Spatiotemporal Variation Characteristics of Ecosystem Carbon Storage in Henan Province and Future Multi-Scenario Simulation Prediction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors use the PLUS model to predict the future changes in land use and vegetation under different scenarios, and the InVEST model to calculate the carbon stock in Henan Province in the next thirty years under the corresponding scenarios. The authors did a great effort to study the spatiotemporal variation characteristics of ecosystem carbon storage in Henan Province. However, the manuscript in this version were not prepared well enough for publication. The discussion section and figures should be checked and revised carefully. More comments are as follows.

 

Basic comments:

1.     Land use change is crucial in the present paper. I think land use change should be listed in keywords, or even in the title.

2.     There are many little mistakes (both in English writing and scientific writing) in the manuscript, indicating the authors did not prepare the paper carefully. Some specific comments are listed below.

3.     Standard units should be used and consistent in the paper. Units were missing in some figures and tables in the manuscript.

4.     Figures in the manuscript are in very low resolution, which is not friendly to the readers. Furthermore, figures should be self-evident, the authors should check the captions and legends in all the figures (Figure 1 even had a wrong legend).

5.     English writing in this version of manuscript is poor, the manuscript needs a fully polish after revision.

Specific comments:

1.     Abstract: “dual-carbon strategy” is not a general word, please give a full explanation here.

2.     Introduction: “Since the large-scale planned economic construction in China in 1953 … for finding ways to reduce carbon emissions.” These sentences did not offer useful information and I recommend to delete them.

3.      “Until the late 1990s, with the development of 3S technology, mathematical models such as Soil mapping technology.” “3S” need an explanation here.

4.     There are many words, such as carbon reserves, carbon stock, carbon storage. Please check these words carefully. If these words share the same meaning, please use one instead of different words. If these words share different meanings, please tell their differences.

5.     “the PLUS- InVEST -Geodector model coupled by Mao Qifa”, should be “the PLUS- InVEST -Geodector model coupled by Mao”

6.     “year by year” should be “annually”

7.     “In order to enrich the research progress of carbon storage in Henan Province, and provide a basis for achieving carbon peak carbon balance, making scientific decisions on ecological security protection, land optimization and utilization, etc.” is not a complete sentence.

8.     Materials and methods: “square kilometers”, “between 31°23 '-36°22' north latitude and 110°21 '-116°39' east longitude”, “million mu” etc. These expressions are not standard in a scientific paper. Please check the problem throughout the manuscript.

9.     Figure 1: the legend in Fig. 1 is wrong. The figure must be altitude instead of carbon density.

10.   “2.3. research method” should be “2.3. Research method”

11.   “this study selected 11 driving factors for land use simulation, including elevation, slope, aspect, distance from highways, and distance from residential areas.” 11 driving factors need a detail description (only 5 driving factors were mentioned here, using a table should be reasonable), to show their names, units, resources, etc.

12.   Figure 2.: all the legends in the figure are without units.

13.   Figure 3.: The factors in Fig. 3 and Fig. 2 are different, please explain why?

14.   Table 1.: Please offer the units of carbon density.

15.   “SSP describes possible future social development scenarios without climate change”. SSP needs an explanation here instead of in Page 6.

16.   Result and Analysis: “it can be seen that the simulation effect of the model is better”, better than what? The actual land use data?

17.   “it can be seen that carbon storage in Henan Province is more distributed in red in the western and southern regions, and more in blue in the central and eastern regions.” Red and blue is not proper here, use high or low directly.

18.   Table 1.: Please offer the units of carbon storage.

19.   “From 2000 to 2010, as is showed in Fig.10, it can be seen that the overall land types in Henan Province were red during the period from 2000 to 2010, indicating that on thewhole, most land types showed an increasing trend, and the red color appeared in the central and northern parts of Henan Province. ” The same problem as 17.

20.   Discussion: Discussion is weak in this manuscript. Only two references were cited, which is highly inadequate. I recommend the authors should compare the results with other researches, and tell what is the progress of the present study. Almost half of the discussion is discussing the shortcomings, indicating the authors are not confident about their work.

21.   Conclusion: Conclusion was tedious and should be rewritten.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing in this version of manuscript is poor, the manuscript needs a fully polish after revision.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions, which are very helpful for us to improve the quality of our manuscripts. Taking into account all your comments and suggestions, we have revised our original draft point by point. The changes have been marked in red in the revised version. The details for our revision are provided as follows:

 

Response to Editor:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors use the PLUS model to predict the future changes in land use and vegetation under different scenarios, and the InVEST model to calculate the carbon stock in Henan Province in the next thirty years under the corresponding scenarios. The authors did a great effort to study the spatiotemporal variation characteristics of ecosystem carbon storage in Henan Province. However, the manuscript in this version were not prepared well enough for publication. The discussion section and figures should be checked and revised carefully. More comments are as follows.

 

Basic comments:

 

Q1.Land use change is crucial in the present paper. I think land use change should be listed in keywords, or even in the title.

Response: Thanks for your suggestions.I think your suggestion is correct and has been revised in the latest manuscript.

 

Q2.There are many little mistakes (both in English writing and scientific writing) in the manuscript, indicating the authors did not prepare the paper carefully. Some specific comments are listed below.

Response: I am very sorry that there are some small mistakes that affect your review. I have modified and checked the whole text according to your comments.

 

Q3.Standard units should be used and consistent in the paper. Units were missing in some figures and tables in the manuscript.

Response:Thank you for your careful suggestions, which have been revised in the latest manuscript.

 

Q4.Figures in the manuscript are in very low resolution, which is not friendly to the readers. Furthermore, figures should be self-evident, the authors should check the captions and legends in all the figures (Figure 1 even had a wrong legend).

Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have improved the resolution of the data and reanalyzed the full text.

 

Q5.English writing in this version of manuscript is poor, the manuscript needs a fully polish after revision.

Response: Thank you for your advice. This paper has been converted into English languange. Before we submitted the revision ", Ms. Lucy Li helped us to revise the English version. She majored in Science and Technology English 20 years ago with TEM-8 certificate.  She has been committed to language work all these years, and is highly recognized for her professionalism and seriousness in the industry.

 

Specific comments:

Q1. Abstract: “dual-carbon strategy” is not a general word, please give a full explanation here.

Response:Thank you for your question,the two-carbon strategy, carbon peaking and carbon neutrality, refers to striving to achieve carbon peaking by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. It is to advocate a green, environmentally friendly and low-carbon lifestyle.

 

Q2.Introduction: “Since the large-scale planned economic construction in China in 1953 … for finding ways to reduce carbon emissions.” These sentences did not offer useful information and I recommend to delete them.

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem, we have made the deletion in the latest manuscript.

 

Q3.“Until the late 1990s, with the development of 3S technology, mathematical models such as Soil mapping technology.” “3S” need an explanation here.

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem, we have explained the explanation in the latest manuscript.”3S technology (Remote Sensing Technology, Geographic Information System, Global Positioning System).”

 

Q4.There are many words, such as carbon reserves, carbon stock, carbon storage. Please check these words carefully. If these words share the same meaning, please use one instead of different words. If these words share different meanings, please tell their differences.

Response:Thank you for your question, these words all represent the meaning of carbon storage, has been agreed in the latest manuscript.

 

Q5.“the PLUS- InVEST -Geodector model coupled by Mao Qifa”, should be “the PLUS- InVEST -Geodector model coupled by Mao”

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem, which has been corrected in the latest manuscript.

 

Q6.“year by year” should be “annually”

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem, which has been corrected in the latest manuscript.

 

Q7.“In order to enrich the research progress of carbon storage in Henan Province, and provide a basis for achieving carbon peak carbon balance, making scientific decisions on ecological security protection, land optimization and utilization, etc.” is not a complete sentence.

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem, we are very sorry for such errors, and have revised the language in the latest manuscript.

 

Q8.Materials and methods: “square kilometers”, “between 31°23 '-36°22' north latitude and 110°21 '-116°39' east longitude”, “million mu” etc. These expressions are not standard in a scientific paper. Please check the problem throughout the manuscript.

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem. We are sorry for the error and have corrected it in the latest manuscript.

 

Q9.Figure 1: the legend in Fig. 1 is wrong. The figure must be altitude instead of carbon density.

Response:Thank you for your careful finding and pointing out this problem. We are sorry for this error and have revised it in the latest manuscript.

 

Q10.“2.3. research method” should be “2.3. Research method”

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem. We are sorry for the error and have corrected it in the latest manuscript.

 

Q11.“this study selected 11 driving factors for land use simulation, including elevation, slope, aspect, distance from highways, and distance from residential areas.” 11 driving factors need a detail description (only 5 driving factors were mentioned here, using a table should be reasonable), to show their names, units, resources, etc.

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem, it should be “11 driving factors such as elevation, slope, slope direction, distance from highway and distance from residential area were selected for land use simulation.”

 

Q12.Figure 2.: all the legends in the figure are without units.

Response:Thank you for your question. Here, factors such as Soil Oxygen content and Soil Workability are graded, so there are no units. Other factors are included in the latest manuscript.

 

Q13.Figure 3.: The factors in Fig. 3 and Fig. 2 are different, please explain why?

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem carefully. It should be the same factor here, which has been corrected in the latest manuscript.

 

Q14.Table 1.: Please offer the units of carbon density.

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem and have added units in the latest manuscript.

 

Q15.“SSP describes possible future social development scenarios without climate change”. SSP needs an explanation here instead of in Page 6.

Response:Thank you for your question, which has been explained in the latest manuscript(Lines 20-22, 9).

 

Q16.Result and Analysis: “it can be seen that the simulation effect of the model is better”, better than what? The actual land use data?

Response:Thank you for your question. Here it refers to the comparison between the land use map simulated by the model and the real land use map. It is known from the figure and Kappa coefficient that the model has better simulation effect.

 

Q17.“it can be seen that carbon storage in Henan Province is more distributed in red in the western and southern regions, and more in blue in the central and eastern regions.” Red and blue is not proper here, use high or low directly.

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem, which has been revised in the latest manuscript.

 

Q18.Table 1.: Please offer the units of carbon storage.

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem and have added units in the latest manuscript.

 

Q19.“From 2000 to 2010, as is showed in Fig.10, it can be seen that the overall land types in Henan Province were red during the period from 2000 to 2010, indicating that on thewhole, most land types showed an increasing trend, and the red color appeared in the central and northern parts of Henan Province. ” The same problem as 17.

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem, which has been revised in the latest manuscript.

 

Q20.Discussion: Discussion is weak in this manuscript. Only two references were cited, which is highly inadequate. I recommend the authors should compare the results with other researches, and tell what is the progress of the present study. Almost half of the discussion is discussing the shortcomings, indicating the authors are not confident about their work.

Response:Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added references to the latest manuscript, compared it with other people's research and carried out the overall linguistic polishing.

 

Q21.Conclusion: Conclusion was tedious and should be rewritten.

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem, we have condensed the conclusion in the latest manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing in this version of manuscript is poor, the manuscript needs a fully polish after revision.

Response: Thank you for your advice. This paper has been converted into English languange. Before we submitted the revision ", Ms. Lucy Li helped us to revise the English version. She majored in Science and Technology English 20 years ago with TEM-8 certificate.  She has been committed to language work all these years, and is highly recognized for her professionalism and seriousness in the industry.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this manuscript addresses spatiotemporal variation characteristics of ecosystem carbon storage in Henan Province and future multi-scenario simulation prediction. I reviewed this manuscript and provided the following comments for the authors.

1. The introduction should contain motivation, background information, significance, and study purpose. The motivation and significance are weaknesses. The introduction chapter should be improved. Moreover, the study purpose should be added at the end of this chapter.
2. Below each equation, I suggest using “where…” to replace “In the above equation,…” .
3. Figures 3 to 5 and 7 to 10 need to be clarified and these figures should be improved.
4. Each figure in the Results chapter should have a more detailed description.
5. The discussion chapter needs to be stronger. More references need to be found to discuss here to increase scientific sound.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions, which are very helpful for us to improve the quality of our manuscripts. Taking into account all your comments and suggestions, we have revised our original draft point by point. The changes have been marked in red in the revised version. The details for our revision are provided as follows:

 

Response to Editor:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this manuscript addresses spatiotemporal variation characteristics of ecosystem carbon storage in Henan Province and future multi-scenario simulation prediction. I reviewed this manuscript and provided the following comments for the authors.

 

Q1. The introduction should contain motivation, background information, significance, and study purpose. The motivation and significance are weaknesses. The introduction chapter should be improved. Moreover, the study purpose should be added at the end of this chapter.

Response:Thanks to your suggestions, we have strengthened the motivation, background information, meaning and added research purpose in the introduction to the latest manuscript.

 

Q2. Below each equation, I suggest using “where…” to replace “In the above

equation,…” .

Response:Thanks for your suggestion, we have revised it in the latest manuscript.

 

Q3. Figures 3 to 5 and 7 to 10 need to be clarified and these figures should be improved.

Response:Thank you for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have improved the resolution of the data and picture clarity, and re-analyzed the full text.

 

Q4. Each figure in the Results chapter should have a more detailed description.

Response:Thank you for your advice. We have refined this in the conclusion analysis section of the latest manuscript.

 

Q5. The discussion chapter needs to be stronger. More references need to be found to discuss here to increase scientific sound

Response:Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added references to the latest manuscript, compared it with other people's research and carried out the overall linguistic polishing.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Spatiotemporal variation characteristics of ecosystem carbon storage in Henan Province and future multi scenario simulation prediction

 

Minor revision is recommended for this submission

 

·         The manuscript presents an analysis of the spatiotemporal variation characteristics of ecosystem carbon storage in Henan Province, with a focus on land use and vegetation changes from 2000 to 2020. The study utilizes the PLUS model for predicting future land use and vegetation scenarios and the InVEST model for calculating carbon stocks in the province under different scenarios up to 2050. While the topic is relevant and the methodology appears appropriate, there are several critical points that need to be addressed for the manuscript to meet the standards for publication.

·         The abstract lacks clarity and conciseness. It should succinctly highlight the research objectives, methods, key findings, and implications.

·         The introduction should provide a more comprehensive background to set the stage for the study, including a brief review of relevant literature, and clearly state the research questions and objectives.

·         The manuscript mentions the use of the PLUS and InVEST models but lacks detailed information on the model parameters, assumptions, and validation processes. Providing this information is crucial for readers to assess the reliability of the findings.

·         The choice of the SSP (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) and RCP (Representative Concentration Pathways) scenarios needs further justification. Why were these scenarios selected, and what are the implications of using them for the study?

·         The results presented are relatively brief, lacking in-depth interpretation and discussion of the observed trends. Providing more context and discussing the implications of the findings are essential.

·         The manuscript should include a discussion on potential drivers behind the observed changes in land use, vegetation, and carbon stocks. Additionally, comparisons with existing studies or global trends would enhance the manuscript's robustness.

·          Figures and tables play a crucial role in conveying information. The manuscript should include high-quality figures that clearly illustrate the spatiotemporal changes and carbon stock variations in Henan Province. Ensure proper labeling and clarity in the presentation of results.

·         The manuscript needs significant improvement in language and writing style. Sentences are often convoluted, making it challenging to follow the narrative. A thorough proofreading and editing are necessary.

·         In conclusion, while the manuscript addresses an important topic, substantial revisions are needed to enhance clarity, provide methodological details, and offer a more comprehensive interpretation of results. Addressing these concerns will significantly strengthen the manuscript and contribute to the overall quality of the research presented.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions, which are very helpful for us to improve the quality of our manuscripts. Taking into account all your comments and suggestions, we have revised our original draft point by point. The changes have been marked in red in the revised version. The details for our revision are provided as follows:

 

Response to Editor:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Spatiotemporal variation characteristics of ecosystem carbon storage in Henan Province and future multi scenario simulation prediction

Minor revision is recommended for this submission

• The manuscript presents an analysis of the spatiotemporal variation characteristics of ecosystem carbon storage in Henan Province, with a focus on land use and vegetation changes from 2000 to 2020. The study utilizes the PLUS model for predicting future land use and vegetation scenarios and the InVEST model for calculating carbon stocks in the province under different scenarios up to 2050. While the topic is relevant and the methodology appears appropriate, there are several critical points that need to be addressed for the manuscript to meet the standards for publication.

 

• The abstract lacks clarity and conciseness. It should succinctly highlight the research objectives, methods, key findings, and implications.

Response:Thanks to your suggestions, we have simplified the abstract and strengthened the purpose, methodology, key findings and significance of the study.

 

• The introduction should provide a more comprehensive background to set the stage for the study, including a brief review of relevant literature, and clearly state the research questions and objectives.

Response:Thanks for your advice, we have strengthened the background part of the introduction and clearly stated the research question in the latest manuscript.

 

• The manuscript mentions the use of the PLUS and InVEST models but lacks detailed information on the model parameters, assumptions, and validation processes. Providing this information is crucial for readers to assess the reliability of the findings.

Response:Thank you for your question.The LEAS module parameters of the PLUS model in this paper are set as follows: the number of regression trees is 20, the sampling rate is 0.01, and the mTry is 13. Parameters of CA module of PLUS model in this paper are set as follows: neighborhood size is 3, patch generation threshold is 0.2, expansion coefficient and seed percentage are 0.1.

 

• The choice of the SSP (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) and RCP (Representative Concentration Pathways) scenarios needs further justification. Why were these scenarios selected, and what are the implications of using them for the study?

Response:Thank you for your question.The Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) describes the possible future development of society without the impact of climate change or climate policies.The Representative Concentration Pathway(RCP) represents a representative concentration path of human influence in future scenarios.This paper selects these three scenarios to represent the three different scenarios of human pursuing ecological protection and normal development and pursuing economic development, and compares and analyzes the changes of carbon stocks from the two extremes and normal development.

 

• The results presented are relatively brief, lacking in-depth interpretation and discussion of the observed trends. Providing more context and discussing the implications of the findings are essential.

Response:Thanks to your suggestion, we have added a comparative analysis with other studies and discussed the implications of the study in the latest manuscript.

 

• The manuscript should include a discussion on potential drivers behind the observed changes in land use, vegetation, and carbon stocks. Additionally, comparisons with existing studies or global trends would enhance the manuscript's robustness.

Response:Thanks to your suggestion, we have added a comparative analysis with other studies and discussed the drivers in Part 4.

 

• Figures and tables play a crucial role in conveying information. The manuscript should include high-quality figures that clearly illustrate the spatiotemporal changes and carbon stock variations in Henan Province. Ensure proper labeling and clarity in the presentation of results.

Response:Thank you for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have improved the resolution of the data and picture clarity, and re-analyzed the full text.

 

• The manuscript needs significant improvement in language and writing style. Sentences are often convoluted, making it challenging to follow the narrative. A thorough proofreading and editing are necessary.

Response:I'm sorry that there are so many problems with the sentences in this manuscript. We have already polished the whole language of the manuscript.

 

• In conclusion, while the manuscript addresses an important topic, substantial revisions are needed to enhance clarity, provide methodological details, and offer a more comprehensive interpretation of results. Addressing these concerns will significantly strengthen the manuscript and contribute to the overall quality of the research presented.

Response: Thanks for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have improved the resolution of the data and the clarity of the picture, and supplemented some details.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Response: Thank you for your advice. This paper has been converted into English languange. Before we submitted the revision ", Ms. Lucy Li helped us to revise the English version. She majored in Science and Technology English 20 years ago with TEM-8 certificate.  She has been committed to language work all these years, and is highly recognized for her professionalism and seriousness in the industry.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well write and have scientific merit, but need some little corrections to improve reading and to understand the experiment. 

So, the specific comments can be found in the doc annexed

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions, which are very helpful for us to improve the quality of our manuscripts. Taking into account all your comments and suggestions, we have revised our original draft point by point. The changes have been marked in red in the revised version. The details for our revision are provided as follows:

 

Response to Editor:

 

Q1.Give a brief explanation in parentheses about this initiative"carbon peaking and carbon neutrality"

Response:Thank you for your question,the two-carbon strategy, carbon peaking and carbon neutrality, refers to striving to achieve carbon peaking by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. It is to advocate a green, environmentally friendly and low-carbon lifestyle.

 

Q2.”PLUS InVEST”Do these acronyms have any meaning? If so, I suggest putting them in parentheses only the first time they are cited in the text.

Response:Thank you for your advice.These are Integrated Assessment Model of Ecosystem Services and Trade-Offs (InVEST) and Patch-generating land use simulation(PLUS).Additional explanations have been given in the latest manuscript.

 

Q3.”construction land.”In accordance with work objective, the adopted models were used to predict future changes in land use and vegetation. And, in the results, the expression "construction land" it means the predictions of changes predicted in the model?If yes or not, I suggest specifying more in the abctract what kind the "construction lands" are you means.This information is importante to answer your objective.

Response:Thank you very much for your question. The construction Land here is divided according to "Classification Standards for Land Use Status" (GB/T 21010-2017), which specifically represents the land built for economy in the manuscript.

 

Q4.”SSP1-RCP2.6”What scenario is this? Remember that the article summary must be understood in its full context, without the need to look for explanations in the material and methods.

Response:Thank you for your question.The Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) describes the possible future development of society without the impact of climate change or climate policies.The Representative Concentration Pathway(RCP) represents a representative concentration path of human influence in future scenarios.

 

Q5.”Carbon storage”Avoid using the same words as the title.Using different words in the title and keywords increases the chances of your article being found and cited after the publication.

Response:Thank you for your advice.We have revised it in the latest manuscript.

 

Q6.”Introduction” The introduction is good, but the paragraphs are too long. I suggest breaking the text into smaller paragraphs.

Response:Thanks for your suggestions and approval, we have processed the sections in the latest manuscript.

 

Q7.”CA ”What does this acronym mean? the first citation of an acronym in the text must have its meaning informed.

Response:Thanks for your suggestion, we have made the deletion and explanation of such words in the latest manuscript.Such as PLUS-InVEST(Patch-generating land use simulation-Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs),CLUE-S (Conversion of Land Use and its Effects at Small Region Extent),Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6(CMIP6),Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP),Representative Concentration Pathway(RCP).

 

Q8.”General Situation of Henan”There is a lack of information on soil content, mainly soil texture. The clay content may explain variations in soil carbon stock.

Response:Thanks for your suggestion, we have added the ground case to the latest manuscript.

 

Q9.”The terrain is high in the west and low in the east, between 31°23 '-36°22' north latitude and 110°21 '-116°39' east longitude (As shown in Fig.1).”It is not possible to clearly visualize altitude data in figure 1. Carbon stock data is being presented in the figure.

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem. The figure should be elevation data, which has been corrected in the latest manuscript.

 

Q10.”The carbon storage section includes four basic carbon pools: aboveground carbon pool, underground carbon pool, soil carbon pool, and dead organic carbon pool. ”I suggest putting a bibliographical reference on these compartments.

Response:Thank you for pointing out the problem.This classification is derived from the InVEST model.

 

Q11.”2.3.3. 3,2,1. 4’I suggest separating paragraphs, they are too long.

Response:Thank you for your suggestion, we have made the segmentation reduction in the latest manuscript.

 

Q12.”4.Conclusion”This text sounds more like an opinion on the subject than the results of the work. I suggest removing.

Response:Thank you for your suggestion, We have rewritten and simplified this part of the conclusion.

 

Q13.” SSP1-RCP2.6 ” I suggest avoiding the use of acronyms in the conclusions section.

Response:Thanks to your suggestion, we have recast the abbreviation of the conclusion in the manuscript.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the original draft, and I think the quality is improved but still inadequate. There are some points need further revision.

 

Specific comments:

1.       The authors prefer “carbon storage”. But “keywords: Carbon reserve” “3.3. Carbon Stocks in Henan Province”, still use different words.

2.       keywords: LUCC. LUCC is stand for land use/cover change. I think “land use change” is better here.

3.       “CO2” should be “CO₂”.

4.       Figure 3. Elevation is different with other factors, with a star but without a circle.

5.       Figure 8. The legend for carbon density should be uniform (e.g. 0-30000 Mg hm²), to get a better view for readers.

6.       Scale bar in figures should also be uniform (e.g. 0-500 or 0-1000 km) and 0-760 km should be modified.

7.       The authors offered new figures, but the figures should be checked carefully. The words in figures should use “Time New Romans”. I strongly recommend the authors should check all the figures to make sure they are self-evident.

8.       Figure 10: Changes in land use. How can the land use can be divided as “decrease, unchanged, increase” in a map?

9.       As I mentioned last time, 11 driving factors need a detailed description. Especially, the authors replied “Soil Oxygen content and Soil Workability are graded, so there are no units”. What did these two driving factors mean? How did two driving factors calculate? In addition, railway, provincial road, national highway, highway. These factors should have units and please tell what’s their difference.

10.    “It can be seen from Figures 2 and 3 that slope direction, distance from cities, distance from cities, highways and roads contribute significantly to carbon storage of various types of land.” I cannot see the conclusion based on Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 is “Factors affecting land use in Henan Province”. Figure 3 is “Correlation degree diagram of driving forces of influencing factors”. Please offer a correlation analysis between carbon storage and 11 driving factors.

11.    3.1. PLUS model verification: “the InVEST model is used to simulate land use in 2020”. I was confused which model is used to simulate land use in 2020.

12.    “the PLUS model has better simulation effect”. I mentioned this before, better than what? The authors replied “It is known from the figure and Kappa coefficient that the model has better simulation effect.”. But how can a simulated land use be better than a real one?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Still need polish.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Thank you again for your comments and suggestions, which are very helpful for us to improve the quality of our manuscripts. Taking into account your comments and suggestions, we have revised the manuscript point by point. These changes have been marked in red in the revised version. Details of our amendments are as follows:

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the original draft, and I think the quality is improved but still inadequate. There are some points need further revision.

 

Specific comments:

1. The authors prefer “carbon storage”. But “keywords: Carbon reserve” “3.3. Carbon Stocks in Henan Province”, still use different words.

Response: Thank you very much for your questions. First of all, the expression of carbon storage in “3.3. Carbon Stocks in Henan Province” is our negligence, which has been corrected in the latest manuscript. In addition, different expressions of carbon storage in the keywords are adopted because we have listened to the opinions of another reviewer, which is said to increase the probability of being searched. Thank you for pointing out this problem, and we have revised it in the paper. (page 10/line 43)

 

2. keywords: LUCC. LUCC is stand for land use/cover change. I think “land use change” is better here.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We searched it again and found that "land use change" is indeed better and easier to retrieve than "LUCC". We have changed it in the latest manuscript, thank you again! (page 1/line 33)

 

3. “CO2” should be “CO₂”.

Response: Thank you for pointing out the problem, which has been corrected in the latest manuscript, thank you again! (page 1/line 36, 37)

 

4. Figure 3. Elevation is different with other factors, with a star but without a circle.

Response: Thank you very much for your question, the correlation coefficient plot here is almost white when it is around 0, so it does not show circles. The * sign is added here to assist the color to distinguish the correlation.

 

5. Figure 8. The legend for carbon density should be uniform (e.g. 0-30000 Mg hm²), to get a better view for readers.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing this out. Figure 8 shows the carbon storage of the four carbon pools. They have different ranges of values, but we're using the same ribbon, which might confuse you. In order to make it easier for the reader to understand, we have represented the four carbon pools with four color bands, respectively, and changed the value range according to your suggestion. Thank you again for pointing out the problem！

 

6. Scale bar in figures should also be uniform (e.g. 0-500 or 0-1000 km) and 0-760 km should be modified.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. According to your suggestion, we have unified the scale of 0-1000km in the drawings of the latest manuscript.

 

7. The authors offered new figures, but the figures should be checked carefully. The words in figures should use “Time New Romans”. I strongly recommend the authors should check all the figures to make sure they are self-evident.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. We have rechecked all the figures and unified the “Time New Romans” font. Thank you again for pointing out the problem!

 

8. Figure 10: Changes in land use. How can the land use can be divided as “decrease, unchanged, increase” in a map?

Response: Thank you very much for your question. Figure 10 shows changes in land use and carbon stocks from 2000-2010 and 2010-2020, respectively. ​The “increase, decrease and unchanged” are based on subtracting different land classes and carbon stock values. For the land use change map, we make deductions based on different land types. For example, we subtracted farmland land in 2010 from farmland land in 2000 to obtain a map of overall land use change. Thank you again for your questions!

 

9. As I mentioned last time, 11 driving factors need a detailed description. Especially, the authors replied “Soil Oxygen content and Soil Workability are graded, so there are no units”. What did these two driving factors mean? How did two driving factors calculate? In addition, railway, provincial road, national highway, highway. These factors should have units and please tell what’s their difference.

Response: Thank you very much for your question. Soil oxygen is a gas necessary for the survival and metabolism of microorganisms in soil. Soil Workability refers to the property of soil suitable for cultivation. The soil physical conditions required for crop growth and development are called soil Workability. ​The two data belong to the soil data category, and are from the Data Center of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (http://www.resdc.cn)​.

As for how to calculate these two indicators you proposed, through literature review and based on our understanding, Soil oxygen can be obtained through one-dimensional vertical distribution model OS(z) of soil oxygen saturation, field measurement and other methods. soil Workability can be obtained by measuring other physical properties such as soil water content in the field.

The railway is a line along which a train can travel on a steel rail that connects two places.

The provincial road refers to the roads with political and economic significance of the province (autonomous region, municipality directly under the Central Government), connecting the central cities and major economic zones in the province, and the important inter-provincial roads that are not national roads.

 The ​national highways are those that connect important cities and transportation hubs, are built with the support of state financial funds, and are constructed, maintained and managed by specialized agencies approved by the Ministry of Communications.

The highway is a major road, especially one connecting a town.

Thank you again for your questions!

 

10. “It can be seen from Figures 2 and 3 that slope direction, distance from cities, distance from cities, highways and roads contribute significantly to carbon storage of various types of land.” I cannot see the conclusion based on Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 is “Factors affecting land use in Henan Province”. Figure 3 is “Correlation degree diagram of driving forces of influencing factors”. Please offer a correlation analysis between carbon storage and 11 driving factors.

Response: Thank you very much for your question. We draw this conclusion based on the conclusions of relevant literatures, which may not be obvious from the figure, which may cause confusion to you. From the figure alone, there is a certain correlation among all factors and no one is more significant than the other. So, after discussion, we decided that "as can be seen from figures 2 and 3, slope direction, distance from the city, distance from the city, highways and roads contribute significantly to the carbon storage of all types of land." Change to "There is some correlation between the different drivers". Please rest assured that the revised sentence will not affect the results of the land use simulation in this article. As for the question of who the 11 drivers you pointed out relate to, we apologize for the oversight here, they relate to land use, not carbon storage. Thank you for pointing out this problem, and we have revised it in the paper.

 

11. 3.1. PLUS, model verification: “the InVEST model is used to simulate land use in 2020”. I was confused which model is used to simulate land use in 2020.

Response: Thank you for pointing out the problem, we are very sorry for the confusion caused to you. This is our mistake and the PLUS model should be used to simulate land use. Thank you for pointing out this problem, and we have revised it in the paper. (page 6/line 41)

 

12. “the PLUS model has better simulation effect”. I mentioned this before, better than what? The authors replied “It is known from the figure and Kappa coefficient that the model has better simulation effect.”. But how can a simulated land use be better than a real one?

Response: Thank you very much for your question. My unclear expression may have caused your confusion. What we want to express is that the land use simulated by the plus model is very close to the real land use map both from the comparison chart and kappa coefficient. So, this paper adopts PLUS model to simulate land use. We have corrected the “better simulation effect” to "good simulation effect" after talking about it. Thank you again for your reminder! (page 6/line 48)

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Still need polish.

Response: Thank you for your advice. This paper has been translated into English. Before we submitted the revision, Miss Lucy Li helped us to revise the grammar again in detail. She majored in Science and Technology English 20 years ago with TEM-8 certificate.  She has been committed to language work all these years, and is highly recognized for her professionalism and seriousness in the industry. ​We have completed the language revision and polishing of the manuscript as suggested by you. Thank you again for your advice!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the revised manuscript and found this version has been improved following my suggestions. I only have a minor suggestion for authors. Usually, notes of the first word (where) below each equation should use lower case, such as, “where Kappa is the simulation accuracy index…”.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Thank you again for your careful comments and suggestions, which are very helpful for us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the problem you pointed out and marked it in red in the latest manuscript.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the revised manuscript and found this version has been improved following my suggestions. I only have a minor suggestion for authors. Usually, notes of the first word (where) below each equation should use lower case, such as, “where Kappa is the simulation accuracy index…”.

Response: Thank you very much for your reminder, which is a very useful suggestion, and we have revised it in the latest manuscript according to your suggestion. Thank you again!