Assessing the Accuracy and Consistency of Cropland Products in the Middle Yangtze Plain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript titled "Assessing Accuracy and Consistency of Cropland Products in the Middle Yangtze Plain" aims to explore the classification accuracy and consistency of major cropland distribution products. Specifically, they selected four data products to compare: GLAD, AGLC, CLCD, and CACD. Sample points were obtained through visual interpretation in Google Earth for accuracy verification. The contents of the manuscript are complete, but further improvements can be made in textual presentation, highlight extraction, etc.
Specific suggestions:
1. Please explain the reasons for choosing these four products for comparison. Their spatial resolutions are quite different.
2. Further explain the use of hexagons in selecting verification points.
3. In the first three subplots of Figure 3, the scatter points are all below the 1:1 line. Please carefully examine the reported R2.
4. Please carefully revise Figure 4 and 6, and improve their clarity.
5. Elaborate on the significance of the study, providing additional clarification for the readers.
6. Line 49, for a better reference of “China's nine major grain bases”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe overall quality is good.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors compare the accuracy and consistency of four multi-year cropland distribution data sets in the area of interest. The paper is well structured and concisely written emphasizing all relevant findings of the research and only minor changes are required.
To improve clarity, the full names of the datasets with abbreviation in brackets and brief explanations should be written when these abbreviations are first mentioned (GLAD, CACD, CLCD, AGLC) in abstract and in the introduction. They are described later in the text, but it is not clear from the begging of the text (e.g. CLCD and CACD are not well known datasets outside of Chine). The title might also be changed to describe more precisely what type of cropland products are analyzed. Those are mainly land cover geospatial datasets.
Furthermore, emphasize contribution and how it differs from similar research. Although it is mentioned how these findings can be used, it would be interesting to discuss this in more detail. Future work should also be discussed.
Figure 1 is somewhat unclear in terms of visibility of the area of interest and could be improved. Caption of Figure 2 is missing the capital letter.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor English editing is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The background provided is fine.
- The literature survey is not sufficient
- The overall presentation of the manuscript is average.
- However, authors have just compared the four data products of cropland distribution.
- All four datasets are available authors have compared their accuracy and consistency. I found this as an experiment.
- Further they have not clearly written the methodology which can be further elaborated.
- Results and discussion section is well written.
- Overall, the manuscript does not contain any novelty
- No inferences are drawn from the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments:
Lines 10-11. "This statement implies that accuracy and consistency across all datasets are inherently uncertain." Please improve the sentence. Furthermore, what does 'crucial regions' refer to?
Lines 14-16. Please include the abbreviations GLAD, CLCD, AGLC, and CACD in addition to ensuring that the abstract sufficiently elucidates the subject matter for readers. Moreover, it remains ambiguous which dataset exhibited the proven accuracy. Please improve the sentence.
Lines 17-18. “When all four products identify……”. This sentence is ambiguous. Please kindly provide clarification.
Line 19. “Jianghan Plain”. Is it pertinent to include the Jianghan Plain at this point if the study area is the Middle Yangtze Plain? Its significance and relevance were not previously addressed. Please better clarify.
Lines 20-21. Shangrao City and Wuhan City; what does the increase and decrease refer to? impermeable area, extent, cultivated areas?
Line 24. Keywords. I recommend enhancing the keywords since the existing ones are already present in the title and abstract.
Line 29. Carrier. Carrier seems ambiguous. I recommend considering an alternative term for clarity and precision.
Lines 30-32. The dynamics of land use and conversion in Europe and countries of the global north are characterized by slower, regulated, and controlled processes. To enhance specificity, it's recommended to contextualize the discussion towards China or other developing nations. Moreovers, please insert valid references about this.
Lines 33-34. Please improve this sentence. It implies that cultivated land is an active entity, whereas the action described is a result of human activity.
Line 38. “our”. Please avoid from utilizing the plural possessive determiner.
Line 38. “super ecological project”. Please provide further clarification as there are no bibliographical references, and it remains unclear what this "super project" pertains to.
Line 49. References [8,9]. These bibliographical references appear dated; I recommend incorporating more recent sources for enhanced relevance.
Line 68. GLAD and CACD. Please introduce all abbreviations (particularly those unfamiliar to international readers) the first time they are mentioned in the text for clarity and comprehension.
Lines 68-72. The arguments given by the authors are reasonable, but the meaning of these sentences needs to be rephrased. Global products, such as those mentioned, typically include metadata regarding accuracies. However, the accuracy presentation of other products depends on the producer. It is not accurate to generalize that all datasets exhibit deficiencies in accuracies.
Line 73. “distribution”. Could you please clarify what is meant by 'distribution'?
Line 80. Figure 1. I think it is not necessary to put it in bold, see author guideline information.
Line 92. Figure 2. Please improve this figure. Kindly incorporate map box references (three in count in this figure) and in the figure caption. For instance, better elucidate or emphasize the geographical context by the map box positioned on the right, relative to its position on the left (on China). Also insert the north arrow in the left box for completeness
Lines 95-96. Please remove numerical references 1, 2, 3, and 4 throughout the text and tables, replacing them with appropriate abbreviations to refer to the datasets used (i.e. GLAD, AGLC, CLCD, CACD).
Line 98. “statistical data”. Not clear. Please better define these data and comparison.
Line 101. Web link. Please delete ad insert as a regular reference.
Line 103. “distribution”. As above, I do not understend the use of distribution for referring to to area. I assume the authors are referring to 'extent'. Please clarify.
Line 106. GAUD, GFC, GSW abbreviations. As indicated above, please present all abbreviations. The description of the datasets lacks essential details regarding their resolution and minimum mapping units. It would enhance the comprehensiveness of the study to include this information either in Table 1 or integrated into the text.
Line 125. TWDTW. The utilization of TWDTW was previously introduced in lines 112-114. Please provide clarification regarding whether it pertains to the same concept mentioned earlier or if the authors are referring to an additional step or procedure.
Lines 134-135. Google Earth is frequently employed to obtain sample points for accuracy estimation; nevertheless, official metadata on the accuracy of these data sources from Google Earth is unavailable. It is important to acknowledge these limitations in the text and reference relevant literature that has endeavored to assess the accuracy of Google Earth images. Below are some examples: 1) www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2015.1031716; 2) www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/8/12/7973
Line 143. “distribution”. As above.
Lines 146-153. Scenarios. As described, these scenarios appear as a mere statistical exercise. Can the authors clarify how the users of these datasets can benefit from them?
Lines 150-152. As above for Products 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Line 155. Figure 2. “the”. Capital letters.
Lines 158. Abbreviations. These abbreviations was already presented in lines 144-145.
Line 210. GFSAD. Please present this abberaviation. I see that was presented in table 1 as “reference”, but is still unclear. Could you please clarify what you mean by "GLAC product only introduces GFSAD in its production process"?
Line 308.0 Discussion. The authors are invited to discuss the limitations of the study, especially considering the point sample acquisition mode, which undoubtedly presents challenges. Additionally, they should elucidate the practical usefulness of the scenarios outlined above.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor errors that need correction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the comments are addressed. Thank you for this. All the best.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept.
