Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is very well written and its presentation and structure are adequate.

The methodology is clearly described and well justified and supported. All the steps, data used and processing functions applied are well documented.

The results and conclusions are adequately supported and make sense.

A minor suggestion about figure 16 should be noted: this is figure with far too much information and, for that reason, it is almost impossible to read. 25 maps of the region with 25 pie charts alongside, it is too much for a half-page figure.

In your analysis what was the purpose and which was the benefit of using five scales in Bivariate global Moran index of KDE and RSEI?

Author Response

Please refer to the annex: author to respond reviewer(1)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled “Spatio-temporal variations in ecological quality and its response to topography and road network based on GEE: Taking the Minjiang River Basin as a case" submitted to land is an important piece of work by the Authors. I appreciate the opportunity to evaluate this research and provide feedback. Overall, the paper presents valuable contributions to the field with high spatiotemporal data processing and appropriate analysis. The manuscript can be accepted after as it is.

 

Author Response

Please refer to the annex: author to respond reviewer(2)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study investigated the spatio-temporal changes in ecological quality inside the MRB during the previous two decades using the GEE platform and high-resolution Landsat remote sensing data. The suggestions are as the following: 1. The Introduction section is too long, it would be shorten. The objectives of this paper need to be summarized to several points.

2. Is the RSEI created by yourself? If not, what is the novelty of this paper?

3. The resolutions of Fig4 and Fig16 were low.

4. In Introduction section, you indicated "the majority of research relies on trend analysis using only 3 to 5 time points". In this paper, you also selected 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 as the time points. There are noly 5 points in your paper, so what is the novelty in your paper?

This study investigated the spatio-temporal changes in ecological quality inside the MRB during the previous two decades using the GEE platform and high-resolution Landsat remote sensing data. The suggestions are as the following: 1. The Introduction section is too long, it would be shorten. The objectives of this paper need to be summarized to several points.

2. Is the RSEI created by yourself? If not, what is the novelty of this paper?

3. The resolutions of Fig4 and Fig16 were low.

4. In Introduction section, you indicated "the majority of research relies on trend analysis using only 3 to 5 time points". In this paper, you also selected 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 as the time points. There are noly 5 points in your paper, so what is the novelty in your paper?

Author Response

Please refer to the annex: author to respond reviewer(3)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf