Spatial Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Cultivated Land Productivity in a Large City: Case Study of Chengdu, Sichuan, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of this paper has significant practical value, with reasonable research design and methodological choices. The results analysis is relatively comprehensive, but there is considerable room for improvement in the research summary, depth of discussion, exploration of mechanisms, and language expression. The following questions and suggestions are raised:

(1) Definition of “large cities”: The title mentions “large cities”, but the paper does not define what constitutes a “large city.” The concept of “large cities” is not discussed in the text. Please clarify this term.

(2) Abstract: The abstract is overly lengthy and lacks fluency. It is recommended to condense further and streamline it.

(3) Citation format issue: On Line 51, the citation format of (Qianwen et al., 2017) seems problematic with the author's formatting. Please check this. Additionally, in the Land journal, citations in the text should be in numerical form, such as [1,2].

(4) Lines 55–74 analyze existing studies but fail to evaluate their relevance to or support for this paper. In particular, the concept of “cultivated land productivity” is not clearly explained, nor is the effectiveness of different methods for studying it.

(5) Introduction: The introduction does not adequately reflect the paper’s innovative aspects. What is the paper’s contribution to the existing knowledge system? What is its practical application value? Can the findings be generalized or applied to other contexts?

(6) In Lines 75–86, there should be a clear introduction of the overall analytical framework of the paper.

(7) In Section 2.2. Data Sources, while the data sources are diverse and broad, they are from different time periods. Would temporal discrepancies in the data significantly affect the results? Please provide further explanation of data reliability.

(8) In Section 2.3.1 Cultivated Land Productivity Evaluation Model, how did the authors account for crop rotation in their methodology?

(9) The term “3.3. Geodetector Analysis” (Line 289) seems inappropriate to describe the actual research content. The section essentially consists of a series of driving factor analyses, so the title should be revised accordingly.

(10) Results analysis: The “3. Results” section primarily describes the observed phenomena and provides qualitative explanations of influencing factors. It lacks deeper mechanistic analysis. The results and phenomena should be more thoroughly summarized, and the case study should highlight its general applicability.

(11) Discussion section: The discussion is too brief and should be expanded into an independent section. First, the paper does not sufficiently compare its results with existing studies, especially regarding the spatial patterns of cultivated land productivity and driving factors. Second, the discussion of dominant influencing factors should highlight differences from previous studies and use relevant theoretical mechanisms to explain these differences. Third, policy recommendations derived from the study do not adequately reflect the unique findings of this research. Suggestions should be further refined and made more actionable.

(12) The legends in the figures are too small and should be adjusted for better readability.

(13) On Line 440, “analysis” should be corrected to “analyze.”

Author Response

1. Definition of “large cities”: The title mentions “large cities”, but the paper does not define what constitutes a “large city.” The concept of “large cities” is not discussed in the text. Please clarify this term.

[Response] Thank you very much. The definition of a large city is added to the profile of the study area (section 2.1).

2. Abstract: The abstract is overly lengthy and lacks fluency. It is recommended to condense further and streamline it.

[Response] Thanks for your advice. The abstract has been adjusted to simplify both length and content.

3. Citation format issue: On Line 51, the citation format of (Qianwen et al., 2017) seems problematic with the author's formatting. Please check this. Additionally, in the Land journal, citations in the text should be in numerical form, such as [1,2].

[Response] Thank you very much. The references have been modified according to Land journal format requirements.

4. Lines 55–74 analyze existing studies but fail to evaluate their relevance to or support for this paper. In particular, the concept of “cultivated land productivity” is not clearly explained, nor is the effectiveness of different methods for studying it.

[Response] Thank you very much. In lines 49-54, a conceptual description of the productivity of cultivated land is added. In lines 68-72, the correlation between the existing research and the research in this paper is added.

5. Introduction: The introduction does not adequately reflect the paper’s innovative aspects. What is the paper’s contribution to the existing knowledge system? What is its practical application value? Can the findings be generalized or applied to other contexts?

[Response] Thanks for your advice. In the introduction, the main research content and related contributions of this paper are discussed in the 73-87 lines, and it is hoped that the research results can be extended to other areas for practical application.

6. In Lines 75–86, there should be a clear introduction of the overall analytical framework of the paper.

[Response] Thank you very much. In lines 77-82, there is an introduction to the overall analytical framework of the paper.

7. In Section 2.2 Data Sources, while the data sources are diverse and broad, they are from different time periods. Would temporal discrepancies in the data significantly affect the results? Please provide further explanation of data reliability.

[Response] Thanks for your advice. The research object of this paper is 2020, but due to the difficulty of many data sources, as well as the principle of accuracy and confidentiality of data, a small part of the data uses 2018 related data. For basic data such as the natural quality of cultivated land, similar years do not significantly affect the research results, and the data can meet the needs of the research.

8. In Section 2.3.1 Cultivated Land Productivity Evaluation Model, how did the authors account for crop rotation in their methodology?

[Response] Thank you very much. Crop rotation and reference crop conditions were considered in the study, and explanations of crop rotation were added in rows 145-150.

9. The term “3.3. Geodetector Analysis” (Line 289) seems inappropriate to describe the actual research content. The section essentially consists of a series of driving factor analyses, so the title should be revised accordingly.

[Response] Thanks for your advice. The title of section 3.3 has been changed to Driving factor analysis.

10. Results analysis: The “3. Results” section primarily describes the observed phenomena and provides qualitative explanations of influencing factors. It lacks deeper mechanistic analysis. The results and phenomena should be more thoroughly summarized, and the case study should highlight its general applicability.

[Response] Thank you very much. In the third chapter, the results of each section are explained to combine the results with the phenomena and make the research results more applicable.

11. Discussion section: The discussion is too brief and should be expanded into an independent section. First, the paper does not sufficiently compare its results with existing studies, especially regarding the spatial patterns of cultivated land productivity and driving factors. Second, the discussion of dominant influencing factors should highlight differences from previous studies and use relevant theoretical mechanisms to explain these differences. Third, policy recommendations derived from the study do not adequately reflect the unique findings of this research. Suggestions should be further refined and made more actionable.

[Response] Thanks for your advice. According to the suggestions of experts, the discussion is divided into a separate chapter, and the differences between the results of each study and the previous studies are added to explain the discussion content of each section, and the suggestions are more targeted and practical.

12. The legends in the figures are too small and should be adjusted for better readability.

[Response] Thank you very much. The figures and tables in the study have been adjusted and modified accordingly.

13. On Line 440, “analysis” should be corrected to “analyze.”

[Response] Thanks for your advice. “Analysis” have been modified to “analyze”.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer's comment and feedback in the attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Parts that could be improved for better quality and clarity there are many important points that should be clarified by the authors are provided below:

1. lack of a precise objective， lack of clarity as to the purpose for which this research was carried out.

[Response] Thanks for your advice. The introduction part has been modified, and the research content and goal of this paper are described in lines 73-87.

2. Clarification of the purpose of the studies would provide a clearer understanding of why this important study was carried out.

[Response] Thank you very much. The introduction adds 50-54 lines and 68-72 lines of the research significance of this paper to make people more clearly understand the importance of conducting this research.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title “Spatial Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of  Cultivated Land Productivity in Large Cities: A Case Study of Chengdu, Sichuan, China”

 Yuanli Liua,b, Qiang Liaoa , Zhouling Shaoa,b, Wenbo Gaoa,b, Jie Caoa,b, Chunyan Chena,b, Guitang Liaoc , Peng Hed 5 and Zhengyu Lina,b,

 

-        This paper correspond for scope of journal.

-        The title corresponds to the content of the paper. 

-        This study represents significant contribution for more advancing planning and management for using cultivated land and

preservation of existing areas and expansion of arable land in an environment of intensive development of urbanization and industrialization. in Chengdu in China The studies conducted a geographic detector analysis, calculated the degree of limitation of six main driving factors affecting the productivity of cultivated land in the study area, and obtained six degrees of limitation affecting the productivity of cultivated land, including soil bulk density, soil configuration, field slope, level of agronomic management, agricultural land flood control standard, and guaranteed irrigation rate.

 

-        This study have contribution in research of characteristics of spatial distribution of land, spatial agglomeration of cultivated land productivity, spatial differentiation of cultivated land productivity in Chengdu, analyze the characteristics in different regions, as well as the limiting factors of cultivated land productivity.Based on the analysis results of the limiting factors of cultivated land productivity in the study area, improvement measures are taken to improve the limiting factors of cultivated land productivity in the process of carrying out high-standard farmland construction and agricultural production, so as to further improve the productivity of cultivated land and alleviate the pressure of cultivated land protection and food security.

 

-        The significant contribution of the work is reflected in the improvement of data collection capabilities, further considering the characteristics of spatial and temporal variation of cropland productivity and influencing factors through a combination of time scale and spatial scale, and analyzing the mechanism of evolution, in order to provide more accurate countermeasures and suggestions for improving regional cropland productivity and ensuring food security.

                                                                               

-        The main question of paper addressed to comprehensive assessment of cultivated land productivity and its spatial variation in major urban areas (case study of Chengdu), by using cultivated land productivity evaluation model, geographical detector, limiting factor index model, and other methodologies, to  research and  identify  the primary constraints influencing cultivated land productivity differentiation,  directed  to provide sound theoretical support for regional improvement in cultivated land productivity and sustainable utilization of such resources

 

-        The aim of  paper is estimation of cultivated land productivity and its spatial variation in major urban areas, dentification of the primary constraints influencing cultivated land productivity differentiation and creatingstrategies to enhance cultivated land productivity

-        The aim of research clearly pointed out, but aim should the last paragraph of the Introduction chapter.

-        Key words are appropriate.

-        Material and  methods described clearly. Scientific methodology is applied correctly.

-        Results are clearly presented and discussed.

-        Tables, figures, pictures are clear.

-        Conclusions are written on the basis of research results.

-        Manuscript is acceptable after minor corrections.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Aim should the last paragraph of the Introduction chapter.

[Response] Thanks for your advice. The specific objectives of the study are included in the last paragraph of the introduction.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the concerns and suggestions previously raised, leading to substantial improvements in the manuscript.   I recommend this paper for publication.   However, prior to final acceptance, I suggest the authors consider the following points to further enhance the scientific rigor and overall presentation quality of the paper:

The term "48-line CLP" should be written in full when mentioned for the first time, with its abbreviation provided accordingly.   In contrast, the "50-line CLP" may remain abbreviated.

Ensure that the first letters of the titles in sections 3.3, 4.2, and 4.3 are capitalized.   Please review these sections thoroughly and make the necessary revisions.