You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Shuai Li and
  • Xuzhen He*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript adopts a probabilistic and spatially explicit modeling framework to investigate the impacts of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) policy on cropland expansion and subsequent abandonment on marginal lands in the U.S. Corn Belt. By combining Bayesian logistic regression models with remote sensing data, the study successfully quantifies the policy's effect on land conversion, considering factors such as land suitability, climate, and market access, and proposes an innovative evaluation method. However, the manuscript still requires further improvements in the following areas:

  1. The manuscript does not explicitly explain whether other models were considered for the analysis. It is necessary to provide additional clarification on this matter. Furthermore, further discussion should be included in the discussion section.
  2. There is some repetition of content in the materials and methods sections. The core methodology involves Bayesian logistic regression, which integrates biophysical, climatic, and economic variables to construct counterfactual scenarios estimating land-use changes before and after policy intervention. It is recommended to consolidate the materials and methods into a continuous, coherent section.
  3. The manuscript uses a 0.5 probability threshold to identify cropland expansion likely driven by the RFS policy. However, this threshold may underestimate the policy's impact, particularly on lands near the suitability threshold. Has the manuscript considered using higher thresholds for analysis?
  4. The manuscript defines abandonment as land that did not plant corn between 2022 and 2024. Does this definition account for short-term crop rotations?
  5. Figure 3 could be appropriately scaled down to reduce its page length.
  6. Blank Pages: The manuscript contains several blank pages and needs formatting adjustments.
  7. It is suggested to swap the positions of Figures 1 and 2, moving them after the main content of the manuscript.
  8. More than half of the references in the manuscript are from over five years ago. It is recommended to update the references to include more recent studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The choice of Bayesian logistic regression is well-justified and represents a strong methodological decision for the purposes of this study. No significant shortcomings have been identified.

The manuscript is recommended for publication.

 

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title of the manuscript: Quantifying Policy-Induced Cropland Dynamics: A Probabilistic and Spatial Analysis of RFS-Driven Expansion and Abandonment on Marginal Lands in the U.S. Corn Belt

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3909680-peer-review-v1

This study attempts to quantify the dynamics of cropland under the RFS policy in the US Corn Belt. Despite the authors’ efforts, the study suffers from some problems. Addressing the following comments would strengthen this paper:

Abstract

  1. Page 1, lines 12-14: "This study employs a probabilistic and spatially explicit modelling framework to evaluate the impact of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) policy on cropland dynamics within the U.S. Corn Belt, with particular emphasis on marginal lands." This is not a good start to the abstract. Please begin the abstract by explaining the background and challenges related to agricultural land use, then clearly state the purpose of the study, and finally provide an explanation of the study framework.
  2. In the sentence above, it would be better to explain which indicators are considered in the studies of land dynamics? In land dynamics, have you considered land use changes?
  3. Please explain in the abstract how the data for this study was collected.
  4. Page 1, lines 17-19: "Counterfactual simulations for 2016 revealed that more than a quarter of marginal land pixels cultivated in that year would otherwise have had very low probabilities of cropping, underscoring the powerful role of RFS incentives in driving expansion onto less suitable land." This sentence is not clear and needs to be revised. What exactly does the author mean by "Counterfactual simulations"? Please explain more clearly.
  5. Page 1, lines 25-27: "These findings highlight the utility of integrating probabilistic modelling with high-resolution spatial data for policy evaluation, advancing the evidence base on unintended consequences of large-scale biofuel policies and providing a robust foundation for future counterfactual impact assessments in land-use research." Please revise this sentence and clarify what you mean by "counterfactual impact".
  6. Please avoid using words that have already been used in the title in the keyword, so please replace the words "RFS, Corn belt" with other appropriate words.
  7. Also, include at least 5 to 6 strong keywords in the keyword.

 

Introduction

  1. Please provide a precise and operational definition of “marginal land” in the introduction.
  2. The background literature in the introduction is incomplete and there is no comprehensive review of sources. Please strengthen the literature review section in the introduction.
  3. Please explain the innovations of this study in the introduction. Although the limitations of previous methods are mentioned, the exact distinction of this paper’s method from previous studies (except for the use of Bayesian models) is not clearly stated.

Methodology

  1. Please add a legend to map in figure 1 and explain the colors on the map.
  2. Please elaborate on the flowchart presented in Figure 2. Please explain why the effects of the RFS were considered in 2000-2006 and the test was in 2016?
  3. Please explain in Figure 2 the gap created between 2006 and 2016.
  4. Please use the (Eq) symbol in front of all formulas (e.g., (Eq 1), (Eq 2) ,...) and cite all formulas within the text.
  5. In the caption of Figure 3, the authors mentioned spatial distribution, but in all figures, 2016 and 2024 were used cross-sectionally. That is, only one year of data was used, and this cannot show spatial trends unless a weighted average of the data was used.
  6. Please explain why Bayesian logistic regression was chosen for modeling? Does this method have any particular advantages over other possible approaches?
  7. Please explain what tests were used to examine the same climate variables (e.g. temperature and precipitation)?

Results

  1. In Figure 4a, which shows model validation and calibration, explain the degree of correlation between simulated and real data.
  2. In Figure 7a, please explain why there is a big difference between the rock curve and random guess.

Discussion

  1. The discussion section is very short and needs to be strengthened. Please provide a detailed in-depth commentary on the findings of this study in the discussion section and compare and contrast your findings with those of other studies. In its current form, there is no comparison and contrast of the study findings with those of other studies, so the authors should strengthen the discussion section in detail.

Conclusion

  1. Please state the implications and contribution of the study in terms of theoretical literature knowledge and methodological knowledge in the conclusion section.
  2. Although the conclusion states that the RFS policy has led to the expansion of cultivation on marginal lands, no specific recommendations are provided for policymakers. Please provide several operational and implementation solutions in this regard.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have thoroughly reviewed the revised manuscript and believe that the necessary revisions have been adequately addressed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for their good work. I have no additional comments, and the manuscript is acceptable as it stands.