Spatiotemporal Variation and Prediction of Carbon Storage in Terrestrial Ecosystems at Multiple Development Stages in Beijing City Based on the Plus and Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs Models
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors This manuscript needs a substantial revision to enhance the scitific soundness and logical expression. My concerns were listed as follows,
1)Generally, the length of this manuscript should be moderately reduced. For instance, to delete the unnecessary descriptions, figures or tables. The authors should carefully consider keeping the most important tables and figures and adjusting the addressing of the results accordingly.
2)Table 2 shows the multiple datasets at varying resolution. Then how to perform data assimilation and convert them into the 30-m resolution datasets? Did the authors simply resampled all the datasets with 30-m resolution? If they did so, then the results may be problematic. If they developed an applicable method, that will be good. I did not find any convincing description in lines 198-203.
3)In Table 3, it is not necessary to keep such a long decimal of the data. In fact, a three-decimal place is sufficient since this study is an empirical estimate of carbon storage rather than an accurate measurement.
4)Figure 3(a) is redundant because Table 6 provides detailed information on the dynamics of LULC change in Beijing. In Figure 3(b), the legend is too small to clear show the LU category. The authors should keep a mutual lengend with bigger size for all the sub-figures.
5)Similar to Figure 3(a), Figures 4 and 11 are redundant.
6)In the beginning of line 526, (Figure 8) must be deleted.
7)In discussion section, the overall description of innovations and new findings of this study should be highlighted. The authors should elaborate on how the data and methodology adopted in this study can facilitate carbon sequestration practice for Chinese cities. In addition, the major limitations and future research implications of this study should be discussed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.请看附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFind attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
See attached document
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript employs the patch-generating land use simulation model (PLUS) to simulate land use and land cover dynamics for the Beijing metropolitan area between 1992 and 2022 under four scenarios: (1) Uncontrolled Scenario (UCS), (2) Natural Evolution Scenario (NES), (3) Strict Control Scenario (SCS), and (4) Reforestation and Wetland Expansion Scenario (RWES). Additionally, the manuscript utilizes the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model to assess and forecast ecosystem carbon storage for 2035 under each scenario. While the manuscript presents interesting results, I have some concerns before recommending it for publication in the Journal of Land. I would appreciate it if the authors could address the following points.
1. The introduction section is a bit wordy and includes unnecessary information. I suggest restructuring this section and highlighting your research problems, novelty (importance), and methods using What? Why? How? framework. Literature review and background studies should support your research objectives and strategies.
2. Authors must justify the suitability of the PLUS and InVest models for this research. Further explanation is required based on the specific materials and study parameters.
3. What is the purpose of Table 1?
4. The parameters of the study should be clearly defined in section two (materials and methodology). The research should specify the parameters of land use/land cover and the metrics used for the study.
5. Remove redundant and unnecessary text (lines 159-169).
6. Correct the reference in section 2.2. Data.
7. Figure 2 needs to be explained in detail in section 2.3 (research framework), especially stages 1 and 2, and how the scenarios are set for the simulation and forecast.
8. How is the Uncontrolled Scenario used as a baseline for further policy evaluations? What are the main parameters for this assessment?
9. Please merge all three sections of Table 3 using bold titles.
10. Please regenerate Figure 14. It is unclear.
11. Please keep constancy in the presentation and numbering format for sections.
12. Correction and improvement are essential for writing. A grammar check must be done before resubmission. Simplify the complex sentences.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAuthors need to declare the use of AI-generated texts. The manuscript contains many complex sentences, making it difficult for readers to understand. I recommend using a simpler, more standard, and scientific style of writing to engage the readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFind attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
N/A
Author Response
Comments 1: The authors rely on multiple data sources for LULC and carbon density values. While these sources are generally reliable, the authors should discuss potential uncertainties or limitations associated with the data, especially in the context of historical LULC data and carbon stock estimations.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion! Indeed, errors in predicting carbon storage and LULC changes arise not only from insufficient resolution of LULC data but also from inaccuracies in how the dataset represents various LULC patterns. Upon comparing satellite imagery with land use detection data, we found that the LULC data used in our study failed to accurately identify LULC types such as forest land, arable land, and construction land on the outskirts of Beijing. This imprecision, including the omission of some forest patches, contributed to errors in the future land use simulation. We have added a discussion of this uncertainty in the Discussion section and look forward to addressing this issue in future research. The revised content is as follows (lines 691-703):
It is important to acknowledge that this study has certain limitations. First, due to constraints in data availability, the land use data is not highly precise, and the resolution of the driving factors is not sufficiently high, leading to some degree of error in the prediction results. This LULC data also lacks sufficient distinction between forest, cropland, unused land, and construction land in the urban fringe areas of Beijing. For example, it does not accurately identify patches of forest within areas of cropland, or it continues to classify land that will be reclaimed as cropland or restored to forest as construction or unused land. This leads to the data not clearly presenting the true pattern of forest in Beijing's urban fringe areas, resulting in errors when the cellular automata model predicts the future pattern of LULC. To address this, we have referred to other studies and conducted a kappa analysis to keep the error within an acceptable range. Future research could explore more methods of data acquisition to improve the accuracy and resolution of the data.
Comments 2: The authors should provide more details on how Kappa coefficient is interpreted.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion! Based on your guidance, we have added content on how to interpret the Kappa value. The revised content is as follows (lines 315-321):
In the formula, Kappa represents the simulation coefficient value, which ranges from 0 to 1; Po represents the proportion of correct simulations; Pc represents the proportion of correct predictions under random model conditions; Pp represents the proportion of correct predictions under ideal conditions. The closer the Kappa value is to 1, the more consistent the model's predictions are with the actual situation, indicating a higher accuracy of the model. Generally, a Kappa coefficient greater than 0.8 is considered to indicate that the model is reliable.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe mauscript employs Plus and InVEST Models to study spatiotemporal variation and predict the carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems in Beijing. I reviewed this research study before and I see the authors could successfully address most of the comments. The manuscript is now ready to publish in the Journal of Land.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate your approval and recommendation for the publication of this manuscript. In response to the comments from other reviewers and the academic editor, we have conducted further revisions and refinements to the manuscript, aiming to present it in an enhanced form to our academic peers.
