Spatial-Temporal Evolution Characteristics and Driving Force Analysis of NDVI in Hubei Province, China, from 2000 to 2022
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease follow the journal author instructions. It would be useful for the reader to follow it. In general, the paper needs better organization.
Improve the title.
Use different keywords from title. Improve the keywords
Introduction section is short that need to add some information with current references
The introduction needs to elaborate. The references need to elaborate. It needs to add some references. Some suggestions reverences are below. Consider to add them
Evaluation from Rural to Urban Scale for the Effect of NDVI-NDBI Indices on Land Surface Temperature, in Samsun, Türkiye Determination of land surface temperature and urban heat island effects with remote sensing capabilities: the case of Kayseri, Türkiye. The effect of urban planning on urban formations determining bioclimatic comfort area's effect using satellitia imagines on air quality: a case study of Bursa city. Using the Remote Sensing Method to Simulate the Land Change in the Year 2030. A more references would be recommended to supporting the specific studies the authors proposed that currently references without recent literature are not enough to support and verify the objective of this article.
Results and discussion is too short.
Results section need to make separate from discussion and give whole results for discussion part.
Conclusion section is short and need to improve.
Correct references in the text and the reference list according to the journal's format.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is devoted to factorial analysis of the state of vegetation in the region using a variety of remote and ground-based indicators. The acceptability of the selected indicators for analyzing the state of vegetation is undoubted; the calculations of the parameters were carried out correctly. The NDVI value with a spatial resolution of 1 km was chosen as the main remote indicator. However, if the dispersion of the species and age composition of vegetation and the spatial distribution function of plant objects are sufficiently large, then with the selected pixel size the data can be greatly averaged, so it would be desirable to provide data on the structure of vegetation in an area with a spatial distribution of less than 1 km. In this case, a map of the spatial distribution of NDVI could also be obtained with a higher resolution than is presented in Fig. 3.
Overall, it can be concluded that the authors have done a careful, detailed job of assessing the vegetation characteristics of the study area. I did not see serious original and new scientific results, but the data obtained will certainly be useful for further environmental monitoring of the territory.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMajor Remarks
The manuscript "Characterization of spatial and temporal changes in vegetation NDVI and driving forces in Hubei Province, 2000-2022" is rather systematic and careful. However, there are few elements of scientific novelty in it. Moreover, it is based on quite standard ones pixel-by-pixel statistics and hypotheses verified based on p-value. It is known that, especially in the case of spatial analyses, the use of p-value is quite limited and that inferences cannot be based only on this value. This should be highlighted, or at least mentioned in the article, as a certain methodological limitation, and there should also be mentioned the possibility of using geostatistical methods for investigations of such forest ecosystems. Meanwhile, the authors ignore it. This may be due to lack of knowledge of this type of analyses. However it is necessary to clearly write about the limitations of the methodology used.
Minor remarks
The article contains minor editorial errors that should be corrected. For example, reference [20] appears after [17]. Therefore, the numbering should be systematized. Please check the text again.
The phrase in the conclusions "0.01/10a (p<0.005" is quite vague. It should be written more clearly.
Formulas (6) and (14) are widely known. Do they really need to be included and explained in the text? In general, the article is overloaded with simple formulas. They should be limited if possible, e.g. published before - give the reference, instead.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor ....., Section Managing Editor,
[Forests] Manuscript ID: forests-2911465 - Revised Version Review Request
Title: Characterization of spatial and temporal changes in vegetation NDVI and driving forces in Hubei Province, 2000-2022
Thank you for inviting me to review the revised version dated April 12, 2024, which was sent via email along with the revised manuscript and cover letter. I have thoroughly reviewed the revised version and the cover letter, which addressed the referees' comments.
I am pleased to inform you that, within three days, the revised manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Forests. I have also submitted my comments via the review report form for the revised version and updated the form using the link provided.
Furthermore, I have made the following decision: The revision manuscript has been corrected adequately, addressing all necessary points. The paper demonstrates good originality and novelty, with well-defined significance of content and excellent quality of presentation. Scientific soundness is satisfactory, and the paper is of interest to readers. Overall, it is well written and merits acceptance. All corrections have been effectively implemented. Well done. The revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in Forests.
Sincerely,
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for explanations and revision.
Sincerely yours,
Reviewer
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
