Measurement and Spatial–Temporal Characteristics of Agricultural Carbon Emission in China: An Internal Structural Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well written. However, some English issues are there which can be improved. The methodology section needs to be improved with details for carbon emission calculations.
Some specific comments are given below.
1 Line 14-15 may be checked for “English” and modified. Similar, such errors (as I perceive) are many throughout the manuscript. Please check if they need modification.
2 The abstract may be modified towards the end. The last sentence seems to be abruptly ending. A concluding sentence may be proper at the end.
3 Line 98: has not yet to establish or has yet to establish?
4 Line 128: that only considering? Can this be improved grammatically? Please check
5 Line 142: Can the emission factors used in this study enlisted for different categories?
6 Line 154-155: China Agricultural Statistics, China Agricultural Year Book etc..Are these sources of data referenced? Please check reference list.
7 Line 171 ,176, 186 and 191: (1) Stage I: 1991-1996.? Can this be written in continuous sentences. Also, in case of Line 176, 186 and 191? Please check
8 Line 204: graphed by the authors. Is this necessary to mention? Similarly, under other graphs and Tables, You may consider removing
9 Table 1. Please define carbon intensity.
1 Line 326: Can the kernel density function be elaborated here for more clarity? Some sentences about the theory and utility of kernel density function may be good for the readers.
Line 402: Conclusion number 3 may be shortened avoiding further discussion.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your excellent and insightful series of comments on our manuscript. Please see the attachment for the author's reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
An interesting read. The authors had made the problem statement clear on why the study is essential. Discussion on the findings is thorough. Improvement can be made on how the authors present their work, and further elaboration on the methodology taken to produce the results.
Detailed comments are as follows:
• Abstract – please state clearly problem statement and methodology of the paper. Currently, the abstract is mostly on the results.
• From Line 97 – 124 – the arrangement of the content is a bit confusing for readers. Please separate the content into two or three paragraphs.
• Line 156: Source: Compiled by the authors. – what does this mean? Same goes to Line 204, 237, 298
• “Based on the agricultural carbon emissions calculation inventory constructed above, this paper calculates 161 the agricultural carbon emissions of 30 provinces” – please briefly explains how the calculation had been done
• “a “√” type” in Line 190, - what does this mean?
• “It was our country” in Line 196 should be removed
• For Figure 3, I don’t think there is a need for line graph i.e. the blue line. Since the x-axis is the provinces, it would be better to change the line graph to bar chart, as the trend line (fluctuation etc) does not indicate anything.
• Figure 6 – as the authors made a lot of comparison between the years, it is advisable to improve the figures by using coloured lines OR change the line type. In the current form, it is difficult to differentiate between the line for 1991 and for 2001.
• Please revise Table 1 as it appears to be very confusing on the PDF, especially the last two rows.
• Please make references to each figure for the explanation in Line 336 – 377.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your excellent and insightful series of comments on our manuscript. Please see the attachment for the authors' reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
