so as to improve the accuracy and reliability of data analysis.
10. The conclusion should further clarify the future research direction.
11, ensure that all charts are clearly labeled and illustrated, uniform format, and simplified design, so that each chart can intuitively communicate the key data and findings of the study.
12. Simplify sentence structure, avoid verbosity and repetition, and ensure that terms are clearly explained when they first appear.

Author Response

• Reviewer 4 - Overview and Specific Comments.

 

Response: The Overview and Specific comments offered by R4 do not seem to reflect the scope and characteristics of our review paper, rather they seem to refer to a data paper reporting vegetation changes in landslide areas across different conditions, and applications to restoration. In this order of ideas, we did not reorganize the comments rather extracted some of them to illustrate our point. All the comments were left intact at the end of our Response to Reviewers

1. In this study, remote sensing technology combined with hyperspectral and LiDAR data was used to monitor and assess ecosystem functional diversity and restoration dynamics in landslide areas.
2. Through the application of key spectral indices, such as normalized vegetation index (NDVI), functional richness (FRic) and functional dispersion (FDis), the study revealed the impact of landslides on ecosystems and their recovery process.
3. Specifically, the effects of landslides on vegetation health, soil properties, and lithology distribution are analyzed, and the differences in the recovery of different landslide types (such as precipitation induced and earthquake induced landslides) under different geological and vegetation conditions are discussed.
4. The results showed that the functional diversity of vegetation changed significantly after landslide, especially in the area affected by alternating high precipitation and drought, and the rate of vegetation recovery was strongly influenced by lithology and soil type.
5. However, there is still room for improvement in the processing details of remote sensing data, the comparative analysis of landslide and non-landslide areas.
6. The manuscript mentions the need for stricter regulations on landslide monitoring and ecological restoration, but lacks detailed proposals for implementation.
7. Combined with remote sensing time series data, a quantitative model of landslide recovery was established to discuss the vegetation recovery and soil quality recovery after landslide …

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of this paper has been improved to a large degree. I still have some minor suggestions:

1) The quality of Fig. 3 is too low. Please improve its resolution.

2) The title of Section 5 is "Integrating plant traits and soil-rock attributes through hyperspectral remote sensing to understand the diversity, functioning, and dynamics of mountainscapes mediated by landslides". Based on this title, in my opinion, it is better for the authors to reorganize the contents in Section 2-4 to answers the following three questions in sequence: 1、how did the researchers get plant traits through hyperspectral remote sensing? 2、How did the researchers get  soil-rock attributes through hyperspectral remote sensing? 3、The denifitions  of the diversity, functioning, and dynamics of mountainscapes mediated by landslides and from which apsects can we understand the diversity, functioning, and dynamics?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been revised as required and there are no other problems

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 Authors

Some comments:

1. Overall, the work is a review of current research on the use of hyperspectral imaging to study functional diversity and ecosystem processes. The authors propose a new approach to understanding the relationship between these factors and landsliding. However, they do not provide a clear assessment of the significance of this approach. The abstract and introduction suggest that the authors are proposing a new approach to understanding the relationship between functional diversity, ecosystem processes, and landsliding, however, the full text of the review does not provide a clear assessment of the significance of this approach.

2. The work is well-organized and comprehensively described. The review clearly presents the topic and provides a thorough overview of the current state of knowledge. The authors synthesize a broad range of research, including studies on functional traits, functional diversity, and ecosystem function. They also discuss the challenges associated with studying landslides and mountainscapes. The review is well-written and easy to follow. The authors provide a clear and concise summary of the main points of the review.

3. The authors have conducted a thorough review of the literature and have presented the information in a clear and concise manner. They have also been careful to identify the limitations of the research that they have reviewed. 

4. The title of the manuscript is a bit complex to understand, I recommend the authors to evaluate the possibility of a clearer, more concise title, with relevant keywords, that shows novelty and that be specific.

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review paper tries to review a broad topic- Obtianing Functional Diversity and Ecological Function of mountainscapes using remote sensing images (more precisrly, using hyperspectral images). I think this topic is hard to be handled, and it involves too many apsects. For me, the organization of this paper is disordered and some key issues are not well described, for example:

1) Section 2: "Functional Traits".  Functional Traits of mountainscapes involve too many apsects. But the authors only describes the basic framework for obtiaining the Functional Traits of plants and only cited some related paper aboout observing plants. This is far away to be adequate.

2) As pointed out in the title, "hyperspectral imaging" is the main observation technique discussed in this paper. But in the manuscript, too many references and contents are not about hyperspectral remote sensing.

3) Section 5 seems to draw conclusions from the previous sections without citing any reference or getting new findings. It is more suitable to be moved to the conclusion section. 

    As I stated, this topic is hard to be handled since it involves too many apsects. The authors need to be more concentrated on some certain aspects, if they want summarize the research situation in one journal paper. Based on the above viewpoints, I don't think this review paper can be acceptted for publication.

 

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reviews researches on mountainscape diversity, functioning and disturbance dynamics with hyperspectral imaging, which introduces the methods and evaluation metrics they used. However, the descriptions of the methods and evaluation metrics require more details.

1. The title mentions “... studies with hyperspectral imaging ...”, but the descriptions of the remote sensing data used in these studies are missing in the paper. It is suggested to add a table that describes detailed information of common hyperspectral images in this field involving sensors, number of bands, wavelength range, spatial resolution, temporal resolution, available data sources, etc.

2. Line 44-46 “The aforementioned sources of remotely sensed data to investigate functional diversity come with distinctive tradeoffs stemming from their spatial, temporal, and spectral resolutions [20-22].” However, the following content only describes trade-offs in terms of spatial resolution, and it is suggested to add trade-offs in terms of temporal and spectral resolution. In addition, line 45 “tradeoffs” is different from “trade-offs” in lines 46 and 53, and it is suggested to harmonize them.

3. In 2. Functional Traits – From Field to Remotely Sensed Observations, it is suggested to add a comparison among the modeling approaches for processing optical data, describing the advantages and drawbacks of each approach instead of simply introducing them. In addition, it is suggested to add some visualizations of spectral features if possible.

4. In 3. Functional Diversity and Ecological Function, it is suggested to describe in detail the qualitative and quantitative metrics for evaluating functional diversity, for example, formulas or plots.

5. In the description of Figure 2, “D.” should be modified to “(d)”.

6. In line 313-332, some traits, metrics and approaches are mentioned involving functional richness (FRic), functional evenness (FEve), functional divergence (FDiv), gross primary productivity (GPP), net primary productivity (NPP) and Vegetation Recovery Ratio (VRR). It is suggested to add their formulas and detailed descriptions, which could offer more useful information to the potential readers of this paper.

7. It is suggested to add the descriptions of researches using machine learning or deep learning which may represent the implementation of the state-of-the-art techniques in the field.

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf