Estimating Land Use and Land Cover Change in North Central Georgia: Can Remote Sensing Observations Augment Traditional Forest Inventory Data?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

This manuscript by Moisen et al. used a combination of three different LULC datasets to estimate the land use/land cover changes (LULCC) and the state of forest cover in the Northcentral region of Georgia state, USA. The main objective of the paper is clear. Generally, the manuscript has a good sequence. However, the abstract and the introduction sections need to be revised and re-written in a better fashion. Also, it is unclear to me, what was exactly the investigated time period in this study and there are too many figures presented in the results section. In my opinion, more than 10 figures is an overkill. Furthermore, there are several comments need to be addressed to improve the quality of this manuscript. Please see my specific comments:

Specific Comments

Lines 6 - 13: Author affiliation: Just wondering why authors 1, 5 and 6 have different allocated numbers, even though, they have the same affiliation (workplace).

Abstract

Line 19: I suggest removing the subheadings like (Research highlights, background and objectives, etc). Also, it would be good to revise the abstract one more time to make it more concise, particularly, from line 32 onwards. I would say 15-20 lines for the abstract should be fine. Moreover, there are repetitions from the conclusions section.

Line 27: Please add the abbreviation (LULC) throughout the abstract.

Introduction

Lines 49 - 54: Not a single reference? Reference(s) needed.

Line 56: Use (LULC).

Line 58: Use (LULC).

Lines 56 - 61: Reference(s) needed.

Line 65: Any other recent peer-reviewed published reference? Rather than this 2012 symposium one.

General comment: The last paragraph of the introduction which demonstrates the objectives of the paper, is probably fine. However, I think the whole introduction section needs to be re-written in a better manner. As it stands, it is insufficient and lacks several background explanations.

Materials and Methods

Line 80: Use (LULC).

Line 87: Any more recent ref to cite instead of this ref from 1984?

Line 92: Figure 1: I have two suggestions here: First, how about adding another map, presenting the US map, and highlighting the location of the state of Georgia? Second, how about using any available satellite imagery to present the location of the study area (Atlanta)?

Line 102: I cannot quite understand what this sentence means (Variables relevant to this study include land use and land cover class).

Line 139: Use (LULC).

Line 141: Use (LULC).

General comment: The methods section is well-written with a sufficient amount of details.

Results

Line 285: Figure 5: Would be better if it is drawn using colourful lines like used in figure 4.

Lines 428 - 450: I am not sure if you need this text here.

General comment: Too many figures.

Discussion

Line 526: Use (LULC).

Line 529: Use (LULC).

General comment: The discussion section is well-written. However, it lacks citations.

Conclusions

Line 533: Use (LULC).

References

I have some concerns about the number of references used in this paper, and I am wondering if citing 26 references only is sufficient to cover such an important study!

Author Response

Please see responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I found this to be a well-written, interesting, and informative study. The statistical analyses were thorough, explained well, and, as far as I was able to determine, correct. I have little of substance to offer, besides a few easily addressed comments and typographical errors that I noticed. It was a pleasure to review this manuscript!

Specific Suggestions:

• Line 78: The “mid-2000’s”, which technically will not arrive for another 30 years, should be replaced with “the present” or the “mid-2010’s” if the reporting period ended a few years ago.
• Line 221: “transition al” should be “transitional”.
• Line 370: “sabiliizng” should be “stabilizing”.
• Lines 389-391. The caption should be generalized to explain the interpretation of the land use proportion for both a 5-year and a 10-year interval. Currently, it just addresses the 5-year interval.
• Line 434: “p₁” should be “p₂”
• Line 457: Replace “Errors” with “errors”.
• Line 487: Replace “Nor” with “Neither”.
• Line 517: Replace “ability” with “inability”.

Author Response

Please see responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their revisions throughout the manuscript and the detailed responses and clarifications they provided. The current iteration of the paper has been significantly improved over the original one.

Author Response

Thank you again for your help in improving this manuscript!