Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript analyzed the temporal and spatial changes and driving forces of wetlands in the Yancheng coastal area from 1991 to 2021. To this, authors used Landsat collections and image enhancement methods such as principal component analysis (PCA) and minimum noise fraction rotation (MNF). They found human factors were the most critical reasons for wetland landscape change through analysis of factors driving wetland change. I think that this study helps readers understand the change of wetland in the Yancheng coastal area. The main questions are the following. 

1.    Line 15-24: This part described the study findings. It seems to be described as too much of a qualitative expression now. I think that the authors need to use more quantitative expression to recapitulate the sentences briefly.

2.    Line 12-13: is-sue and in-creasing à issue and increasing

The authors need to confirm and revise these parts in this manuscript.

3.    Line 158: The authors only used a total 10 scenes during 1991-2021. Why are the authors only 10 scenes? Is there a special reason why the time interval between the used images is not constant? Landsat imagery has a temporal resolution of 16 days. I think that the authors can obtain more imagery during the study period.

4.    Line 188-190: The authors mentioned “wetland types”. What is the wetland type referred to her and by what criteria can it be divided? How did you refer to Google Earth images?

5.    Line 213 and 318: The lengths of Section titles are very long. It would be better to revise the shorter title.

6.    Line 249 (Figure 2) and Line 346 (Figure 4): If possible, I would like the authors to make Figures look better.

7.    Line 250: In Section 4.1, when calculating the area of tidal flat, did the authors consider tidal height of each image? This area is expected to show a lot of differences in area depending on tidal height. Thus, only when it is considered, the area change analysis will have reliability.

8.    Line 275 (Table 2): I think it would be easier to understand this table by changing it to a graph. Tidal falt à Tidal flat

9.    Line 384-421 (Section 4.4): This section explains driving factors of land use changes rather than the results. It would be better to mix this part properly with Section 4.2.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. We have revised and improved as your suggestions.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This manuscript is very interesting and important for monitoring Coastal Wetlands. But some major revisions are needed.

- Abstract is informative, including the presentation of the problem, introducing the materials and methods used, the main results and the importance of the work. However, the last part should contain more information about the worldwide usefulness of the work.

- Add more words to Keywords section (e.g., y, Landsat TM and Landsat 8 OLI)

- The introduction presents the aim of the work and provides a brief background, citing the literature as appropriate. Also, a working hypothesis is missing.

- Lines 149 and 160: The following statements are defect: "Figure 1 shows the study area:", "As shown in Table 1:". Merge them with previous sentences.

- Line 194: Add some new citations for random forest technique, e.g., 

** https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14091977

** https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107612

- Table 2: "PLAND"???

- Discussion section: This part would appear to be inadequately supported by bibliography.

- Conclusion section: In the second paragraph, please briefly explain the limitations of the study and future work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. We have revised and improved as your suggestions.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I think that the revised manuscript is reflected in my review opinion.

However, I hope the answer to question 4 is added to the  manuscript.

Thank you for your hard work in advance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much. We have revised as suggested.

Yours sincerely,

Yuanzhi Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Great job. I am happy with revised version.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much. We have revised as suggested.

Yours sincerely,

Yuanzhi Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf