Aboveground Spatiotemporal Carbon Storage Model in the Changing Landscape of Jatigede, West Java, Indonesia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe aim of the paper is to analyze the spatiotemporal dynamics of carbon storage in the tropical highland landscape of Jatigede subdistrict, Java Island, Indonesia. Changes in above-ground carbon stocks were investigated in 2014-2021 using the InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) model. The result showed that the total above-ground carbon stock decreased between 2014-2021. Forests recorded the biggest decrease. The primary cause of the reduction in above-ground carbon stocks was the conversion of vegetation to agricultural and urban land.
The methodologies in the study are simple and well described. However, the definition of the aim of the study is too vague. It is not enough to focus on spatiotemporal analyses. A solution to a more specific problem should be proposed.
An analysis of the above-ground carbon stock and its changes is presented in the results. Changes in carbon stocks are mostly reported in t/ha. Given this fact, Figure 6 and the associated text on lines 383-395 are confusing and represent a "combined LULUC class". The average stock per hectare of individual classes cannot be summed up in such a way as to create a "combined class". The discussion is appropriately written.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageText contains large number of unusual expressions, like "increase of built-up" (line 94), "GIS technique was conducted" (line 127), "data include the ton/ha" (line 134), etc. The language of the submission needs to be thoroughly edited.
Two different abbreviations for the term "land use and land cover change": LULC and LULCC. It must be unified.
Line 93: "natural landscape" instead of LULC would be better
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents simulation results of сarbon stock changes in Indonesia associated with the construction of a reservoir in the area. The authors used the InVEST model and Landsat images for 2014 and 2021, which were classified by the authors. The results describe changes in land use/land cover and carbon stocks in different vegetation types. Overall, the authors performed an interesting study, but the lack of data presentation in the manuscript makes it impossible to evaluate it fully at this time.
1. This paper uses the InVEST model - why was it chosen? In the Introduction there is no review of other models that allow estimating carbon dynamics.
2. The Data Collection subsection lacks a more detailed description of the amount of data collected, how many samples were collected, at how many sites?
3. Also, the training dataset for classification of Landsat images is not described. The available description of "certain number of training samples" is not enough to understand the quality of the work. Number of samples and their distribution into LULC classes are very important parameters of classification, please add information about them.
4. Unclear accuracy of the classification result. The manuscript states that the accuracy assessment included the calculation of several parameters, but only the values of the Kappa coefficient are given. The Kappa coefficient is not easy to interpret in terms of expected accuracy, so it is not possible to assess the quality of classification based on its values alone. In the manuscript, however, it is stated that "excellent accuracy" was obtained, while one of the simplest Maximum Likelihood methods was used for classification. Excellent results in this case can only be a consequence of either too small test sample or overlap of test data with training data.
5. In subsection 3.3, when describing the dynamics of carbon, it is necessary to add a table with data on changes by classes. Now all data are given only in the text, so it is difficult to assess the dynamics. At the same time, this subsection contains Table 4 with minimum data, which does not provide much information for readers.
6. In Figure 1, the degrees of latitude and longitude are blurred.
7. Incorrect figure numbers, there is figure 1 twice. Because of this there are incorrect references to figures in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the issues identified in Report 1 were fixed. The only remaining issue is the quality of English, however, authors stated that they send their submission to English Editing MDPI.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language need to be checked, authors stated that they send their submission to English Editing MDPI.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please kindly find the attached file of certificate that our manuscript have been checking by English Proofreading by MDPI English Service before we submit manuscript for the round 1.
Kind regards,
Susanti
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised the manuscript according to all my comments, the paper can be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing such insightful suggestions and recommendations. Your expertise and thorough analysis have been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our work.
Your constructive feedback has helped us to identify areas for improvement and has undoubtedly contributed to the overall strength of the manuscript. We truly appreciate the effort and dedication you have shown in reviewing our work.
Once again, thank you for your invaluable contributions to our manuscript. We are grateful for your guidance and support throughout this process.
