Spatiotemporal Evolution and Drivers of Carbon Storage from a Sustainable Development Perspective: A Case Study of the Region along the Middle and Lower Yellow River, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article impresses with the scale of the study and the application of several models and statistical methods to determine the temporal and spatial evolution of the ecosystem storage of C and determining the factors that influence these processes. The topic is very current. Well-chosen figures illustrate the results.
Some clarification and change in the spelling of some units of measurement is needed to make them more understandable on a global scale. I suggest editing the text in 2-3 places.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper entitled “Temporal and spatial evolution of ecosystem carbon storage and detection of its influencing factors in the region along the Middle and Lower Yellow River, China” detected the carbon storage in the Yellow River Basin during 2005-2020 based on InVEST and GeoDetector model, considering anthropogenic and natural factors. Most of the data processing and results are well written, however, I have some concerns that need to be addressed during revision, and my comments are listed for further improvements as follows:
Major concerns:
1. Introduction section, there are many previous studies that focused on LUCC induced carbon storage/flux in Yellow River basin, and I suggest authors to pay more attention on shortcomings of these papers to highlight your work.
2. Section 2.2, different data sets with various spatial and temporal resolution were involved in this study, but authors failed to introduce how to integrate them together. What is the ultimate resolution of your results? How to resample these data? The technological information is missing. Specifically, why carbon density data was not included here? The reason for carbon density correction is not adequate, and the reference of correction method is not provided. The missing information of carbon density data format and the logic of correction method make it hard for readers to follow authors’ calculation.
3. Section 3.2, authors need to justify why these 7 factors were chose, for example, there are many indexes such as NDVI can also represent vegetation.
4. Discussion section, in-depth discussion and comparison with carbon storage/change in previous studies is missing.
More specific comments:
1. Line 49, “devoted their to”? Grammar error.
2. Line 67, “weas”, or “was”? CASA model is used to estimate GPP/NPP, which is not tightly linked to this study.
3. Line 68, which “previous approaches”? Here the previous approaches and their disadvantages need to be clarified.
4. Line 71, “application” should be “applied”.
5. Lines 114-117, the data source to derive annual temperature and precipitation, and population should be provided here.
6. Line 119, title of Figure 1, it is not a site, please replace the “research site” by “study area” or something like that.
7. Line 137, the human footprint dataset covers the period from 2000 to 2018, not 2020, please check your data. In addition, please provide specific link/referenced paper for each data in Section 2.2. I suggest to add a table to describe each data source briefly and clearly.
8. Line 158, redundant “carbon” in “…of carbon each…”.
9. Line 194, reference 30 is not related to this section.
10. Section 3.2.1, Wang’s paper (2017) should be cited here.
11. Figure 4, the unit of land use type (hm2) is not the same as in Table 2(10^5hm2). The numbers in 2020 is too small to see.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI found some minor grammar errors, please check full text carefully.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I would like to express my gratitude to you for the manuscript.
The manuscript presents a comprehensive study of the evolution of carbon storage in ecosystems and the identification of factors influencing this process in one of the most significant regions of China.
In my view, all the methods employed have been adequately detailed and the findings are clearly presented. Furthermore, the authors clearly illustrated their findings through a significant number of graphics and diagrams. Indeed, the study's findings could be useful in formulating policies for guiding sustainable development in the MLYR region.
However, I would recommend rephrasing the last sentences in the abstract and introduction sections (22-27 and 99-105) to improve clarity and coherence. They are too complex to understand.
There are a few minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings in the text. However, overall, the text is understandable and conveys the intended meaning. I did not identify any significant drawbacks in the manuscript, and therefore, I recommend that it be accepted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy concerns were addressed and the paper was significantly improved based on the review report. I recommend acceptance in current version.
