Analysis of Ecological Environmental Quality Change in the Yellow River Basin Using the Remote-Sensing-Based Ecological Index
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have some concerns regarding the appropriateness of this manuscript for publication in this journal. Specifically, the whole approach is presented without any justification and verification of the final results with real data (without using real measurements/data concerning the ecological environmental quality of the Yellow River Basin)
Moreover, there are many gaps and confusing points in the methodology. Specifically, in this manuscript no information is given about the classification process of the five levels of the quality of the ecological environment (bad, poor, medium, good, excellent)
Another gap of the presented methodology is that the authors combined the involved factors/indices without any normalization process. Normalization process should be included to ensure the reliability of the modelling results. Moreover, in this manuscript no information is given about the reasons of the involved factors/ indices (why authors used only these indices and which is the relationship of these with the quality of the ecological environment) or about the classification process that was used.
In addition, the use of the final results is not clear, I think that at this stage (form of this manuscript) the contribution of this research in the literature is weak and unclear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this work, it is a very interesting work and with modern tools and very well addresed, I suggest that it be accepted with minor corrections, I would only appreciate it if the authors shared the GEE Script used so that other researchers can repeat the analysis and by using this script your work can be cited, for this I suggest that you share it as supplementary material or upload it to a database such as Github and put the access link in the paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of the manuscript " Analysis of Ecological Environmental Quality Change in the Yellow River Basin Using the Remote-Sensing-Based Ecological Index"
General comments
The manuscript rigorously characterizes the spatiotemporal changes in the quality of the ecological environment of the Yellow River Basin (YRB), China. To this end, the authors used the Google Earth Engine platform for constructing the remote-sensing-based ecological index (RSEI) in combination with a series of Landsat 8 images for the data period (1990-2020) with five-year intervals. It’s a cliched but intriguing research topic with new findings that perfectly align with sustainability’s scope. The manuscript is generally well-written; however, brevity and flow are missing which makes it rather verbose. The artwork is legible and flawless. However, I have some minor concerns regarding some sections.
Fatal flaws
- The abstract is general, please explain your robust findings to the readers as a take-home message. The first line of the abstract must be ecological environment rather than environmental. Please be careful with grammar and word selection. Please use the yellow River Basin acronym after writing the complete form once and for all, as I have done in the review. The continuity of complete form makes it tedious.
- The study area map (Fig. 1) shows the elevation/m. Please make it correct. The inset map is self-explanatory, please do not mention a and b to clarify.
- Please discuss the methods for the trend analysis and significance.
- The discussion must be strong enough to support your findings. In its current form, it way weak and only convinces the readers regarding the consistency of findings with previously observed results. Please focus on the differences in climate, landscape types and soil texture, and terrain indices for the various decades. You may discuss the impact of temperature and precipitation (previously established results) in the lower reaches of YRB because it receives more precipitation in monsoon areas. The first paragraph of section 5.3 must be moved to the introduction section to establish the novelty of the present study.
- For Fig. 7 grey circles should be removed, you may mention the years in the prominent circles. Please write the figures in % up to one degree e.g. (31.91%) should be (31.9%) throughout the manuscript including the abstract.
- Please remove the numbering of the conclusion section. Discuss the limitations of the present study and the way forward too.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved upon revisions, so could be accepted
Author Response
Based on opinions from experts and editors, the language and content of this article have been reviewed and revised in detail by experts of MDPI-recommended retouching agencies. For details, see the revised manuscript.
