Assessing the Effects of Climate Change and Anthropogenic Contributions in Parishan Wetland, Iran

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the impact of climate change and human activities on the Parishan wetland in Iran. By combining remote sensing techniques and cloud-free Google Earth Engine (GEE) to monitor the effects of climate change and human activities on wetlands, and analyzing the potential impact of various climatic and anthropogenic factors (such as temperature, precipitation, built-up areas, cropland, and groundwater storage) on wetland conditions during 2001–2010. However, there are still many problems in terms of data analysis and other aspects, and the manuscript does not sufficiently emphasize the innovative aspects of this study.

The following are the detailed comments.

1. In the Introduction, the author mentions that in the domain of monitoring climate change and anthropogenic effects on wetlands, few papers have been published. Conversely, there is a vast amount of such research in practice.

2. The study evaluates the impacts of climate change and human activities through long-term data. But these analyses are limited to a specific time period (2001-2010), thus, the results might not reflect the impacts over a longer time span, and the research conclusions might have certain limitations. Additionally, data on GEE is updated frequently, so why not use data from recent years?

3. The data used in the paper was directly utilized without any verification, which introduces uncertainty in the analysis.

4. Using Landsat satellite images and other remote sensing products provided by GEE, wetland change monitoring was conducted. However, there is a significant disparity in the spatial resolution of these data, and no explanation for data integration was seen in the article, making it difficult to ensure the accuracy of the results.

5. In Figures 4 and 5, the unit of wetland and cropland is m², but the unit should be km². Please check the data.

 

6. Although the research analyzes the impact of multiple variables on wetlands, the exploration of interactions among variables is not in-depth enough. The impacts of climate change and human activities are often complex and interrelated, and failure to fully consider these interactions may affect the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the research results.

4. In Figures 4 and 5, the unit of wetland and cropland is m², but the unit should be km². Please check the data.

5. Although the research analyzes the impact of multiple variables on wetlands, the exploration of interactions among variables is not in-depth enough. The impacts of climate change and human activities are often complex and interrelated, and failure to fully consider these interactions may affect the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the research results.

Author Response

 

Reviewer #1

Answers to Reviewer  

Dear Reviewer,

We very much appreciate of your positive statements regarding our manuscript. It appears us you kindly spent significant time on this manuscript and we are grateful for the detailed comments. In fact, you brought up interesting aspects and we believe that these comments and our respective reactions to them will improve the quality of our paper. We did our best to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript significantly. Based on your constructive comments on early version and the comprehensive revisions on the manuscript, we are very confident that you will find this revised version now worthwhile to get published. 

Comments to authors and replies 

This paper examines the impact of climate change and human activities on the Parishan wetland in Iran. By combining remote sensing techniques and cloud-free Google Earth Engine (GEE) to monitor the effects of climate change and human activities on wetlands, and analyzing the potential impact of various climatic and anthropogenic factors (such as temperature, precipitation, built-up areas, cropland, and groundwater storage) on wetland conditions during 2001–2010. However, there are still many problems in terms of data analysis and other aspects, and the manuscript does not sufficiently emphasize the innovative aspects of this study.

Thank you very much for the comments, we revised the manuscript carefully and as you see from the new version, the manuscript has improved significantly. 

1. In the Introduction, the author mentions that in the domain of monitoring climate change and anthropogenic effects on wetlands, few papers have been published. Conversely, there is a vast amount of such research in practice.

Thank you very much for your question. As mentioned, several studies have evaluated the effects of human activity and climate change on wetlands. Most of these studies differ in scope. For example, Chen et al. (2018) studied the effects of climate change and anthropogenic factors on wetlands by monitoring land use and cover changes. However, they did not conduct a comprehensive assessment by selecting various climatic and anthropogenic variables, as we did in this study (See lines 82-98).

2. The study evaluates the impacts of climate change and human activities through long-term data. But these analyses are limited to a specific time period (2001-2010), thus, the results might not reflect the impacts over a longer time span, and the research conclusions might have certain limitations. Additionally, data on GEE is updated frequently, so why not use data from recent years?

Thank you very much for your valuable question. As you kindly mentioned, the data on GEE have been updated frequently. The reason for choosing this period is not data limitation. However, the reason for choosing the period 2001–2010 is that the most significant changes in wetlands occurred during this time. By 2010, the wetland was almost completely dried.

3. The data used in the paper was directly utilized without any verification, which introduces uncertainty in the analysis.

Many studies have utilized the available data in GEE for monitoring Earth's features, which is a strong indicator of the accuracy of these data. Additionally, GEE provides an accuracy assessment value for each product. For the ERA5-Land product, the RMSE for these data in Iran is 2.87.

4. Using Landsat satellite images and other remote sensing products provided by GEE, wetland change monitoring was conducted. However, there is a significant disparity in the spatial resolution of these data, and no explanation for data integration was seen in the article, making it difficult to ensure the accuracy of the results.

Thank you very much for your question. We used various types of data with different spatial and temporal resolutions. However, as mentioned in the "Statistical Analysis" section, we employed the MK technique, which requires the values of climatic and anthropogenic factors to be analyzed separately. Our results were generated based on these values for specific dates, which helped minimize the effects of spatial resolution on the outcomes. A brief explanation has also been added regarding the employed values of each variable for studying the relationship between climatic and anthropogenic variables and wetlands (see lines 162–167).

5. In Figures 4 and 5, the unit of wetland and cropland is m2, but the unit should be km2. Please check the data.

Thank you very much for your comment. We fixed all the related problems in the manuscript regarding the units (See Figs. 4 and 5).

6. Although the research analyzes the impact of multiple variables on wetlands, the exploration of interactions among variables is not in-depth enough. The impacts of climate change and human activities are often complex and interrelated, and failure to fully consider these interactions may affect the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the research results.

Thanks. Done, we edited the ‘Discussion’ section by exploring more comprehensively relationships between climatic and anthropogenic variables with wetland as you kindly proposed (See Discussion).

 

Finally we appreciate you kindly checked out this paper and provided valuable comments which supported us to improve the quality of the manuscript further we hope that you will find the new version suitable for being accepted and publishing.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fine, straight forward study. It successfully illustrates a way to take GEE data and use them to evaluate biophysical and social variables that could affect wetland area.

Note that area may not be the only variable of interest about wetlands, as they are also affected by factors that may reduce biodiversity or water quality. In fact, there are many additional ways to use remote sensing to study wetlands (including radar in satellite data) that are not mentioned here, so it is possible that the wetland detection and mapping is not state of the art. These possible complications warrant some discussion in a possible revision.

There are a few typos that could be corrected.

The authors should 1) explain why they stop their analysis at 2010, and if possible if it could be extended to the present, and if not, explain why to readers why not, 2) better explain how the time series data in Figure 5 is to be evaluated.

Author Response

 

Reviewer #2

Answers to Reviewer  

Dear Reviewer,

We very much appreciate of your positive statements regarding our manuscript. It appears us you kindly spent significant time on this manuscript and we are grateful for the detailed comments. In fact, you brought up interesting aspects and we believe that these comments and our respective reactions to them will improve the quality of our paper. We did our best to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript significantly. Based on your constructive comments on early version and the comprehensive revisions on the manuscript, we are very confident that you will find this revised version now worthwhile to get published. 

Comments to authors and replies 

This is a fine, straight forward study. It successfully illustrates a way to take GEE data and use them to evaluate biophysical and social variables that could affect wetland area.

Thank you very much for the comments, we revised the manuscript carefully and as you see from the new version, the manuscript has improved significantly. 

1. Note that area may not be the only variable of interest about wetlands, as they are also affected by factors that may reduce biodiversity or water quality. In fact, there are many additional ways to use remote sensing to study wetlands (including radar in satellite data) that are not mentioned here, so it is possible that the wetland detection and mapping is not state of the art. These possible complications warrant some discussion in a possible revision.

Thank you very much for your comments. As you mentioned, there are other variables that affect the wetland ecosystem. However, the main purpose of this study is to examine the potential impacts of climate change and anthropogenic factors on wetland changes. We also included additional details about the limitations of the present study and provided several recommendations for future research. These recommendations emphasize the importance of utilizing diverse data sources, such as ecological data, to better understand the essence of wetlands and contribute to their recovery and maintenance (See lines 385-397).

2. There are a few typos that could be corrected.

Thank you very much for your comment. We fixed all typos over the manuscript you kindly proposed.

3. The authors should 1) explain why they stop their analysis at 2010, and if possible if it could be extended to the present, and if not, explain why to readers why not, 2) better explain how the time series data in Figure 5 is to be evaluated.

As mentioned in ‘lines 94–98’, the main reason for choosing this specific period is that the wetland was almost completely dry in 2010, and therefore, studying its trend for dates after 2010 would be meaningless.

In Fig. 5, we have extended the explanation as you kindly proposed. The evaluation of this figure reveals observable trends in each variable over the study period. The analysis focuses on the fluctuations of these variables, which are clearly divided into two distinct phases: before and after the peak time, as indicated in the figure. The peak time serves as a dividing line, marking a significant shift in the behavior of the variables. Prior to this peak, the data exhibited relatively stable patterns, while after this point, more pronounced fluctuations and shifts became evident, highlighting the impact of the environmental and climatic changes during this period. This division allows for a more detailed understanding of how each variable responded to different influencing factors, emphasizing the importance of identifying key moments of change in the dataset for better interpretation and future projections (Lines 217-239).

 

Finally we appreciate you kindly checked out this paper and provided valuable comments which supported us to improve the quality of the manuscript further we hope that you will find the new version suitable for being accepted and publishing.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper explores a critical environmental issue using a comprehensive approach, combining remote sensing and Google Earth Engine (GEE) to assess the impacts of climatic and human-induced factors on wetland dynamics. While the study demonstrates methodological rigor and highlights relevant findings, there are substantial aspects that could benefit from further refinement and critical reflection to enhance the scientific impact and robustness of the work.

The integration of diverse datasets, including air temperature, precipitation, built-up areas, croplands, and groundwater storage, provides a multi-faceted perspective on wetland dynamics. The use of GEE offers a scalable and computationally efficient platform for analyzing large spatiotemporal datasets, and the application of the Mann–Kendall trend test strengthens the statistical reliability of the results. Furthermore, the focus on groundwater storage as a critical variable is an insightful contribution, emphasizing the often-overlooked hydrological drivers of wetland sustainability.

The research addresses an underexplored geographical area, adding valuable insights to global discussions on wetland conservation. The manuscript successfully demonstrates the potential of cloud-based geospatial tools for environmental monitoring, making it a significant contribution to the field of remote sensing and wetland ecology.

Despite its strengths, the manuscript presents several limitations and areas that require improvement. These issues concern methodological depth, contextualization of findings, and their broader implications.

1. Temporal Scope and Relevance of Data

The study is predicated on a decade-long dataset (2001–2010), which may be inadequate for capturing long-term trends in wetland dynamics, especially in the context of evolving impacts of climate change. Given that the data concludes in the year 2010, it is possible that the findings may not fully represent either current or future challenges. It is imperative that the analysis is extended to incorporate more recent data, in order to ensure the relevance of the conclusions drawn and to provide actionable insights for contemporary management practices.

2. Lack of Contextual and Theoretical Framework

Whilst the study identifies correlations between variables, it lacks a more profound theoretical discussion to contextualize these relationships within extant frameworks of climate change and anthropogenic stressors. For instance, while the positive correlation between groundwater storage and wetland health is emphasised, the study does not sufficiently explore the mechanisms behind this relationship or its implications for water management policies. A more rigorous theoretical framing could enrich the interpretation of results and situate them within broader scientific discourse.

3. Methodological Transparency

The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit discussion of the limitations associated with the datasets and analytical tools employed. While GEE is a powerful platform, its reliance on specific datasets (e.g., ERA5-Land, GPM, and NASA's Global Land Data Assimilation System) raises questions about resolution adequacy, accuracy, and potential biases. For example, the spatial resolution of certain climatic and anthropogenic variables may not capture localized nuances critical to understanding small-scale wetland dynamics. A detailed acknowledgment of these limitations and potential mitigation strategies (e.g., using higher-resolution or supplementary field data) would enhance methodological rigor.

4. Superficial Discussion of Results

While the results are quantitatively robust, the discussion lacks depth in exploring the implications of the findings. For instance, the observed correlations are presented descriptively, but their broader significance—ecological, hydrological, and socio-economic—is underexplored. Moreover, the discussion does not critically evaluate discrepancies with or confirmations of existing literature, missing an opportunity to position the findings within the global context of wetland research.

Suggestions for Improvement

To strengthen the scientific and practical contributions of this work, the following recommendations are proposed:

• Extend Temporal and Spatial Coverage: Incorporate more recent data to capture long-term trends and better address the evolving impacts of climate change and human activities.

• Deepen Theoretical and Contextual Analysis: Situate findings within established frameworks of wetland ecology, climate change, and anthropogenic impacts to provide a richer interpretation of results.

• Enhance Methodological Transparency: Discuss the limitations of the datasets and tools used, and consider integrating higher-resolution data or field-based observations to validate remote sensing results.

• Provide Practical Recommendations: Translate findings into clear, actionable strategies for wetland conservation, focusing on sustainable water management and land-use planning.

• Critically Engage with Existing Literature: Contrast findings with previous studies to highlight novel contributions and address discrepancies, thereby situating the study within global research efforts.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in the manuscript is generally clear and comprehensible, but there are several areas where improvements can be made to enhance readability, grammatical accuracy, and academic tone.

There are minor grammatical errors throughout the text, such as subject-verb agreement issues (e.g., "this study aimas" should be "this study aims") and incorrect word forms (e.g., "analys" instead of "analysis").

Certain phrases and terms, such as "this study aims" and "wetland health," are repeated frequently, which could be varied to maintain reader interest and avoid redundancy.

Some sentences are overly complex, making them difficult to read. Breaking these into shorter, clearer sentences would improve readability.

• Example: "The findings revealed a negative correlation of -0.54 between AT and wetland area from 2001 to 2010" could be rewritten as "The study found that air temperature (AT) negatively correlated with wetland area (-0.54) from 2001 to 2010."

Author Response

 

Reviewer #3

Answers to Reviewer  

Dear Reviewer,

We very much appreciate of your positive statements regarding our manuscript. It appears us you kindly spent significant time on this manuscript and we are grateful for the detailed comments. In fact, you brought up interesting aspects and we believe that these comments and our respective reactions to them will improve the quality of our paper. We did our best to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript significantly. Based on your constructive comments on early version and the comprehensive revisions on the manuscript, we are very confident that you will find this revised version now worthwhile to get published. 

Comments to authors and replies 

The paper explores a critical environmental issue using a comprehensive approach, combining remote sensing and Google Earth Engine (GEE) to assess the impacts of climatic and human-induced factors on wetland dynamics. While the study demonstrates methodological rigor and highlights relevant findings, there are substantial aspects that could benefit from further refinement and critical reflection to enhance the scientific impact and robustness of the work.The integration of diverse datasets, including air temperature, precipitation, built-up areas, croplands, and groundwater storage, provides a multi-faceted perspective on wetland dynamics. The use of GEE offers a scalable and computationally efficient platform for analyzing large spatiotemporal datasets, and the application of the Mann–Kendall trend test strengthens the statistical reliability of the results. Furthermore, the focus on groundwater storage as a critical variable is an insightful contribution, emphasizing the often-overlooked hydrological drivers of wetland sustainability.The research addresses an underexplored geographical area, adding valuable insights to global discussions on wetland conservation. The manuscript successfully demonstrates the potential of cloud-based geospatial tools for environmental monitoring, making it a significant contribution to the field of remote sensing and wetland ecology.Despite its strengths, the manuscript presents several limitations and areas that require improvement. These issues concern methodological depth, contextualization of findings, and their broader implications.

Thank you very much for the comments, we revised the manuscript carefully and as you see from the new version, the manuscript has improved significantly. 

1. The study is predicated on a decade-long dataset (2001–2010), which may be inadequate for capturing long-term trends in wetland dynamics, especially in the context of evolving impacts of climate change. Given that the data concludes in the year 2010, it is possible that the findings may not fully represent either current or future challenges. It is imperative that the analysis is extended to incorporate more recent data, in order to ensure the relevance of the conclusions drawn and to provide actionable insights for contemporary management practices.

Thank you very much for your valuable question. As mentioned in ‘lines 94–98’, the main reason for choosing this specific period is that the wetland was almost completely dry in 2010, and therefore, studying its trend for dates after 2010 would be meaningless.

2. Whilst the study identifies correlations between variables, it lacks a more profound theoretical discussion to contextualize these relationships within extant frameworks of climate change and anthropogenic stressors. For instance, while the positive correlation between groundwater storage and wetland health is emphasised, the study does not sufficiently explore the mechanisms behind this relationship or its implications for water management policies. A more rigorous theoretical framing could enrich the interpretation of results and situate them within broader scientific discourse.

Thank you very much for your valuable question. We added further details regarding the effects of each variable on Parishan wetland as you kindly proposed (See ‘Discussion’).

3. The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit discussion of the limitations associated with the datasets and analytical tools employed. While GEE is a powerful platform, its reliance on specific datasets (e.g., ERA5-Land, GPM, and NASA's Global Land Data Assimilation System) raises questions about resolution adequacy, accuracy, and potential biases. For example, the spatial resolution of certain climatic and anthropogenic variables may not capture localized nuances critical to understanding small-scale wetland dynamics. A detailed acknowledgment of these limitations and potential mitigation strategies (e.g., using higher-resolution or supplementary field data) would enhance methodological rigor.

We added a paragraph explaining the limitations of the applied methodology as you kindly proposed (Lines 385-397).

4. While the results are quantitatively robust, the discussion lacks depth in exploring the implications of the findings. For instance, the observed correlations are presented descriptively, but their broader significance—ecological, hydrological, and socio-economic—is underexplored. Moreover, the discussion does not critically evaluate discrepancies with or confirmations of existing literature, missing an opportunity to position the findings within the global context of wetland research.

We have completely revised the ‘Discussion’ section as per your suggestions, adding further details about the content of previous research and elaborating on the relationships between the variables and their various effects on the wetland (see Discussion).

5. Extend Temporal and Spatial Coverage: Incorporate more recent data to capture long-term trends and better address the evolving impacts of climate change and human activities.

As mentioned in Introduction, the main reason for choosing this specific period is that the wetland was almost completely dry in 2010.

6. Deepen Theoretical and Contextual Analysis: Situate findings within established frameworks of wetland ecology, climate change, and anthropogenic impacts to provide a richer interpretation of results.

We added further details regarding the results of the present study to provide a comprehensive analysis of the effects of various variables on wetlands (See Discussion).

7. Enhance Methodological Transparency: Discuss the limitations of the datasets and tools used, and consider integrating higher-resolution data or field-based observations to validate remote sensing results.

We added a paragraph explaining the limitations of the applied methodology as you kindly proposed (Lines 385-397).

8. Provide Practical Recommendations: Translate findings into clear, actionable strategies for wetland conservation, focusing on sustainable water management and land-use planning.

Done. We have added several recommendations regarding techniques for achieving sustainable water management and land-use planning (Lines 376-397).

9. Critically Engage with Existing Literature: Contrast findings with previous studies to highlight novel contributions and address discrepancies, thereby situating the study within global research efforts.

Done. We compared the novelty and results of our research with previous ones as you kindly proposed (Lines 243-263).

10. The quality of English in the manuscript is generally clear and comprehensible, but there are several areas where improvements can be made to enhance readability, grammatical accuracy, and academic tone.

We edited the manuscript from English perspective as you kindly proposed. We tried to improve the quality of English whole the manuscript by correcting typos and grammatical errors.

11. There are minor grammatical errors throughout the text, such as subject-verb agreement issues (e.g., "this study aimas" should be "this study aims") and incorrect word forms (e.g., "analys" instead of "analysis").

Thanks. Done, we edited all the grammatical errors over the whole manuscript (See lines 97 and 102).

12. Certain phrases and terms, such as "this study aims" and "wetland health," are repeated frequently, which could be varied to maintain reader interest and avoid redundancy.

Thanks. We replaced these frequently repeated terms by appropriate terms as you kindly proposed (e.g., line 129).

13. Some sentences are overly complex, making them difficult to read. Breaking these into shorter, clearer sentences would improve readability.

Example: "The findings revealed a negative correlation of -0.54 between AT and wetland area from 2001 to 2010" could be rewritten as "The study found that air temperature (AT) negatively correlated with wetland area (-0.54) from 2001 to 2010."

Thanks. Done, we replaced most of the unclear sentences over the whole manuscript as you kindly proposed.

 

Finally we appreciate you kindly checked out this paper and provided valuable comments which supported us to improve the quality of the manuscript further we hope that you will find the new version suitable for being accepted and publishing.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, entitled "Assessing the Effects of Climate Change and Anthropogenic Contributions in Parishan Wetland, Iran", presents a timely and relevant study that addresses the pressing issue of wetland degradation. The integration of Google Earth Engine (GEE) with remote sensing and multi-indicator analysis represents a strong methodological approach that is both innovative and scalable. The study's focus on the Parishan Wetland, a site designated as a Ramsar wetland, is particularly noteworthy as it provides valuable insights into the dynamics of wetland ecosystems under the combined pressures of climate change and human activity. Nevertheless, despite the manuscript's merits, there are several areas where improvements are necessary to maximise its clarity, rigour and broader impact.

 

The language and presentation of the manuscript could be significantly improved to enhance accessibility and readability. While the academic tone is appropriate, the text often relies on dense sentences and technical jargon that may alienate non-specialist readers. To enhance the narrative, it is essential to simplify the language, avoid redundancy, and improve transitions between sections. Furthermore, although the presence of visual elements such as figures and tables is valuable, they lack sufficient annotations and detailed captions. The provision of clearer labelling and context for these visual aids would enhance their interpretability.

The methodology employed in this study constitutes a significant strength, particularly with regard to the utilisation of GEE and the incorporation of multiple climatic and anthropogenic indicators. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of detail regarding the accuracy and validation of the datasets used, particularly with regard to key variables such as groundwater storage. Addressing these gaps and discussing the uncertainties associated with the data and methods would provide a more balanced interpretation of the results. Furthermore, while the temporal focus on 2001–2010 is justified, incorporating or explaining the absence of more recent data would enhance the study's relevance to current trends.

 

The discussion section would benefit from a more profound contextualisation of the findings within the broader scientific literature. While the study offers valuable insights into the Parishan Wetland, connecting these results to global trends in wetland conservation would strengthen its contribution to the field. In addition, comparative analyses with similar studies in other regions, particularly arid and semi-arid ecosystems, would provide additional depth. Furthermore, while the policy implications are mentioned, they remain overly generalised and would benefit from more region-specific recommendations and actionable strategies.

The study identifies groundwater storage as the most significant factor influencing wetland health, a finding that is both valuable and actionable. Nevertheless, this and other pivotal results must be given greater prominence within the narrative. The utilisation of summary boxes or the emphasis of critical points within the discussion could assist in directing attention towards these insights.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript demonstrates a solid command of English, and the research is generally comprehensible. However, there are several areas where improvements in terms of language clarity, grammar, and structure would significantly enhance the readability and accessibility of the paper.

 It is evident that many of the sentences are of a considerable length and are replete with technical information, which consequently makes them difficult to comprehend. The implementation of a more systematic structure, characterised by the division of these complex sentences into more concise and focused units, would serve to enhance the clarity and comprehension of the text.

For instance: "GEE supports two primary geographic data structures: Images and Features, representing raster and vector data formats, respectively, providing flexibility in interpreting environmental phenomena". "GEE supports two geographic data structures: raster-based Images and vector-based Features. This flexibility enhances the interpretation of environmental phenomena."

The simplification of complex sentences is advisable, as is the avoidance of unnecessary repetition. The employment of shorter, more precise sentences is conducive to enhancing readability.

Author Response

 

Reviewer

Answers to Reviewer  

Dear Reviewer,

We very much appreciate of your positive statements regarding our manuscript. It appears us you kindly spent significant time on this manuscript and we are grateful for the detailed comments. In fact, you brought up interesting aspects and we believe that these comments and our respective reactions to them will improve the quality of our paper. We did our best to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript significantly. Based on your constructive comments on early version and the comprehensive revisions on the manuscript, we are very confident that you will find this revised version now worthwhile to get published. 

Comments to authors and replies 

The manuscript, entitled "Assessing the Effects of Climate Change and Anthropogenic Contributions in Parishan Wetland, Iran", presents a timely and relevant study that addresses the pressing issue of wetland degradation. The integration of Google Earth Engine (GEE) with remote sensing and multi-indicator analysis represents a strong methodological approach that is both innovative and scalable. The study's focus on the Parishan Wetland, a site designated as a Ramsar wetland, is particularly noteworthy as it provides valuable insights into the dynamics of wetland ecosystems under the combined pressures of climate change and human activity. Nevertheless, despite the manuscript's merits, there are several areas where improvements are necessary to maximise its clarity, rigour and broader impact.

Thank you very much for the comments, we revised the manuscript carefully and as you see from the new version, the manuscript has improved significantly. 

1. The language and presentation of the manuscript could be significantly improved to enhance accessibility and readability. While the academic tone is appropriate, the text often relies on dense sentences and technical jargon that may alienate non-specialist readers. To enhance the narrative, it is essential to simplify the language, avoid redundancy, and improve transitions between sections. Furthermore, although the presence of visual elements such as figures and tables is valuable, they lack sufficient annotations and detailed captions. The provision of clearer labelling and context for these visual aids would enhance their interpretability.

Thank you very much for your comment. We edited significantly the manuscript from a language perspective as you kindly proposed. We also added further details in captions of figures and tables in order to make them clearer for readers.

2. The methodology employed in this study constitutes a significant strength, particularly with regard to the utilisation of GEE and the incorporation of multiple climatic and anthropogenic indicators. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of detail regarding the accuracy and validation of the datasets used, particularly with regard to key variables such as groundwater storage. Addressing these gaps and discussing the uncertainties associated with the data and methods would provide a more balanced interpretation of the results. Furthermore, while the temporal focus on 2001–2010 is justified, incorporating or explaining the absence of more recent data would enhance the study's relevance to current trends.

We added further details regarding the limitations of the applied datasets and provided additional recommendations on how to utilize these data in future work (Lines 413-430).

3. The discussion section would benefit from a more profound contextualisation of the findings within the broader scientific literature. While the study offers valuable insights into the Parishan Wetland, connecting these results to global trends in wetland conservation would strengthen its contribution to the field. In addition, comparative analyses with similar studies in other regions, particularly arid and semi-arid ecosystems, would provide additional depth. Furthermore, while the policy implications are mentioned, they remain overly generalised and would benefit from more region-specific recommendations and actionable strategies.

We compared the results of the present study with existing literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the applied methodology for assessing the effects of climate change and anthropogenic factors on wetlands. Additionally, we evaluated the efficiency of this methodology for use in other wetlands around the world with similar conditions as you kindly proposed (Lines 270-314).

4. The study identifies groundwater storage as the most significant factor influencing wetland health, a finding that is both valuable and actionable. Nevertheless, this and other pivotal results must be given greater prominence within the narrative. The utilisation of summary boxes or the emphasis of critical points within the discussion could assist in directing attention towards these insights.

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We added this emphasize in Conclusion (see Conclusion).

5. The manuscript demonstrates a solid command of English, and the research is generally comprehensible. However, there are several areas where improvements in terms of language clarity, grammar, and structure would significantly enhance the readability and accessibility of the paper.

We improved significantly the manuscript from a language perspective (See Manuscript).

6. It is evident that many of the sentences are of a considerable length and are replete with technical information, which consequently makes them difficult to comprehend. The implementation of a more systematic structure, characterised by the division of these complex sentences into more concise and focused units, would serve to enhance the clarity and comprehension of the text.For instance: "GEE supports two primary geographic data structures: Images and Features, representing raster and vector data formats, respectively, providing flexibility in interpreting environmental phenomena". "GEE supports two geographic data structures: raster-based Images and vector-based Features. This flexibility enhances the interpretation of environmental phenomena."

We improved significantly the manuscript from a language perspective (See Manuscript).

7. The simplification of complex sentences is advisable, as is the avoidance of unnecessary repetition. The employment of shorter, more precise sentences is conducive to enhancing readability.

Done. We improved significantly the manuscript from a language perspective (See Manuscript).

 

Finally we appreciate you kindly checked out this paper and provided valuable comments which supported us to improve the quality of the manuscript further we hope that you will find the new version suitable for being accepted and publishing.

Sincerely yours,

Authors