PONE-D-24-17066A Study of Spatial Distribution and Dynamic Change in Monthly FVC of Urban ParksPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 01 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pisirai Ndarukwa, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"This research was funded by the following projects: Key Science and Technology Research and Development Program of Henan Province, China (232102320022), and Key Science and Technology Research and Development Program of Henan Province, China (232102320071)"

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. We note that Figures 1, 3a, 3b, 7a and 7b in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

    a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

     b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well-written. Results are systematic and reliable. However, some modifications are needed that are as follows:

• What is the new dimension of the study? Kindly explain explicitly in the objective part.

• The research gaps, methods, results, conclusion should be mentioned in the abstract. It should be like the summary of the study. Some numerical figures may be added.

• The objectives of the study should be clearly written.

• The flowchart of the methodology should be reconstructed. Figure does not meet the required quality.

• Discussion section need more scientific explanation.

• The authors should check the available recent literatures. Some following papers may be discussed for comparative study:

� https://doi.org/10.2478/jlecol-2023-0015

� https://doi.org/10.1080/23754931.2023.2187314

� https://doi.org/10.1080/19479832.2023.2252818

� https://doi.org/10.2478/jlecol-2022-0015

� http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2022.2131962

• Conclusion section needs more clarification.

Reviewer #2: Exploration of the spatial distribution and dynamic change in monthly FVC of region can provides a scientific basis for vegetation management and optimization in this area. This research focuses on two comprehensive parks, using multi-spectral UAV images and the pixel dichotomy model to obtain FVC data monthly and utilizes linear regression analysis to examine the dynamic change of FVC at the park area and pixel scale. The paper was well organized, "Discussion" and "interpretation of results" are basically reasonable. However, the manuscript has to be revised before in published.

1. What is the significance of only comparative analysis of FVC changes in two parks with very small areas and great human interference? What are the theoretical and practical implications of the research results? What are the implications for natural state reserves? This question needs to be well phrased and answered;

2. The techniques and methods in this study, including pixel dichotomy model, linear regression analysis and differencing method, are very mature; Nor do we see any new ideas or perspectives in research. The innovation of this study should be further highlighted.

3. The study pointed out that compared to traditional aerial remote sensing, UAVs have the advantages of flexibility and efficiency, enabling flexible flight planning and control as needed to achieve rapid and precise monitoring of urban green spaces, significantly enhancing research efficiency, however, how to use UAVs to obtain long-term continuous annual scale images of urban green space in larger areas?

4. Please add references to the standard of dividing pure bare area and area completely covered by vegetation in line 105-106.

5. In People’s Park, the highest-coverage area is largest in June and August, while the highest-coverage area is largest in May and June in Harmony Park. Suggest discussing the reasons for the different peak times in the highest-coverage area between the two parks.

6. According to Figure 5 and Figure 6, please analyze and discuss the reasons why the bare area of the two parks in July increased in one case and decreased in the other.

7. The study used the linear regression analysis method and differential method to examine the spatial-temporal dynamic change in monthly FVC, but the result analysis mainly analyzed the temporal change rule and trend of FVC, while the spatial dynamic variation trend analysis is not prominent enough, so it is suggested to emphasize the spatial variation trend analysis.

8. The manuscript requires moderate editing of the English language.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is quite carefully written and deals with the very important subject of Spatial Distribution and Dynamic Change in Monthly FVC of Urban Parks. This paper employed the pixel dichotomy model to obtain FVC data for each month and utilized linear regression analysis to examine the dynamic change of monthly FVC at the park area scale. Furthermore, the authors employed the differencing method to analyze the dynamic change of monthly FVC at the pixel scale. Overall, the paper is reasonably well organized, and the conclusions are also quite logical. I believe the author has put a lot of effort into this research. However, there are some concerns that need to be improved before it can be published in PLOS ONE. Please find below the detailed comments on improving this paper.

Introduction

Point 1: I recommended that the authors combine the first and second paragraphs of the introduction into one paragraph.

Point 2: In the introduction section, the authors wrote about the importance of urban parks and vegetation cover, but did not explain the innovations of this paper, such as why multispectral images from different months were used, what other scholars have done in the field and their shortcomings. So, the authors should reorganize the introduction section to clarify the innovations of the paper and to add what research scholars at home and abroad have done in the research. The authors can cite the following references to support your points.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156990

Materials and Methods

Point 3: I recommend that authors place section 2.2.1 in 2.1 and section 2.2.2 in 2.2 to make the structure of the article clearer.

Point 4: I recommend that the authors number Figure 1 and appropriately enlarge the legend of the figure on the left.

Point 5: In section 2.2.1, the authors should add a table of specific information about the raw imagery, time of acquisition, number of images, flight weather conditions, resolution, etc. In addition, it is recommended that the authors elaborate on the data preprocessing section.

Point 6: I recommend that the authors add a description of the version number of ArcGIS in the 2.2.1 section.

Point 7: The authors mention pixel binary model principle in section 2.2.2 and suggest adding a detailed description of the pixel binary model principal description.

Results

Point 8: The dimensional scale distances in each row of Figure 3 and Figure 7 do not match, and the authors are advised to carefully check the coordinate system for consistent. In addition, I recommend that the authors add clarifications such as (a), (b) and (c) in the corresponding section of the article.

Point 9: Section 3.1.2 is not analyzed in sufficient depth. I recommend that the authors should add a description of this section.

Point 10: The authors mention the temporal variation in Figure 4 in section 3.2.1, but the distribution curve for PP and HP is an approximately normal curve, but the authors use linear regression in the text, please explain the reason for this.

Point 11: The overlapping of the symbols in Figures 5 and 6 leads to unclear presentation and should be adjusted by the authors to ensure better visualization, e.g. by using different colored lines, changing the size of the symbols and adjusting the vertical coordinates. Also, I suggest that the author adjust the color scheme of Figure 6 to make the numbers more visible.

Point 12: I recommended that the authors should add several references to support your comments in the sections 4.2 and 4.3.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2023.2202506

Discussion

Point 13: The conclusion section is too similar to the abstract section, and I recommend that the authors should revise the conclusion section appropriately.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

A Study of Spatial Distribution and Dynamic Change in Monthly FVC of Urban Parks

PONE-D-24-17066R1

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Pisirai Ndarukwa, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript is much improved than the original manuscript. The authors have successfully justified the reviewers' comments and incorporated the required corrected portions in the revised manuscript. The methods are cklear. The results are relevant and logical. The reference list is updated. The image quality has been improved a lot. Now, it can be recommended for publication.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********