Impact of Land Management Scale on the Carbon Emissions of the Planting Industry in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Impact of land management scale on carbon emission of planting industry in China." usages a threshold model to empirically examine the relationship between planting scale and agricultural carbon emissions and conduct further research on China's three major grain-producing regions based on the data of 30 provinces in China from 2003 to 2018.

• There is a lack of methodology (model details) in the abstract section. Please discuss the method as well in the abstract.

• The scientific language of this manuscript seems so poor and requires gentle revisions.
• Line 32.34. It's suggested to consider rewriting.
• Line 38. Meanwhile, around the terrorist organization?
• Line 40-45. Please add the proper citations for these mentioned statements.
• Line 49. "Some scholars," e.g.? Any citations for their work
• I couldn't find the details of the limitations in the introduction section. Please elaborate on what your research is making different from previous work/method and why the authors feel this method can achieve better results than the previous one.
• Consider adding pieces of literature evidence from existing literature to strengthen these statements.
• Table 1. Consider writing the complete name of IREEA instead of the abbreviation.
• All the equations used in this work should be written mathematically.
• Any source or reference for data sources used in this work.
• Line 152. Figure 1, Line 309. Again figure 1. Please recheck.
• Section 4 "Results and discussion." I could not find any reference or citation to validate the author's findings. Also, the discussion section is lacking. It's better to discuss your results with previous studies in this domain and compare your results to validate the threshold model results.
• Section 5, It's better to put forward different countermeasures according to research conclusions and the characteristics of other food crops.
• Reference Section. DOI of all citations is missing. Please consider adding the valid DOI.

Author Response

Comment 1: There is a lack of methodology (model details) in the abstract section. Please discuss the method as well in the abstract.

Response: We are very grateful for your valuable instructive advices. We have added a description of the model and its role in the abstract.

Comment 2: The scientific language of this manuscript seems so poor and requires gentle revisions.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. The language has been edited by Language Editing Services of MDPI.

Comment 3: Line 32.34. It's suggested to consider rewriting.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised these two sentences, as follows:

“The increasingly serious greenhouse effect has become the most pressing global environmental problem [1,2], and the main cause of the greenhouse effect is the large amount of carbon dioxide emissions. At present, China is the world’s largest carbon emitter, accounting for 35.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions[3]”

Comment 4: Line 38. Meanwhile, around the terrorist organization?

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have rephrased this sentence, as follows:

“Meanwhile, China's carbon emissions from agriculture are also growing significantly [4]”

Comment 5: Line 40-45. Please add the proper citations for these mentioned statements.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. By consulting the literature, we have added three proper citations here to support these mentioned statements.

Comment 6: Line 49. "Some scholars," e.g.? Any citations for their work.

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. Here we cite three existing research results of Y Xue et al., Z Zhou et al., AY Farani et al. as theoretical support.

Comment 7: I couldn't find the details of the limitations in the introduction section. Please elaborate on what your research is making different from previous work/method and why the authors feel this method can achieve better results than the previous one.

Response: We are very grateful for your valuable instructive advices. We add at the end of the introduction to explain the gap between our study and previous studies, and to analyze the strengths and contributions of this study in terms of models, data, and research content.

“In previous studies, it was found that although research on agricultural carbon emissions mainly focuses on the factors affecting carbon emissions, little consideration is given to reducing carbon emissions by adjusting the scale of land. The mode of agricultural production under large-scale management is bound to be very different from that of small-scale peasants. The massive transfer of labor force to non-agricultural sectors and the outflow of cultivated land have led to changes in the scale of agricultural land management. This change leads to the re-combination and adjustment of production factors, which will inevitably have a significant influence on agricultural carbon emissions. In addition, whether expanding the planting area can reduce carbon emissions or not is still controversial. Therefore, the innovation of this paper is mainly reflected in two aspects. First, based on an analysis of the impact mechanism of land scale on carbon emissions, this paper tested the threshold effect of land scale on the carbon emissions from the planting industry. Second, different crops have different effects on carbon emissions due to their planting areas, input of production factors, and farming systems. Therefore, taking the three major grains in China (corn, wheat, and rice) as an example, this paper further discusses whether there are differences in the relationship between planting scale and carbon emission.”

Comment 8: Consider adding pieces of literature evidence from existing literature to strengthen these statements.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added existing research results as theoretical support in the Theoretical framework section.

Comment 9: Table 1. Consider writing the complete name of IREEA instead of the abbreviation.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. The full name of IREEA (Institute of Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture) have been given in the revised manuscript.

Comment 10: All the equations used in this work should be written mathematically.

Response: We have check the whole text and ensue all the equations used in this work have been written mathematically

Comment 11: Any source or reference for data sources used in this work.

Response: We have added citation 44-46 for the data sources

Comment 12: Line 152. Figure 1, Line 309. Again figure 1. Please recheck.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have renumbered the latter figure as Figure.2.

Comment 13: Section 4 "Results and discussion." I could not find any reference or citation to validate the author's findings. Also, the discussion section is lacking. It's better to discuss your results with previous studies in this domain and compare your results to validate the threshold model results.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. In the "Results and discussion" section, we added the research results of Qin S L, Xin-Ye L and other 11 predecessors to support the empirical results of this study.

Comment 14: Section 5, It's better to put forward different countermeasures according to research conclusions and the characteristics of other food crops.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added our respective policy recommendations for rice, maize and wheat at the end of the second point of policy recommendations, as follows:

“In particular, the main rice- and corn-producing areas should speed up large-scale operation in order to reach the inflection point of the inverted "U" shape as soon as possible. For the main wheat-producing areas, the planting scale does not have an inverted "U"-shaped impact on agricultural carbon emissions, but continuously promotes an increase in carbon emissions. Therefore, the planting area of wheat-producing areas should be reasonably planned to control carbon emissions.”

Comment 15: Reference Section. DOI of all citations is missing. Please consider adding the valid DOI.

Response: We have added DOI for all citations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 Thank you very much for the opportunity to read this manuscript 
aimed to examine the relationship between planting scale and 
agricultural carbon emissions, and conduct further research on China's 
three major grain producing regions. I went through the paper in some 
detail and find it to be a worthwhile one. The topic of the paper is 
of interests and original in respect to the field of application. 
Results are relevant from both a scientific and managerial point of 
view. The manuscript is also well organized. Unfortunately, there are 
some aspects of it that require minor to major improvements, if the 
paper will be published. Both the “good” and the “bad” regarding this 
article I present below, not in order of importance, but as they 
appear in the paper itself.
 
INTRODUCTION
This section is well organized, however, I suggest to better clarify 
the existing gap in the literature on this research field. In 
addition, the originality of the manuscript must be emphasized as well 
the study contribution to the knowledge.
 
LITERATURE REVIEW
The section is well organized. However, there are some parts of this 
section which needs some improvement. In particular, I suggest that a 
few more works are presented and/or referenced here. These must be (a) 
of high quality i.e. ABS 3-4 journals, and (b) as contemporary/new as 
possible.
Interesting sources are:
10.35940/ijeat.E1073.0785S319
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.046
10.1126/sciadv.1601063
10.1186/s40100-016-0056-7
 
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The section is well developed
 
RESULTS
This part is quite detailed and specific. The results are rented one 
by one, according to the logic and structure set in the introduction 
and literature review. I have identified no visible problems with it. 
On the contrary, results should be adequately discussed by comparing 
them with previous empirical findings.
 
CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIPONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Conclusions paragraphs need to be expanded and enriched with the main 
implications of the study on the managerial, theoretical points of 
view. Future research must be better emphasized

Author Response

Comment 1: Introduction. This section is well organized; however, I suggest to better clarify the existing gap in the literature on this research field. In addition, the originality of the manuscript must be emphasized as well the study contribution to the knowledge.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We add the contribution and significance of this study at the end of the introduction section, as follows:

“In previous studies, it was found that although research on agricultural carbon emissions mainly focuses on the factors affecting carbon emissions, little consideration is given to reducing carbon emissions by adjusting the scale of land. The mode of agricultural production under large-scale management is bound to be very different from that of small-scale peasants. The massive transfer of labor force to non-agricultural sectors and the outflow of cultivated land have led to changes in the scale of agricultural land management. This change leads to the re-combination and adjustment of production factors, which will inevitably have a significant influence on agricultural carbon emissions. In addition, whether expanding the planting area can reduce carbon emissions or not is still controversial. Therefore, the innovation of this paper is mainly reflected in two aspects. First, based on an analysis of the impact mechanism of land scale on carbon emissions, this paper tested the threshold effect of land scale on the carbon emissions from the planting industry. Second, different crops have different effects on carbon emissions due to their planting areas, input of production factors, and farming systems. Therefore, taking the three major grains in China (corn, wheat, and rice) as an example, this paper further discusses whether there are differences in the relationship between planting scale and carbon emission.”

Comment 2: The section is well organized. However, there are some parts of this section which needs some improvement. In particular, I suggest that a few more works are presented and/or referenced here. These must be (a) of high quality i.e., ABS 3-4 journals, and (b) as contemporary/new as possible.

Interesting sources are:

10.35940/ijeat.E1073.0785S319

10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.046

10.1126/sciadv.1601063

10.1186/s40100-016-0056-7

Response: We have added these citations in the revised manuscript. (e.g. [56][11][27][37])

Comment 3: RESULTS: This part is quite detailed and specific. The results are rented one by one, according to the logic and structure set in the introduction and literature review. I have identified no visible problems with it. On the contrary, results should be adequately discussed by comparing them with previous empirical findings.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. After drawing the empirical results of this study, we explain and support the conclusions of this study by citing eleven existing research findings.

Comment 4: Conclusions paragraphs need to be expanded and enriched with the main implications of the study on the managerial, theoretical points of view. Future research must be better emphasized.

Response: We are very grateful for your valuable instructive advices. At the end of the second point of policy implications, we propose different policy recommendations for corn, rice, and wheat, and give possible future research directions. Besides, we have added future research directions in the end.

“This paper only analyzes the impact mechanism of land scale on planting carbon emission from a macro perspective. In the future, farmers' level data can be further used to study the impact path of agricultural land management scale on agricultural carbon emission, so as to verify the robustness of this conclusion.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is now significantly improved and acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer1,

Thank you for your comments. Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.