Land Use Change and Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment Based on Terrain Gradients in Yuanmou Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reject. Extensive editing of the English language is required. It is extremely difficult to understand what the authors are attempting to say. For example, almost every sentence in the abstract needs re-writing to improve clarity. There are also several spelling mistakes. Some sentences and paragraphs are too long. These have been highlighted in the abstract and Introduction.
It is extremely difficult to evaluate the scientific merit of the manuscript because of the reasons I have stated above and also those highlighted in the attached manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
See above.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your invaluable and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled " Land use change and landscape ecological risk assessment based on terrain gradients in Yuanmou Basin " (Manuscript Number: 2498232). We have carefully considered your recommendations and completed the necessary revisions as per your suggestions. The following is our response to each of these revisions.
Point 1: Reject. Extensive editing of the English language is required. It is extremely difficult to understand what the authors are attempting to say. For example, almost every sentence in the abstract needs re-writing to improve clarity. There are also several spelling mistakes. Some sentences and paragraphs are too long. These have been highlighted in the abstract and Introduction.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We are very grateful to the reviewers for pointing out the spelling errors in "regional" and "simultaneous". We have asked a native English speaker to revise the language issues throughout the text. We have rewritten the abstract section and shortened long sentences and paragraphs. We apologize for creating a language barrier that prevented you from understanding the paper. However, we do not believe it is reasonable to reject a manuscript out of hand simply because the paragraphs are too long and there are two spelling errors, without actually researching the content of the manuscript and making any comments. Therefore, we hope that our resubmission will allow the reviewers to reassess the content of the paper, for which we are very grateful. The main changes are in lines 13 - 126, as detailed in the revised version of the paper.
Point 2: The authors need to clearly state what research questions their study attempted to answer.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also realized that the introduction section was not specific enough in describing the research question. Based on your comments, we have carefully revised this part to clearly state the research questions we want to answer. We have revised the last paragraph of the introduction (lines 121-126) to provide a more detailed discussion that highlights our research questions. We believe these revisions address your concerns and improve the clarity and impact of our manuscript.
Lines 121-126: Therefore, considering the complex natural ecological environment of the Yuanmou Basin, analyses of the spatial and temporal evolution patterns of regional ecological risks from the perspective of terrain gradients. It can provide a decision basis for ecological res-toration, landscape pattern optimization, improvement of ecological environment quality, and formulation of environmental protection measures. It is of great significance for real-izing sustainable land resource use and high-quality economic development.
Point 3: Cite references to support your argument about worldwide research work and cite references to support your arguments.
Response 3: Thank you for your reminder. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also realized that the introduction section lacks references cited to support the paper's points. In response to your comments, we have added references in the relevant sections (lines 51-53, 66-67) to provide a more detailed discussion and to highlight the innovative aspects of our study. We believe these revisions address your concerns and improve the clarity and impact of our manuscript.
lines 51-53: In recent years, ecological risk assessment has been attracting increasing attention from researchers worldwide, and it has become a research hotspot in ecology, geography, etc [7,8].
lines 66-67: In recent years, LER assessment based on landscape pattern and land use change has become an important branch of ecological risk assessment research [16,17].
We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and your careful review of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.
Name:leizhao
E-mail address:[email protected].
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract
I place special emphasis on the wording of the abstract because it is essential for the reader. It is generally well-written, but there are a few minor suggestions for improvement:
-The phrase "can provide a scientific basis for the construction of ecological civilization and control of human activities" could be rephrased to improve clarity. It is suggested: "can contribute to the development of ecological civilization and the regulation of human activities."
-In the sentence "The land use change was featured with a sharp increase in the cropland area and a simultaneous decrease in the grassland area," it would be clearer to use "featured" as a verb. For example: "The land use change featured a sharp increase in the cropland area and a simultaneous decrease in the grassland area."
- The sentence "The transfer of medium-risk areas is relatively more complicated" does not seem very clear, it should be more concrete. And more than “transfer”, it is about transition or evolution.
In general, I do not agree with the use of the word "transfer" in the article. I think the appropriate terms are “evolution” or “dynamics”.
1. Introduction
The topic of study is well introduced and justified. However, the presentation of the objectives could be improved.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
I suggest moving the first sentence of the paragraph “The Yuanmou Basin was extracted based on DEM data using the Basin Domain Analysis module of ArcGIS software” to the subsection “2.2 data source”.
Cartographic figure 1 has graphical representation problems that need to be corrected. In addition, it is recommended to introduce a secondary map of the situation of the study area in a regional context.
At a content level, there is a need for further development of the characteristics of vegetation cover, both natural and corresponding to crops. This is an important factor in erosion and landscape degradation processes.
2.2. Data Source
Concise and well-expressed section.
The reason for selecting the time period from 2000 to 2020 for analysis could be justified.
It is advisable to improve the resolution of the maps in Figure 2.
2.3. Research Methods
Well-developed methodological section.
2.3.1. Land Use Transfer Matrix
It is necessary to cite the source of the matrix.
2.3.2. Landscape Ecological Risk (LER) Analysis
In the fourth line of the first paragraph, it states "According to previous studies...". Which studies?
3. Results
Well-written. The graphs and tables are expressive and aesthetically appealing.
In figure 3 there is a typo in the legend where "forestland" is misspelled.
In Table 2, I recommend adding a column with the percentage values.
At the end of page 9, I would change this sentence: “This vulnerability increases the landscape loss and ultimately causes an increase in the LER” to “This vulnerability contributes to landscape loss and ultimately leads to an increase in the LER”.
4. Discussion
It is necessary to modify the section taking into account the bibliographic references that I suggest at the end of the document (in addition to others that may be found in a new review).
5. Conclusions
Concise and well-expressed section.
Finally, I provide some current references that I believe would enrich the background of the research.
Liang, T., Yang, F., Huang, D., Luo, Y., Wu, Y., & Wen, C. (2022). Land-use transformation and landscape ecological risk assessment in the Three Gorges Reservoir region based on the “production–living–ecological space” Perspective. Land, 11(8), 1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081234
Tan, L., Luo, W., Yang, B., Huang, M., Shuai, S., Cheng, C., ... & Hu, C. (2023). Evaluation of landscape ecological risk in key ecological functional zone of South–to–North Water Diversion Project, China. Ecological Indicators, 147, 109934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107185
In conclusion, this is a solid study that replicates a previously explored methodology to apply it to a study area with samples of territorial vulnerability. The main issues lie in the lack of further qualitative detail regarding the typology and types of land use, which could provide an original and more in-depth contribution to the study.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of the English language is required, as the level of writing is very good. The issue lies in the choice of the term "transfer". In general, I do not agree with the use of the word "transfer" in the article. I believe the appropriate terms are "evolution" or "dynamics". Additionally, there are some minor errors that I have indicated in the review document.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your invaluable and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled " Land use change and landscape ecological risk assessment based on terrain gradients in Yuanmou Basin " (Manuscript Number: 2498232). We have carefully considered your recommendations and completed the necessary revisions as per your suggestions. The following is our response to each of these revisions.
Point 1: The phrase "can provide a scientific basis for the construction of ecological civilization and control of human activities" could be rephrased to improve clarity. It is suggested: "can contribute to the development of ecological civilization and the regulation of human activities."
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we agree that this sentence should be changed. However, we have rewritten the abstract for that section and this sentence has been removed by us. The revised section is in lines 13-16.
lines 13 - 16: Investigating the distribution characteristics of landscape ecological risk (LER) on terrain gra-dients is of great significance for optimizing the landscape pattern of ecologically vulnerable areas in mountainous regions and maintaining the sustainable development of the ecological environment.
Point 2: In the sentence "The land use change was featured with a sharp increase in the cropland area and a simultaneous decrease in the grassland area," it would be clearer to use "featured" as a verb. For example: "The land use change featured a sharp increase in the cropland area and a simultaneous decrease in the grassland area."
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestion, we agree to revise it to read: The area of arable land in land use has increased sharply, while the area of grassland has decreased at the same time. The change is in lines 23-24.
Lines 23-24: The land use showed a sharp increase in the cropland area and a simultaneous decrease in the grassland area.
Point 3: The sentence "The transfer of medium-risk areas is relatively more complicated" does not seem very clear, it should be more concrete. And more than “transfer”, it is about transition or evolution.
Response 3: Thank you for your reminder. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we feel that this sentence is contradictory here, so we have deleted it. We believe these changes address your concerns and improve the clarity and impact of our manuscript.
Point 4: In the sentence "The land use change was featured with a sharp increase in the cropland area and a simultaneous decrease in the grassland area," it would be clearer to use "featured" as a verb. For example: "The land use change featured a sharp increase in the cropland area and a simultaneous decrease in the grassland area."
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestion, we have agreed to use the word "evolution" and have modified it in the corresponding part of the text.
Point 5: The topic of study is well introduced and justified. However, the presentation of the objectives could be improved.
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable comments. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also realized that the introduction section was not specific enough in describing the research objectives. Based on your comments, we have carefully revised this section to clearly state our research objectives. We revised the last paragraph of the introduction (lines 121-126) to provide a more detailed discussion that highlights our research question. We believe that these revisions address your concerns and improve the clarity and impact of the manuscript.
Lines 121-126: Therefore, considering the complex natural ecological environment of the Yuanmou Basin, analyses of the spatial and temporal evolution patterns of regional ecological risks from the perspective of terrain gradients. It can provide a decision basis for ecological res-toration, landscape pattern optimization, improvement of ecological environment quality, and formulation of environmental protection measures. It is of great significance for real-izing sustainable land resource use and high-quality economic development.
Point 6: I suggest moving the first sentence of the paragraph “The Yuanmou Basin was extracted based on DEM data using the Basin Domain Analysis module of ArcGIS software” to the subsection “2.2 data source”.
Response 6: Thank you for your reminder. We have moved this sentence to the subsection "2.2 Data Sources". It has been moved to lines 162-163.
Point 7: Cartographic figure 1 has graphical representation problems that need to be corrected. In addition, it is recommended to introduce a secondary map of the situation of the study area in a regional context.
Response 7: Thank you for your valuable comments. We are very sorry that the use of emf format image files has made the image memory large, resulting in image distortion and resulting in missing images. Therefore, by introducing the background of the study area, we redraw Figure 1 to solve the image format problem. We trust that these changes will enhance the clarity of the original. The change is on line 159.
Point 8: At a content level, there is a need for further development of the characteristics of vegetation cover, both natural and corresponding to crops. This is an important factor in erosion and landscape degradation processes and added to the text accordingly.
Response 8: Thank you for your suggestions. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions. We also realized that the description of the natural characteristics of the study area as well as the crops in the study area profile section was not specific enough. Therefore, at the content level, we have added the natural characteristics of the vegetation cover and the characteristics corresponding to the crops (lines 147-158). We believe that these changes will improve the clarity and impact of the manuscript.
Lines 147-158: The natural vegetation is divided into three layers: trees, shrubs and grasses. The trees are mostly composed of drought-resistant species. They are sparsely scattered among the shrubs and grasses, forming a plant community that has long been adapted to the dry and hot environments. Besides, the sparse scrub and grassland are mainly distributed in areas below 1600 m above sea level. The scrub grassland and patchy forest are located in re-gions higher than 1600 m above sea level [37]. Agriculture is the pillar industry of the Yuanmou Basin, which is one of the most important sources of winter early vegetables in Yunnan Province and China. The agricultural products are widely supplied to more than 200 cities and regions, such as Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei, Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, Guangdong, Hong Kong, Macao and the Greater Bay Area, Chengdu and Chong-qing, as well as East and Southeast Asia.
Point 9: Concise and well-expressed section. The reason for selecting the time period from 2000 to 2020 for analysis could be justified. It is advisable to improve the resolution of the maps in Figure 2.
Response 9: Thank you for your suggestions. We have increased the resolution of the map in Figure 2.
Point 10: Land Use Transfer Matrix: It is necessary to cite the source of the matrix.
Response 10: Thank you for your reminder. We have indicated the source of the matrix in the text. (Ji, Y.; Bai, Z.; Hui, J. Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment Based on LUCC—A Case Study of Chaoyang County, China. Forests 2021, 12, doi:10.3390/f12091157.). The change is in lines 186.
Lines 186: It can be used to calculate the direction and degree of mutual transfers between different landscape types [39].
Point 11: Landscape Ecological Risk (LER) Analysis: In the fourth line of the first paragraph, it states"According to previous studies...". Which studies?
Response 11: Thank you for your valuable comments.We have indicated the relevant literature sources in the paper. (Lin, X.; Wang, Z. Landscape ecological risk assessment and its driving factors of multi-mountainous city. Ecological Indicators 2023, 146, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109823; Liu, H.; Hao, H.; Sun, L.; Zhou, T. Spatial–Temporal Evolution Characteristics of Landscape Ecological Risk in the Agro-Pastoral Region in Western China: A Case Study of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. Land 2022, 11, doi:10.3390/land11101829.). The change is in lines 199.
Point 12: In figure 3 there is a typo in the legend where "forestland" is misspelled.
Response 12: Thank you for your reminder. We am very sorry for such a simple error. We have fixed a spelling mistake in the legend of Figure 3.
Point 13: At the end of page 9, I would change this sentence: “This vulnerability increases the landscape loss and ultimately causes an increase in the LER” to “This vulnerability contributes to landscape loss and ultimately leads to an increase in the LER”.
Response 13: Thank you for your reminder. We agree to amend it as: “This vulnerability contributes to landscape loss and ultimately leads to an increase in the LER”. The change is in lines 329-330.
lines 329-330: This vulnerability contributes to landscape loss and ultimately leads to an increase in the LER.
Point 14: It is necessary to modify the section taking into account the bibliographic references that I suggest at the end of the document (in addition to others that may be found in a new review).
Response 14: Thank you for your valuable comments. We are very grateful for your valuable comments. After careful consideration and discussion of your suggestions, we recognize that while we have discussed the results of land use and landscape ecological risk in the paper, the related discussion in the results section of the final analysis is indeed insufficient. Taking your feedback into account, we have added a more detailed discussion of the results in Section 4. and added relevant references at the end of the document. Changes were made in lines 436 - 523.
We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and your careful review of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.
Name:leizhao
E-mail address:[email protected].
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1.The innovation points are not obvious and inaccurate. You said that this article emphasizes the impact of human activities on LER by considering the impact of land use change, but the article focuses more on the impact of terrain gradients on LER.
2.It is unclear whether the selection of the research area is representative. What exactly does the description in section 2.1 mean?
3.Insufficient credibility of land use data. What is the overall accuracy and Kappa of land use classification? The term 'Above' is not professional enough.
4.The research design is not reasonable enough. As you said, ecological risk assessment is a comprehensive evaluation of the likelihood and degree of the impact of natural disasters and human activities on the natural environment and ecosystem. So why only choose terrain gradients and ignore human activities to analyze the impact on the ecological risk pattern of the Yuanmou Basin landscape?
5.The results appear blurry:
5.1 The production of Figure 1 is too rough to read and the expression is vague. (Where is the red area in the left image? The latitude and longitude block the reading of the image. What is the white area in the right image? Where is the Tilt point? The use of the north arrow in the full text image is not intuitive.)
5.2 Try not to use a combination of red, yellow, and green in image color matching, which is not friendly to people who are color blind in red and green.
5.3 The analysis description in section 3.3 is not accurate. The value of Moran's I first decreases and then increases, showing a downward trend in general, but it does not mean that adjacent spatial units weaken each other, and spatial aggregation gradually decreases.
5.4 How is the distinction between dry hot zones and non dry hot zones in 3.4.1? There is no scientific explanation.
5.5 The description in Table 4 is not intuitive, and it is recommended to supplement the figure.
5.6 Part 3.4 and even the entire text are mostly numerical descriptions, lacking spatial concepts.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your invaluable and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled " Land use change and landscape ecological risk assessment based on terrain gradients in Yuanmou Basin " (Manuscript Number: 2498232). We have carefully considered your recommendations and completed the necessary revisions as per your suggestions. The following is our response to each of these revisions.
Point 1: The innovation points are not obvious and inaccurate. You said that this article emphasizes the impact of human activities on LER by considering the impact of land use change, but the article focuses more on the impact of terrain gradients on LER.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also realized that the description of the innovations was not specific enough. In response to your comments, we have revised the Discussion Section 4.3 portion (lines 510-516) to provide a more detailed discussion highlighting the innovative aspects of our study. We believe these revisions address your concerns and improve the clarity and impact of our manuscript.
Lines 510-516: The Yuanmou Basin, which ranges from low to high altitudes and changes in cli-mate from dry and hot to humid, exhibits the specificity of synergistic evolution with the topographic gradient. In this work, the spatial heterogeneity of LER in the study area is analyzed from a multidimensional perspective [69]. The results are valuable for rational-izing and coordinating the distribution patterns of each land-use type under different topographic conditions, which contribute to sustainable socio-economic and territorial spatial development of the study area.
Point 2: It is unclear whether the selection of the research area is representative. What exactly does the description in section 2.1 mean?
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestions. Maybe the reviewer did not understand the content of this part. I have revised the content of this part. I think the choice of study area is representative because Yuanmou Basin is in the core area of dry and hot valley of Jinsha River. For a long time, there are problems such as surface fragmentation, serious soil erosion and unequal distribution of water and heat resources. Section 2.1 mainly describes the general situation of the study area, such as geographical location, vertical climate differentiation, soil and vegetation. The modifications were made in lines 129 -158.
Lines 129-158: The Yuanmou Basin is located in the northern part of the Central Yunnan Plateau, within the basin of the Longchuan River (Figure 1), which is a first-order tributary of the Jinsha River (24°-26°15′N, 101°27′-102°06′E). It has an area of 3515 km2, including mainly Yuanmou and most of Yongren counties in Chuxiong Prefecture, and also parts of eastern Dayao County, northeastern Mouding County, western Wuding County and northern Lufeng City (Figure 1). The study area is in the core area of dry and hot valley of Jinsha River. It has a dry-hot climate and an obvious vertical differentiation of land cover. The Yuanmou Basin is divided into four vertical climatic zones. The dry tropics of the Pingba Valley is below 1300 m above sea level, with a dry climate and abundant heat resource. Its average annual temperature, rainfall and evaporation are 21.0-22.8 °C, 615.1 mm and 3700-4300 mm, respectively. The warm and hot climate zone of the hilly low mountains is located at 1300-1700 m above sea level. Its average annual temperature, rainfall and evaporation are 18-21 °C, 660-740 mm and 2100mm, respectively. The middle mountain warm temperate zone is located at 1700-2000 m above sea level. Its average annual tem-perature and rainfall are 15~18 ℃ and 800~850 mm, respectively. The high and middle mountain temperate is above 2000m above sea level, with an insufficient heat condition. Its average annual temperature 10~15℃, with surplus moisture rainy season, annual rainfall >850mm, respectively. Soils in this zone are mainly dry red soil, red loam, yellow brown soil, and brown soil, with a small amount of purple and rice soils [36]. The natural vegetation is divided into three layers: trees, shrubs and grasses. The trees are mostly composed of drought-resistant species. They are sparsely scattered among the shrubs and grasses, forming a plant community that has long been adapted to the dry and hot envi-ronments. Besides, the sparse scrub and grassland are mainly distributed in areas below 1600 m above sea level. The scrub grassland and patchy forest are located in regions higher than 1600 m above sea level [37]. Agriculture is the pillar industry of the Yuanmou Basin, which is one of the most important sources of winter early vegetables in Yunnan Province and China. The agricultural products are widely supplied to more than 200 cities and regions, such as Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei, Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, Guangdong, Hong Kong, Macao and the Greater Bay Area, Chengdu and Chongqing, as well as East and Southeast Asia.
Point 3: Insufficient credibility of land use data. What is the overall accuracy and Kappa of land use classification? The term 'Above' is not professional enough.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable comments. I apologize profusely for not using specialized vocabulary. I have written the overall land use accuracy and Kappa coefficient for each year separately in my paper. The modifications were made in lines 272 -275.
Lines 272-275: The classification accuracy was validated using confusion matrix. The overall classifica-tion accuracy was 85.65%, 87.40%, and 87.59% in 2000, 2010, and 2020, respectively, and the Kappa coefficients were 80.53%, 83.33%, and 84.13% in 2000, 2010, and 2020, respec-tively.
Point 4: The research design is not reasonable enough. As you said, ecological risk assessment is a comprehensive evaluation of the likelihood and degree of the impact of natural disasters and human activities on the natural environment and ecosystem. So why only choose terrain gradients and ignore human activities to analyze the impact on the ecological risk pattern of the Yuanmou Basin landscape?.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we believe that the Yuanmou Basin exhibits the specificity of synergistic evolution accompanied by topographic gradient as the climate changes from low to high altitude from hot-dry to humid. The topographic gradient plays a dominant role in landscape ecological risk in the study area. Therefore, this paper only investigates the distribution of landscape ecological risk under different topographic gradients. However, we will consider the impact of human activities in our future work. We hope this is the right choice. Thank you for your understanding.
Point 5: The production of Figure 1 is too rough to read and the expression is vague. (Where is the red area in the left image? The latitude and longitude block the reading of the image. What is the white area in the right image? Where is the Tilt point? The use of the north arrow in the full text image is not intuitive.)
Response 5: Thank you for your reminder. I apologize for the missing and incorrect image content due to the image format. By introducing the study area background case. I redrew Figure 1 and fixed image formatting issues. We hope this was the right choice. Thank you for your understanding. The change is in lines 159.
Point 6: The analysis description in section 3.3 is not accurate. The value of Moran's I first decreases and then increases, showing a downward trend in general, but it does not mean that adjacent spatial units weaken each other, and spatial aggregation gradually decreases.
Response 6: Thank you for your valuable comments. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also realize that the description of this section was not specific enough. In response to your comments, we have revised the text accordingly (lines 358-359). We believe these revisions address your concerns and improve the clarity and impact of our manuscript.
Point 7: How is the distinction between dry hot zones and non dry hot zones in 3.4.1? There is no scientific explanation.
Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also realized that the description of this dry and hot valley was not specific enough. In response to your comments, we have revised the text accordingly (lines 382-384).
lines 382-384: The elevation of the Yuanmou Basin ranges from 882 to 2843 m (Figure 1). Dry-hot river valleys are dry thermal scrub landscape valleys located in humid climate zones of tropics or subtropics [29].
Point 8: The description in Table 4 is not intuitive, and it is recommended to supplement the figure.
Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also realize that the description of the dry-hot valley area and the non-dry-hot valley area is not specific enough. In response to your comments, we have added the figure (line 408) to the corresponding section of the text. We believe these revisions can address your concerns and improve the clarity and impact of our manuscripts.
Point 9: Part 3.4 and even the entire text are mostly numerical descriptions, lacking spatial concepts.
Response 9: Thank you for your valuable comments. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we are also aware of the lack of a description of the spatial distribution in section 3.4 and the full text. According to your comments, we have added the description of the spatial distribution in the corresponding part of the paper (lines 312 -330, 363 -377, 380-433). We believe these revisions can address your concerns and improve the clarity and impact of our manuscripts.
We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and your careful review of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.
Name:leizhao
E-mail address:[email protected].
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In this work, a landscape ecological risk (LER) index model for the Yuanmou Basin is constructed based on land use data from 2000, 2010 and 2020, and the elevation and terrain position indices are used to study the terrain gradient-based characteristics of LER levels in the area of interest. The results can provide a decision basis for ecological restoration, landscape pattern optimization, improvement of ecological environment quality, and formulation of environmental protection measures. It is of great significance for realizing sustainable land resource use and high-quality economic development. However, there are still some shortcomings in the paper. The specific suggestions are as follows:
1. There are serious problems in Figure 1: (1) In order to clearly show the location of the study area, the study area should be marked on the map of China. (2) In the left figure, the red area in the legend is missing in the figure. (3) The latitude and longitude annotation of the right image is seriously offset. (4) There is a partial lack of DEM in the figure. (5) The Tilt points in the legend are missing in the diagram. (6) It is recommended to choose the more commonly used compass. (7) There is occlusion in the legend of DEM.
2. When introducing the research methods in detail, it is recommended to supplement the corresponding references.
3. It is recommended to describe the meaning of the parameters in the formula in detail. When the parameters have subscripts, the subscripts should also be described. Some parameters in this paper have subscripts, but there is no description of subscripts when describing parameters.
4. It is recommended to change the compass of the picture to a common type. The number labeling of the scale in Fig.2 is too dense, and the outer frame lines of the legend are not uniform. The number labeling of the scale in Figure 7 is too dense.
5. There are many detailed errors in the article, such as the first letter is not capitalized and the punctuation is missing. It is suggested that the author should carefully examine and modify these details.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your invaluable and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled " Land use change and landscape ecological risk assessment based on terrain gradients in Yuanmou Basin " (Manuscript Number: 2498232). We have carefully considered your recommendations and completed the necessary revisions as per your suggestions. The following is our response to each of these revisions.
Point 1: There are serious problems in Figure 1: (1) In order to clearly show the location of the study area, the study area should be marked on the map of China. (2) In the left figure, the red area in the legend is missing in the figure. (3) The latitude and longitude annotation of the right image is seriously offset. (4) There is a partial lack of DEM in the figure. (5) The Tilt points in the legend are missing in the diagram. (6) It is recommended to choose the more commonly used compass. (7) There is occlusion in the legend of DEM.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable advice. We are very sorry that the use of emf format image files made the image memory larger, resulting in blurred images, resulting in serious deviation of the longitude and latitude marks on the right picture. Part of the figure lacks DEM. The tilting point in the legend is missing in the figure. DEM legends are blocked. According to your comments, in order to clearly show the location of the study area, we annotated the study area on the map of China and redrew Figure 1 to solve the image format problem. A common compass was chosen. We trust that these changes will enhance the clarity of the original. The change is on line 159.
Point 2: When introducing the research methods in detail, it is recommended to supplement the corresponding references.
Response 2: We really appreciate your insightful comments. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also realized that there was a lack of references in the presentation of the method. In response to your comments, we have added the relevant references (lines 186, 217, 219) at the appropriate places in the text. We believe these revisions can address your concerns and improve the clarity and impact of our manuscripts.
Point 3: It is recommended to describe the meaning of the parameters in the formula in detail. When the parameters have subscripts, the subscripts should also be described. Some parameters in thispaper have subscripts, but there is no description of subscripts when describing parameters.
Response 3: Thank you for your reminder. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also realized that the description of parameter subscripts was missing in the introduction of the method. In response to your comments, we have added a description of the parameter subscript in the corresponding place in the article. (Lines 191-192, 209-211, 224-225). We believe that these revisions can improve the clarity and impact of our manuscripts.
Point 4: It is recommended to change the compass of the picture to a common type. The number labeling of the scale in Fig.2 is too dense, and the outer frame lines of the legend are not uniform. The number labeling of the scale in Figure 7 is too dense.
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable advice. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also realized that the scale numbers in Figure 2 are too dense, and the figure has uneven boxes and lines. The digital marking of the scale in Figure 7 is too dense and other problems. According to your comments, we have modified the compasses of all the pictures to the common types in the article, and revised the numeric marks of figures 2 and 7 (lines 159, 171, 331, 378, 408). It is recommended to change the compass of the picture to a normal type. We believe these revisions can address your concerns and improve the clarity of our manuscripts.
Point 5: There are many detailed errors in the article, such as the first letter is not capitalized and the punctuation is missing. It is suggested that the author should carefully examine and modify these details.
Response 5: We greatly appreciate your valuable comments. We also found a lot of detail errors in the article. Based on your comments, we have carefully reviewed and revised these details in the text (lines 24, 35, 38, 100, 216-217, 231-232, 272, 275, 357, 365, 400). We believe these revisions can address your concerns and improve the clarity of our manuscripts.
We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and your careful review of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.
Name:leizhao
E-mail address:[email protected].
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Abstract
The abstract gives a brief and precise statement of the issue that is under consideration and also gives the research methods, major findings, and the conclusions reached in this paper. I think it is fair to introduce readers to the basis of this research.
Aim and objectives
The paper models the landscape ecological risk (LER) index using land use data for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 for the Yuanmou Basin, and then evaluates the terrain gradient-based characteristics of LER levels based on a set of elevation and terrain position indices.
The paper aims to obtain a multi-dimensional ecological risk assessment for the study area for guiding sustainable land resource use and high-quality economic development.
The author(s) has given the aim and justification for why there is a need for this research.
Introduction
The introduction is well-structured, referenced, and written. Nothing to say for this section. It gives the underlying reasons to conduct, and the focus of this research, as well as the contribution of this research to the study area and literature.
Materials and Methods
Study area---Could you please check Figure 1, the DEM map you have used has some issues. Also, on the right side, you have the wider extent of your study area with surrounding counties, and you have given the borders of the basin. But the red lines can not be seen from this figure. You need to include the North arrow in all of your maps. Finally, please check for the quality of your figures, e.g. in Figure 1, coordinates are mixed up with the figure on the right-hand side.
Materials---The materials used to conduct this research are sufficient as they are the main resources for this kind of research. The accuracy of land use maps is good to work with them.
Data sources---here you might say you have used Landsat images and processed them in the GEE but should not give the results here. The outputs of the GEE classification should go into the Results section.
Figure 2, Please check your figures for the North arrow and the other details. I did not understand what those are plus-minus symbols in Figure 2.
Research methods---You should move the methods for land use classification here (details of GEE to classify Landsat images, should not be put into the Materials section.
Please give the details of elevation and topographic position indices. eg why you use a rank interval of 0.1938 using the quantile reclassification??? OR why you have chosen the natural breakpoint method for the classification of LER classes?
Other than the points mentioned above, the Research methods section is sufficient.
Results
Results are thoroughly represented and nothing to say about them.
Discussion
Well-written nothing to say about it.
Conclusions
I would suggest strengthening your Conclusion section since it is a brief summary of your results as in its current form. I think you should tell your readers what your outcomes can tell them, and how can we use them to guide sustainable land resource use and high-quality economic development as you stated at the beginning of your paper.
References
Please try to be consistent with the format of all references (see 58. YANG, G.; ZHANG, Z.-j.; CAO, Y.-g.; ZHUANG, Y.-n.; YANG, K.; BAI, Z.-k. Spatial-temporal heterogeneity of landscape ecological risk of large-scale open-pit mining area in north Shanxi. Chinese Journal of Ecology 2021, 40, 187.)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your invaluable and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled " Land use change and landscape ecological risk assessment based on terrain gradients in Yuanmou Basin " (Manuscript Number: 2498232). We have carefully considered your recommendations and completed the necessary revisions as per your suggestions. The following is our response to each of these revisions.
Point 1: Study area---Could you please check Figure 1, the DEM map you have used has some issues. Also, on the right side, you have the wider extent of your study area with surrounding counties, and you have given the borders of the basin. But the red lines can not be seen from this figure. You need to include the North arrow in all of your maps. Finally, please check for the quality of your figures, e.g. in Figure 1, coordinates are mixed up with the figure on the right-hand side.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable advice. I am very sorry for the blurring of the image due to the use of the emf format image file, which results in a large image memory, making the extent of the study area on the right side of the red line missing. And confused the coordinates with the diagram on the right side. In response to your comments, to clearly show the location of the study area, we labeled the study area on the China map and redrew Figure 1 to address the image formatting issue (line 159). We have re-added north pointers to all maps (lines 159, 171, 331, 378, 408). We believe these changes will improve the clarity of the original content.
Point 2: Data sources---here you might say you have used Landsat images and processed them in the GEE but should not give the results here. The outputs of the GEE classification should go into the Results section.
Response 2: Thank you for your reminder. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also believe that the land use classification results given here are not appropriate. Therefore, based on your comments, we have placed the output of the GEE classification in the results section (lines 272-275). We believe these changes address your concerns and improve the clarity and impact of the manuscript.
Lines 272-275: In this paper, the land use classification accuracy was validated using confusion matrix. The overall classification accuracy was 85.65%, 87.40%, and 87.59% in 2000, 2010, and 2020, respectively, and the Kappa coefficients were 80.53%, 83.33%, and 84.13% in 2000, 2010, and 2020, respectively.
Point 3: Figure 2, Please check your figures for the North arrow and the other details. I did not understand what those are plus-minus symbols in Figure 2.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestions. I am very sorry, again the use of image files in emf format resulted in a plus or minus sign in figure 2, which is in fact the north pointer. Based on your comments, we have carefully checked all the diagrams in the text for the compass and other details. And we have redrawn all the diagrams to solve the formatting problems that occurred with the images (lines 159, 171, 331, 378, 408). We believe these changes will improve the clarity of the original content.
Point 4: Research methods---You should move the methods for land use classification here (details of GEE to classify Landsat images, should not be put into the Materials section.
Response 4: We greatly appreciate your insightful comments. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also believe that the land use classification methods should be moved to the 2.3 Methods section (lines 174-182). We believe these changes address your concerns and improve the clarity and impact of the manuscript.
Lines 174-182: The land use and land cover data were achieved by constructing a random forest classification model based on the Google Earth Engine (https://earthengine.google.com/commercial/), where the remote sensing image data for 2000 and 2010 were collected using Landsat5-TM imagery, and the corresponding data for 2020 were obtained from Landsat8-OLI2 imagery that was taken during the dry season with a resolution of 30 m. By analyzing the regional characteristics and referring to the relevant classification criteria, the study area was divided into six land use types, includ-ing water bodies, grassland, forest land, farmland, construction land and unused land [38].
Point 5: Please give the details of elevation and topographic position indices. eg why you use a rank interval of 0.1938 using the quantile reclassification??? OR why you have chosen the natural breakpoint method for the classification of LER classes?
Response 5: Thank you for your reminder. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestion, we also realize that the description of the elevation and topographic position indices in the "Methods" section is not sufficiently detailed. In response to your comments, we have explained where relevant in the text why we used the equal spacing method for reclassification with a spacing of 0.1938 (lines 261-267). We have added relevant references to explain why the natural breakpoint method was chosen to classify LER categories (lines 219). We believe these changes address your concerns and add clarity to our manuscript.
Lines 261-267: Existing research indicates that topography has a significant impact on the structure and distribution of land use, and its compositional structure and pattern changes are highly correlated with the spatiotemporal distribution and dynamics of landscape ecological risks. Therefore, referring to the research results of related scholars on the impact of topo-graphic factors on land use patterns. Considering the actual situation in the study area, the terrain positions (0.1878-1.1568) were divided into five levels with a rank interval of 0.1938 using the quantile reclassification.
Point 6: I would suggest strengthening your Conclusion section since it is a brief summary of your results as in its current form. I think you should tell your readers what your outcomes can tell them, and how can we use them to guide sustainable land resource use and high-quality economic development as you stated at the beginning of your paper.
Response 6: We highly appreciate your valuable comments. After careful discussion and consideration of your suggestions, we also realized that the conclusion section lacks the use of our results to guide sustainable land resource use and quality economic development. Based on your comments, we have revised the conclusion section (lines 549-562) to make the paper coherent. We believe these revisions address your concerns and improve the clarity and impact of our manuscript. We believe these changes address your concerns and improve the clarity of our manuscript.
Lines 549-562: Comprehensively considering the distribution of LER levels in the Yuanmou Basin on the topographic gradient, future land policies may be tailored according to the topographic gradient. The low-altitude and low-topographic gradient areas of the Yuanmou Basin are the main distribution zones of medium to high-risk areas, and also the key areas for adjusting land policies. In this area, the speed at which farmland encroaches on grassland should be slowed down, and land should be planned and utilized scientifically and reasonably to suppress the spread of high-risk areas to high-altitude and high-topographic gradient areas. In the high-altitude and high-topographic gradient areas of the Yuanmou Basin, soil and water conservation work should be done well, and the construction of protective forests and the orderly implementation of the "Returning Farmland to Forest and Grass" project should be strengthened. These measures will reduce human interference in the ecological environment, focus on the development of ecological benefits, and suppress the transformation of slightly low-risk areas into medium-risk areas.
Point 7: Please try to be consistent with the format of all references.
Response 7: Thank you for your reminder. We also realize that the references are not formatted consistently. In response to your comments, we have made changes in accordance with the journal's required reference formatting requirements (lines 576-731). We believe these changes address your concerns and improve the clarity of our manuscript.
We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and your careful review of our manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.
Name:leizhao
E-mail address:[email protected].
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After the modifications you have made based on the reviewers' suggestions, the paper attains a significantly higher level of quality. I do not detect any errors or areas for improvement. This represents a case application of a well-established methodology.
