Spatiotemporal Patterns and Interconnections of Forest Biomass and Economic Density in the Yellow River Basin, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the influence of socio-economic factors on forest biomass in the Yellow River Basin (YRB) over the years 2008, 2013, and 2018. Using panel data from 448 counties, the authors explore variables such as economic density, human activity, land use, and forest protection. The results highlight a positive correlation between economic density and forest biomass, especially in the middle and lower reaches of the river, offering important insights into how economic growth impacts the health of forest ecosystems.

The article follows a proper structure, and the introduction is well described; however, the research objective is not clearly defined. Please provide a clear statement of the research objective and hypotheses. In the methodology section, there is very little information on how GIS and LiDAR were used to assess or measure forest biomass resources?. What other factors, apart from those studied, could have influenced the biomass resources in the different regions? Was the impact of the resource availability and age of different tree species in the studied regions taken into account?

The "Description of control variables" is very brief, particularly with regard to Forest Protection Factors. What did the land protection involve? What data were included in this component? Did the authors conduct a correlation analysis of the data? Was the absence of correlation between the variables tested?

Tabela 1 requires editing.

 

The article is interesting, and the effort put into it is substantial. Therefore, after further detailing the methodology and analyses, it should be published in Forests.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I don't have.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is devoted to the problem of assessing forest biomass by analyzing it as a dependent variable from other factors. The topic of the study is relevant. The research methodology includes the analysis of forest biomass (explained variable) from a set of socio-economic factors.

The key remark to the manuscript is the presence of significant methodological errors. Economic factors can indeed influence forest biomass. But the inclusion of only socioeconomic factors in the regression analysis is not sufficient to explain differences in forest biomass. Analysis of differences in forest biomass necessarily requires the inclusion of natural factors (climate, soil, relief factors) in the regression models.

Comments on the manuscript contents:

1. Section 3.1 begins not with text, but with a figure, which is illogical. The text part should be presented before the figure. There are no references to figures 2 and 3 in the manuscript.

2. Table 2 shows the regression coefficients. However, based on the manuscript, they are considered as correlation coefficients, which is incorrect. For example, in lines 277-285.

3. The significant decline in forest biomass between 2008 and 2013 (Figure 2) requires more detailed analysis, including the use of remote sensing data.

4. Lines 247-248. In Figure 2 (a,b,c) there is no unit of measurement for forest biomass.

5. Line 275. The title of Table 2 is too short and does not reflect its content.

6. The manuscript contains close repetitions of words. For example, in lines 25-26 (in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River), lines 121-127 (Therefore).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear all,

Corrections made.

Author Response

Thanks for the valuable comments on the article and for recognizing our work!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoroughly edited the manuscript and provided detailed responses to all comments. The manuscript may be recommended for publication provided the following corrections are made:

1) The north arrow in all figures need be made the same.

2) The title of Table 3 needs to be expanded to make it more understandable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended to check the manuscript for overly long sentences. For example: lines 180-189.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf