Simulation and Analysis of Land-Use Change Based on the PLUS Model in the Fuxian Lake Basin (Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau, China)
, Hua Cheng 4, Zhengping Ju 2 and Guojun Sun 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Change Based on PLUS Model in Fuxian Lake Basin in the Yunnan-Guizhou plateau, China", which discussed the land use and land cover change modeling in an ordinary way. Overall, I do not find it suitable for the Land Journal and I have the following observations on this manuscript:
(1) First of all, the manuscript does not look like a research paper because it's more likely to be a project report taking historical data and evaluating based on these datasets. The analysis is performed in a very simple and ordinary context.
(2) This manuscript did not contribute new in terms of methodology - a set of well-known methods have been applied for LULC change scenarios in terms of land and socio-economic deriving forces and these methods are important as well.
(3) I fail to see any fruitful discussion on the generated datasets. The Introduction Section must be improved and the scientific problem has to be clearly identified and addressed.
(4) I can see little novelty in both scientific findings or methodological improvement. In particular, the authors should clearly state the scientific significance of mapping LULC and explain the relationship of socio-economic, rather than saying something very specific to this study area.
(5) The literature review is very weak, and the Method Section is trivial and vague in places. More recent literature (preferably in this year) about LULC models, such as FLUS, SLEUTH is required. Only 22 research papers are cited in this research, and some of the research papers are even not related to this research.
(6) The authors should explain more about the classification procedure adopted by the source. For example, whether classifiers were trained separately for different images, or a universal classifier was trained and applied for all years.
(7) The authors did not provide the overall classification accuracy also there was no accuracy assessment of the land use datasets and subsequent change detection. Without accuracy, it may be difficult to guarantee the correctness of the final conclusion. I recommend that the authors provide classification accuracy for different land types, as well as change detection accuracy.
(8) There are no innovative methods or conclusions proposed in this study. Although the trends of city growth and population change are analyzed in this paper, the driving factors and possible future trends of city growth as well as population change are not discussed, which makes it difficult for the conclusion of this paper to help and guide city planning and similar research. I would recommend that authors further analyze their results and provide some practical planning and policy implications.
(9) Lastly, authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in the perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses in the Discussion Section.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments! According to the review comments and revision requirements of the ‘Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Change Based on PLUS Model in Fuxian Lake Basin (Yunnan-Guizhou plateau, China)’ proposed by reviewers:
I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Change Based on PLUS Model in Fuxian Lake Basin in the Yunnan-Guizhou plateau, China", which discussed the land use and land cover change modeling in an ordinary way. Overall, I do not find it suitable for the Land Journal and I have the following observations on this manuscript:
（1）First of all, the manuscript does not look like a research paper because it's more likely to be a project report taking historical data and evaluating based on these datasets. The analysis is performed in a very simple and ordinary context.
（2）This manuscript did not contribute new in terms of methodology - a set of well-known methods have been applied for LULC change scenarios in terms of land and socio-economic deriving forces and these methods are important as well.
Revision：(1) and (2) are suggestions for the application of the research methods and results.This study mainly uses the PLUS model to forecast land use change after 30 years, and discusses the hot spots and land types of land use change in the future.Combined with the current situation of rural economy in the study area, the characteristics of land use change in three related scenarios were analyzed.The research results can provide theoretical suggestions for land resource planning, forestry development, agricultural development and ecological protection and restoration in the region.
（3）I fail to see any fruitful discussion on the generated datasets. The Introduction Section must be improved and the scientific problem has to be clearly identified and addressed.
Revision：We refer to more new references and reorganize and elaborate the discussion and introduction of the paper to make the research results more easily reflected.
（4）I can see little novelty in both scientific findings or methodological improvement. In particular, the authors should clearly state the scientific significance of mapping LULC and explain the relationship of socio-economic, rather than saying something very specific to this study area.
Revision：The differences between this study and other land use change forecasts using PLUS model are as follows: first, according to the characteristics of regional agricultural development and ecological protection development, three related land use development scenarios are planned. Second, the driving factors introduced into the simulation can reflect the natural and human factors in the study area to a certain extent.The results and analysis have been explained in more detail.
（5）The literature review is very weak, and the Method Section is trivial and vague in places. More recent literature (preferably in this year) about LULC models, such as FLUS, SLEUTH is required. Only 22 research papers are cited in this research, and some of the research papers are even not related to this research.
Revision：The old literatures in the article that have little relevance to the research field have been replaced.We have considered more papers on land use multi-scenario modelling, ecological risk analysis and drivers of land use change.One part of the paper is divided into international references, and the other part is the research of China with regional relevance and comparability.
（6）The authors should explain more about the classification procedure adopted by the source. For example, whether classifiers were trained separately for different images, or a universal classifier was trained and applied for all years.
（7）The authors did not provide the overall classification accuracy also there was no accuracy assessment of the land use datasets and subsequent change detection. Without accuracy, it may be difficult to guarantee the correctness of the final conclusion. I recommend that the authors provide classification accuracy for different land types, as well as change detection accuracy.
Revision：(6) and (7) are suggestions for the classification accuracy of the paper. We have explained this in detail in "Section 2.2" of the article. In this study, landsat series data in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2018 were used as data sources.The method of visual interpretation combined with site survey was used to extract 12 land species in the study area.The average overall data accuracy of remote sensing image classification is 90.3%, and the Kappa coefficient is 0.871.
（8）There are no innovative methods or conclusions proposed in this study. Although the trends of city growth and population change are analyzed in this paper, the driving factors and possible future trends of city growth as well as population change are not discussed, which makes it difficult for the conclusion of this paper to help and guide city planning and similar research. I would recommend that authors further analyze their results and provide some practical planning and policy implications.
Revision：The modifications to the methods and conclusions of this study are explained in recommendations (3) and (4).The influence of driving factors is mainly qualitative analysis.For the impact of population and other driving factors on land use change, the main purpose is to provide relevant conditions for future land resource planning, production planning and ecological protection planning.
（9）Lastly, authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in the perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses in the Discussion Section.
Revision：We have revised both the discussion and the conclusion.In the modified discussion section, the consideration of driving factors and land use development scenarios is proposed.This study cannot exhaust all land use driving factors and land use scenarios, but combined with the characteristics of the study area, which is mainly focused on agricultural development and ecological protection development, the research results have theoretical reference value.The conclusions are also explained in a more comprehensive way, with recommendations made after the presentation of each of the findings.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper simulation and analysis of land use change in the Fuxian lake basin, combine three scenarios to discuss the possible development status of the plateau region. The research result could contribute to the management and planning of land use. But before the paper is published, the following issues still need to be addressed.
Line 22-27, the first line and the following content are somewhat incoordination, which is not a good way of expressing. Do the authors want to emphasize the main characteristics of land use in the region, or do they want to emphasize the influencing factors of different land use types? In addition, there is a problem that exists. There is no specific situation in which land use change will affect the future society.
In the introduction section, there are some problems, first, to enhance the readability of the paper, it is necessary to refer to the international reference. Ref.10, 16, etc. should be replaced by the latest English literature, for example,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14061452
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11111975
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104055
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14030402
Second, the review should be introduced in more detail, and consider more new research about the Multi-scenario simulation and ecological risk analysis of land use.
Line 57-63, this part should also be refined, the author introduces several works, but does not tell the link between these works and the current level of the related research.
Why choose 2048 as the forecast year and not 2050 or any other year? Also, why did the last issue of the original data choose 2018 instead of 2020?
In the discussion section, talk about the limitations of whether to consider the reference to existing research and talk about the current development of a limitation. Reference to the previous relevant literature, carry out a proper comparison, and then some future research prospects
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments! According to the review comments and revision requirements of the ‘Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Change Based on PLUS Model in Fuxian Lake Basin (Yunnan-Guizhou plateau, China)’ proposed by reviewers:
This paper simulation and analysis of land use change in the Fuxian lake basin, combine three scenarios to discuss the possible development status of the plateau region. The research result could contribute to the management and planning of land use. But before the paper is published, the following issues still need to be addressed.
Line 22-27, the first line and the following content are somewhat incoordination, which is not a good way of expressing. Do the authors want to emphasize the main characteristics of land use in the region, or do they want to emphasize the influencing factors of different land use types? In addition, there is a problem that exists. There is no specific situation in which land use change will affect the future society.
Revision：This part is mainly to state the influencing factors of land use type under the current natural trend, which has been revised in the paper.
In the introduction section, there are some problems, first, to enhance the readability of the paper, it is necessary to refer to the international reference. Ref.10, 16, etc. should be replaced by the latest English literature, for example,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14061452
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11111975
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104055
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14030402
Revision：The above four literatures have been referred to and the introduction has been revised. Ref.10, 16, etc., have been replaced by the English literature of the last two years. Additional national references have also been added.
Second, the review should be introduced in more detail, and consider more new research about the Multi-scenario simulation and ecological risk analysis of land use.
Revision：The introduction review has been revised to consider aspects of land use change under multiple scenarios and drivers, as well as ecological risks, e.g. Ref.19,20,21,22. In addition, other international references have been added, and the total number of references is now 35.
Line 57-63, this part should also be refined, the author introduces several works, but does not tell the link between these works and the current level of the related research.
Revision：This section has been reworked. The main purpose of these works is to compare the simulation accuracy of PLUS model in land use with that of this paper.The performance of simulation accuracy in these works is increased: overall accuracy, Kappa and FOM, which are included in this study. These works also use different scenarios of land use change, basically covering most of the current simulation scenarios, and also to make an introduction to multiple scenarios.
Why choose 2048 as the forecast year and not 2050 or any other year? Also, why did the last issue of the original data choose 2018 instead of 2020?
Revision：Cloud content and data accuracy of remote sensing image should be considered in selecting the starting year of data, because it is the basis of data prediction. According to the collected data, 2018 is finally determined as the starting year of the forecast.At present, China is in the habit of using integer years for planning. Generally, the planning period is 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, 25 years and 30 years.In order to conform to the period of domestic national economic planning and land, forestry and other related thematic planning, the change of a longer period is predicted, so the next 30 years, namely 2048, is chosen as the forecast year.It is also explained in the introduction.
In the discussion section, talk about the limitations of whether to consider the reference to existing research and talk about the current development of a limitation. Reference to the previous relevant literature, carry out a proper comparison, and then some future research prospects
Revision：The discussion section has been appropriately modified as requested.This study believes that the influencing factors and land use scenarios of land use change are different in different countries and regions, and this study cannot exhaust all the driving factors and land use scenarios.In the discussion part, the driving factors and land use scenarios that have not been collected so far but may be considered in future research are put forward.At the same time, according to the results of this study, some suggestions are put forward for the land use planning of relevant departments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
GENERAL COMMENTS
Overall, I believe that the content of this paper deserves consideration for publication in “land”. The paper focuses on the study of land use change in the Fuxian Lake Basin, located in the Yunnan-Guizhou plateau, middle China, which represent one of the largest deep-water freshwater lakes in China. This research is itself a topic of current concern.
This study has two objectives: the first has an important theoretical load, and is to validate this methodology in the specific circumstances of this territory, with a projection to future years. The second has a practical purpose: to use this tool for planning a region under clear objectives. The study area seems to have the right conditions to meet these expectations. In this sense, the paper in hand shows good perspectives which should be implemented in next studies following the guidelines indicated by the authors (Ls387-396).
To address this work, the authors study the characteristics of land use change and propose trends of this change based on seven periods of historical land use data, taking into account six driving factors (human and natural). For this, they use the PLUS (Patch-generating Land Use Simulation) software, and data were provided by the Fuxian Lake Administration (Fuxian Lake National Wetland Park), which also assisted in the field surveys. The horizon of this forecast is the year 2048, and the land use changes occur under three scenarios: development of natural trends, ecological protection, and production protection. As a consequence of this analysis, they obtain accurate and consistent results, worthy of being made known to the scientific community.
However, there are several shortcomings that should be improved before the publication of this study, and the English expression needs an overhaul by a native English speaker.
MAIN CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS
1-I miss some general information of the environment. For instance, climate regime, type of soils, type of agriculture (rainfed, irrigated), presence of aquifers, degree of exploitation, as well as some comments about degree of protection of flora, fauna, and some words about the habitants of this region and its history, among other remarkable features. This information would be very useful not only for a better understanding by readers, but also to obtain a greater diffusion of this study. I suggest including this information in the present section 2.1 (Study Area), or in a new section if necessary.
2-The authors point out that there are small points of land with great capacity for change (Ls230-236). However, this observation seems inconsistent with the statements of Ls197-198,266-269,295-298,411-412. The reader may note that the authors do not take into account that, obviously, the change of use will alter the characteristics of the soil and water. In this sense, there is no numerical evaluation that explains the probable trend, although this is not the nucleus of the present study: it is necessary establish parameters that indicate and quantify these trends. Thus, decisions can be made following protection policies in moments of risk (red points), before reaching irreversible situations.
3-Ls55-64. The authors provide in these lines several studies that explain some tendencies in the use of the PLUS model in China. However, it would also be appropriate to include other studies that have conducted studies in other countries of the world under a range of conditions.
4- Ls218,297. The authors misstate the geological conditions of formation of this basin. This type of depression is flanked by faults, and many such cases are known throughout the world. Therefore, I suggest the authors write simply “tectonic depression”. In the case of L79, the authors indicate “fault dissolution lake”: although I do not know this case, the dissolution processes may be posterior to the main tectonic phenomenon (faults) and therefore it is preferable not to mention details that may be irrelevant or confusing.
5-I suggest more nesting between Results and Discussion. For instance, in L382 the authors tersely state “Kappa index is 0.73, …”: it is sufficient that the authors simply add “(section 3.2)”. This would highlight the purpose of the results obtained and their role in the final Conclusions. This imbrication is now low.
6-I also propose to the authors systematize better the section 3.5.
7-The text is expressed in rather defective English from the Title to the Conclusions. This fact makes its reading tedious and confusing, so the reader does not feel attracted to its content or mistrusts it. That is why the scientific style must be characterized by its simplicity, using the exact and precise words in content and number. Therefore, verbosity, reiterations, convoluted terms and the excessive use of adjectives must be avoided. The use of short sentences is recommended, which convey the ideas in a simple way.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
I suggest the authors have the text closely revised by a native English speaker, because it represents an obstacle to clear understanding. I expose below some of these failures without the intention of being exhaustive.
I also recommend writing the various figures throughout the text with only one decimal.
The use of semicolon throughout the text is confuse. In general, its use is quite restricted, and the following sentence begins with a lowercase. Please, check.
The use of the word “hot” is ambiguous (Ls33,140,320,329,330,332,335,339,377), and makes it easy to fall into error. Please use other words instead, like “hotspot”, critical point, trouble point, etc.
Several times the authors write “soil distribution” or “soil type”. But these concepts are not referred to soils as a pedological entity. Therefore, it is convenient to clarify to this point for the reader.
Title
I advise shortening the title a bit. For instance: “Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Change Based on PLUS Model in Fuxian Lake Basin (Yunnan-Guizhou plateau, China).
Abstract
Ok.
1.Introduction
Ls57-62. The authors use in these lines two styles of referencing at the same time: by numbers and by authors. I advise following the style of the Journal: express these references only by numbers.
Ls67-74. Please review this long sentence. As written, it’s hard to understand what the authors’ goal is.
2.Material and Methods
L81. It is recommendable writing the elevation of any point of the Earth surface with the reference at the sea level. For instance, 1723,3 m a.s.l. Please, improve.
L82. I think that the number “108” should be “108”. Please, check.
Ls91-92. The expression “The time effect of the data” is incomprehensible. Please, revise.
L93. Please, revise the verbal tense of “… software is used”
L95. I advise writing “… among other data”.
Ls101-104. Improve this long sentence. For example: break it into shorter ones and use the appropriate verbal tense.
3.Results
L224. I advise deleting the outer parenthesis.
L248. The expression “labeled labels” is iterative. Please improve.
L277. The Figure 5 it is not a map: therefore, I advise writing: “... the percentage of predicted ...”
L281. Please, change the comma to a period.
L286. I suggest writing: “. Specifically, ...”. Please, improve.
L297. I propose writing something similar to this: “... with the actual situation that Fuxian Lake is on a tectonic plain, with ...”
Ls320-321. I suggest clarify this sentence. For instance: “Figure 6 shows the comparison of soil types in critical areas with respect to land use change under different scenarios.”
Ls323-329. This sentence is very long. Please, break it into shorter ones.
Ls329-330. Please, clarify this sentence.
4.Discussion
L382. We read “… which is different …”: Please, be more explicit: “it is higher, lower ...”. The authors then explain the reasons of this behavior.
L383. I advise to write simply “The reason is ...”
L386. Please, change this punctuation sign for other more appropriate: perhaps a colon.
5.Conclusions
Ls398-401. Sentence excessively long. Please, improve.
Tables
The column and row headers are excessively large, which amplifies the size of the tables (especially Table 3). I recommend following the system used in Figure 6, using abbreviations or codes that would be explained in the title of the table. This system would facilitate its reading at a glance.
Table 1: It could be compressed as explained above.
Table 4. The number of this table is erroneous: this number must be “3”. Please, revise. I encourage writing it in vertical, following the above advise.
Figures
Overall, the text included in the figures should be written in black. Otherwise, its reading may be difficult.
Figure 2. Please, for a better reading give more width to the bars.
Figure 4. As written is very laconic. I suggest add: ·”... in 2048, forecast performed according to the three indicated scenarios.”
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments! According to the review comments and revision requirements of the ‘Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Change Based on PLUS Model in Fuxian Lake Basin (Yunnan-Guizhou plateau, China)’ proposed by reviewers:
1-MAIN CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS
1-I miss some general information of the environment. For instance, climate regime, type of soils, type of agriculture (rainfed, irrigated), presence of aquifers, degree of exploitation, as well as some comments about degree of protection of flora, fauna, and some words about the habitants of this region and its history, among other remarkable features. This information would be very useful not only for a better understanding by readers, but also to obtain a greater diffusion of this study. I suggest including this information in the present section 2.1 (Study Area), or in a new section if necessary.
Revision：Climate, geomorphology, soil types and agricultural economic types of the study area have been added to the general profile of the study area.
2-The authors point out that there are small points of land with great capacity for change (Ls230-236). However, this observation seems inconsistent with the statements of Ls197-198,266-269,295-298,411-412. The reader may note that the authors do not take into account that, obviously, the change of use will alter the characteristics of the soil and water. In this sense, there is no numerical evaluation that explains the probable trend, although this is not the nucleus of the present study: it is necessary establish parameters that indicate and quantify these trends. Thus, decisions can be made following protection policies in moments of risk (red points), before reaching irreversible situations.
Revision：After checking the correspondence, I rearranged the statements. The driving factors can not show the change disturbance in the larger lakes.
3-Ls55-64. The authors provide in these lines several studies that explain some tendencies in the use of the PLUS model in China. However, it would also be appropriate to include other studies that have conducted studies in other countries of the world under a range of conditions.
Revision：Part of new research references have been introduced in this paper. Considering the comparison of studies in similar geographical situations, some related studies in China are mainly introduced into the references.
4- Ls218,297. The authors misstate the geological conditions of formation of this basin. This type of depression is flanked by faults, and many such cases are known throughout the world. Therefore, I suggest the authors write simply “tectonic depression”. In the case of L79, the authors indicate “fault dissolution lake”: although I do not know this case, the dissolution processes may be posterior to the main tectonic phenomenon (faults) and therefore it is preferable not to mention details that may be irrelevant or confusing.
4- Ls218，297。
Revision：It has been revised according to the suggestions of reviewers.
5-I suggest more nesting between Results and Discussion. For instance, in L382 the authors tersely state “Kappa index is 0.73, …”: it is sufficient that the authors simply add “(section 3.2)”. This would highlight the purpose of the results obtained and their role in the final Conclusions. This imbrication is now low.
Revision：It has been revised according to the suggestions of reviewers.
6-I also propose to the authors systematize better the section 3.5.
Revision：It has been revised according to the suggestions of reviewers. The main landmine defences are systematically sorted out in terms of quantity and geospatial distribution for different land use forecasting scenarios.
7-The text is expressed in rather defective English from the Title to the Conclusions. This fact makes its reading tedious and confusing, so the reader does not feel attracted to its content or mistrusts it. That is why the scientific style must be characterized by its simplicity, using the exact and precise words in content and number. Therefore, verbosity, reiterations, convoluted terms and the excessive use of adjectives must be avoided. The use of short sentences is recommended, which convey the ideas in a simple way.
Revision：The full text has been combed and modified as required to make the English expression clearer.
2-SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1-I suggest the authors have the text closely revised by a native English speaker, because it represents an obstacle to clear understanding. I expose below some of these failures without the intention of being exhaustive.
Revision：The full text has been combed and modified as required to make the English expression clearer.
2-I also recommend writing the various figures throughout the text with only one decimal.
Revision：Considering the data accuracy of subsequent research, two decimal places are retained in the paper.
3-The use of semicolon throughout the text is confuse. In general, its use is quite restricted, and the following sentence begins with a lowercase. Please, check.
Revision：It has been revised according to the suggestions of reviewers.
4-The use of the word “hot” is ambiguous (Ls33,140,320,329,330,332,335,339,377), and makes it easy to fall into error. Please use other words instead, like “hotspot”, critical point, trouble point, etc.
。
Revision：The whole text has been unified into "hotspot".
5-Several times the authors write “soil distribution” or “soil type”. But these concepts are not referred to soils as a pedological entity. Therefore, it is convenient to clarify to this point for the reader.
Revision：The whole text has been unified into " soil distribution ".
Title
I advise shortening the title a bit. For instance: “Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Change Based on PLUS Model in Fuxian Lake Basin (Yunnan-Guizhou plateau, China).
Revision：It has been revised according to the suggestions of reviewers.
1.Introduction
Ls57-62. The authors use in these lines two styles of referencing at the same time: by numbers and by authors. I advise following the style of the Journal: express these references only by numbers.
Revision：All have been unified in the form of digital references
Ls67-74. Please review this long sentence. As written, it’s hard to understand what the authors’ goal is.
Revision：It has been modified.
2.Material and Methods
L81. It is recommendable writing the elevation of any point of the Earth surface with the reference at the sea level. For instance, 1723,3 m a.s.l. Please, improve.
Revision：Because the elevation data is confidential data for surveying and mapping, it is not convenient to write the reference plane when published publicly, but the data is real and reliable.
L82. I think that the number “108” should be “108”. Please, check.
Ls91-92. The expression “The time effect of the data” is incomprehensible. Please, revise.
L93. Please, revise the verbal tense of “… software is used”
L95. I advise writing “… among other data”.
Ls101-104. Improve this long sentence. For example: break it into shorter ones and use the appropriate verbal tense.
Revision：About L82，Ls91-92，L93，L95，Ls101-104。The specific details have been revised according to the suggestions of the reviewers.
3.Results
L224. I advise deleting the outer parenthesis.
L248. The expression “labeled labels” is iterative. Please improve.
L277. The Figure 5 it is not a map: therefore, I advise writing: “... the percentage of predicted ...”
L281. Please, change the comma to a period.
L286. I suggest writing: “. Specifically, ...”. Please, improve.
L297. I propose writing something similar to this: “... with the actual situation that Fuxian Lake is on a tectonic plain, with ...”
Ls320-321. I suggest clarify this sentence. For instance: “Figure 6 shows the comparison of soil types in critical areas with respect to land use change under different scenarios.”
Ls323-329. This sentence is very long. Please, break it into shorter ones.
Ls329-330. Please, clarify this sentence.
Revision：About L224，Ls248，L277，L281，Ls286，L297，Ls320-321，Ls323-329，Ls329-330。The specific details have been revised according to the suggestions of the reviewers.
4.Discussion
L382. We read “… which is different …”: Please, be more explicit: “it is higher, lower ...”. The authors then explain the reasons of this behavior.
L383. I advise to write simply “The reason is ...”
L386. Please, change this punctuation sign for other more appropriate: perhaps a colon.
Revision：About L382，L383，L396。The specific details have been revised according to the suggestions of the reviewers.
5.Conclusions
Ls398-401. Sentence excessively long. Please, improve.
Revision：About Ls398-401。The specific details have been revised according to the suggestions of the reviewers.
Tables
The column and row headers are excessively large, which amplifies the size of the tables (especially Table 3). I recommend following the system used in Figure 6, using abbreviations or codes that would be explained in the title of the table. This system would facilitate its reading at a glance.
Table 1: It could be compressed as explained above.
Table 4. The number of this table is erroneous: this number must be “3”. Please, revise. I encourage writing it in vertical, following the above advise.
Revision：The details of the table have been modified according to the suggestions of the reviewers. The header has used the code of the ground class, the code is annotated after the label. The serial numbers in Table 3 have also been modified.
Figures
Overall, the text included in the figures should be written in black. Otherwise, its reading may be difficult.
Figure 2. Please, for a better reading give more width to the bars.
Figure 4. As written is very laconic. I suggest add: ·”... in 2048, forecast performed according to the three indicated scenarios.”
Revision：The details of the drawing have been modified according to the suggestions of the reviewers. The text in the picture should be written in black. The width of the bar in Figure 2 was increased appropriately for aesthetic coordination.
Thank you very much for the valuable comments!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have no comments if it deems suitable for publication in the Land Journal.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments concerning ‘Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Change Based on PLUS Model in Fuxian Lake Basin (Yunnan-Guizhou plateau, China). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made all corrections which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
1- Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
Respond： Thanks for your suggestions. We have added a large number of relevant references, which might provide sufficient background.
2-Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Respond：Thanks for your question. All the references cited in the study are all related to this study.
3- Is the research design appropriate?
Respond：Thanks for your question. Yes, the research design is appropriate. We have provided the prediction model of land use change, the calculation formula of land use dynamic, the land use constraint scenario, and the driving factors of land use change, adopted in this study, which all have been validated in relevant researches in China. The research design can satisfy the analysis and simulation of land use change in Fuxian Lake watershed, and the research data are available. The results have reference values.
4.Are the methods adequately described?
Respond：Yes, the research methods are adequately described, including data sources and processing, PLUS model operation mechanism, land use demand scenario, land use type conversion rules, and research precision indicators.
5- Are the results clearly presented?
Respond： Yes, the results are clearly presented (Please see Results.). The research results are elaborated in the third part, which introduces the quantitative and structural characteristics of the historical period of the study area and the dynamic situation of land use change. Then, according to the results of the PLUS experiment, the simulation accuracy of land use change, driving conditions affecting land use change, land change direction, and hot spots under different land use constraint scenarios were expounded. This part corresponds to the research method.
6- Are the conclusions supported by the results?
Respond： Yes, the conclusions are supported by the results. The "Conclusion" section is summarized from the results, which are matched the three main results.
Thank you very much for the valuable comments made by the reviewers!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
A lot of changes have been made to the paper, and the quality has been greatly improved at present. I accept the paper for publication in Land journal.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments concerning ‘Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Change Based on PLUS Model in Fuxian Lake Basin (Yunnan-Guizhou plateau, China)’.
Reviewer 3 Report
SECOND REVIEW
GENERAL COMMENTS
I have carefully read the new version of this paper and, in general, I note that the authors have made efforts to improve the presentation of the paper, but many of my main concerns and lack of clarity on various points still persist.
Overall, the system used to show corrections made should be improved.
All the new indications I made below are referred to the first text (or previous revision), unless otherwise indicated (New Version).
Therefore, the review carried out does not achieve the expected improvements, and the paper cannot be published in the present form.
MAIN CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS
1-Ok.
2-Partially answered.
3-For the sake of a greater diffusion of this work, I advise broadening the horizon of your ideas. I think that the authors are very closed in their area.
4-The expression “due to its special nature of plateau fault depression” is confuse and no consistent: “plateau” and “depression” are opposite terms. I advise to remove this kind of explanations because this subject is not essential in this paper.
5-I ask the authors to reflect on the theoretical contents that the “Results” and “Discussion” sections should have. I believe that the authors mix the contents of the Results with those of Discussion. Additionally, the later section has been shortened and, in my opinion, does not reach the standard required to be a Discussion. A possible solution to overcome this inconvenient it would be to join Results and Discussion in one section, and the content of the present “Discussion” it would pass to “Final considerations”. But this option is not a “cut and paste”: it requires redoing what was written following a plot line.
6-?
7-Although tweaks have been made to improve the English of the text, this aspect still needs to be improved.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Please, in the context of this paper, change the word “scholars” to “researchers” (Ls49,55,458 of the New Version).
Title
Ok.
Abstract
Ok.
1.Introduction
Ok.
Ok.
2.Material and Methods
L81. Again: please, write “1723.35 m a.s.l. (above sea level)”
L82. Ok.
Ls91-92. Ok.
L93. Ok.
L95. Ok.
Ls101-104. No attempt has been made to improve this long sentence, as recommended.
3.Results
L224. Ok.
L248. Ok.
L277. The mistake persists.
L281. Ok.
L297. Ok.
Ls320-321. Ok.
Ls375-377 (New Version). This sentence should be improved.
L329-330. Ok.
4.Discussion
L382. Ok.
L383. Ok.
L386. Ok.
5.Conclusions
L481 (New Version). I advise writing “The present study predicts …”
L486 (New Version). I suggest making this change “Specifically, this study shows …”
L504 (New Version). Please, improve writing “The multi-scenario …”
Tables
Ok.
Figures
It seems that the first two indications have been partially accepted by the authors.
Figure 4. Ok.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments concerning ‘Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Change Based on PLUS Model in Fuxian Lake Basin (Yunnan-Guizhou plateau, China)’(Land 2075574). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made all corrections which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
1-Ok.
2-Partially answered.
Respond： Sorry for our neglect. After reviewing the context of this part, it is found that the expression at Ls230-236 is not rigorous enough, and the driving factors can not reflect the change disturbance for the large area lake temporarily, while the description at LS197-198,266-269,295-298,411-412 is based on the research results. Therefore, Ls230-236 is restated as “…, human activities have a great impact on farmland and a potential great disturbance on forest land. Please see 280-282.
3-For the sake of a greater diffusion of this work, I advise broadening the horizon of your ideas. I think that the authors are very closed in their area.
Respond：Thanks for your recommendation. The results of this study are a relatively new attempt at the land use planning of Fuxian Lake, one of the nine major plateau lakes in China. We have added several abroad relative references in our manuscript.
4-The expression “due to its special nature of plateau fault depression” is confuse and no consistent: “plateau” and “depression” are opposite terms. I advise to remove this kind of explanations because this subject is not essential in this paper.
Respond：Thanks for your recommendation. We have been revised according to the review comments. This statement is removed in sections 3.1.2 and 3.4. Please see Line 262-263, line 341-344.
5-I ask the authors to reflect on the theoretical contents that the “Results” and “Discussion” sections should have. I believe that the authors mix the contents of the Results with those of Discussion. Additionally, the later section has been shortened and, in my opinion, does not reach the standard required to be a Discussion. A possible solution to overcome this inconvenient it would be to join Results and Discussion in one section, and the content of the present “Discussion” it would pass to “Final considerations”. But this option is not a “cut and paste”: it requires redoing what was written following a plot line.
Respond： Thanks for your comments. We have reorganized the discussion part, and we believe discussion part is completed. The "Discussion" part is divided into four parts, which matched our results contents. All the results have been discussed one by one.
6-I also propose to the authors systematize better the section 3.5.
Respond：Thanks for your comments. We have consulted the comments of the last review and revised it according to the suggestions of the review experts. The first paragraph of Section 3.5 is the quantitative analysis of the main land class changes, and the second paragraph is the analysis of the main land class changes in the geographical spatial distribution, especially for the analysis of the geographical spatial distribution. The original simple listing of land class analysis is modified to the analysis of main land class in three scenarios, and a systematic comb has been carried out.
7-Although tweaks have been made to improve the English of the text, this aspect still needs to be improved.
Respond：Thanks for your reminder. The full text has been combed and modified as required to make the English expression clearer.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Please, in the context of this paper, change the word “scholars” to “researchers” (Ls49,55,458 of the New Version).
Respond： Thanks for your correction. The word “scholars” have been changed to “researchers” in Lines 46, 488.
Title
Ok.
Abstract
Ok.
1.Introduction
Ok.
Ok.
2.Material and Methods
L81. Again: please, write “1723.35 m a.s.l. (above sea level)”
Respond：Thanks for your recommendation. We have added a.s.l after the 1723.35 m. Please see Line123.
L82. Ok.
Ls91-92. Ok.
L93. Ok.
L95. Ok.
Ls101-104. No attempt has been made to improve this long sentence, as recommended.
Respond：Thanks for your comment. We have rewritten the long sentence into short one. Now in ls 145-149.
3.Results
L224. Ok.
L248. Ok.
L277. The mistake persists.。
Respond：Thanks for your comment. It has been revised according to the review comments. Please see Line 323.
L281. Ok.
L297. Ok.
Ls320-321. Ok.
Ls375-377 (New Version). This sentence should be improved.
Respond：Thanks for your comment. After our discussion and thinking, the sentence is cumbersome and has little to do with the change of the number of statements. Therefore, the sentence is deleted. Please see Line376-385.
L329-330. Ok.
4.Discussion
L382. Ok.
L383. Ok.
L386. Ok.
5.Conclusions
L481 (New Version). I advise writing “The present study predicts …”
Respond：Thanks for your recommendation. We've added it before the sentence“The present study predicts …”. Please see Line 506-507.
L486 (New Version). I suggest making this change “Specifically, this study shows …”
Respond：Thanks for your recommendation. We've added it before the sentence“Specifically, this study shows …”. Please see Line 507-508.
L504 (New Version). Please, improve writing “The multi-scenario …”
Respond：Thanks for your recommendation. We've improved writing “The multi-scenario …”. Please see Line 520.
Tables
Ok.
Figures
It seems that the first two indications have been partially accepted by the authors.
Respond：Thanks for your correct. The text in the picture has been written in black. In Figure 2, the width of the bar has been increased, but not by much for the sake of aesthetics and readability.
At the same time, we have followed the advice of the experts and deleted the original Table 2 and merged the contents of Table 2 into Section 3.1.2.Please see Line 268-271.
Figure 4. Ok.
Thank you very much for the valuable comments made by the reviewers!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
