Adaptive Grazing and Land Use Coupling in Arid Pastoral China: Insights from Sunan County

Comments 1: [Title and abstract

 Suggested correction: The title is long. I recommend shortening it while maintaining focus: “Adaptive Grazing and Land Use Coupling in Arid Pastoral China: Insights from Sunan County”

The abstract is well-structured, but: Add quantitative clarity: Example: instead of "75% observed degradation," it could read: "75% (15 out of 20) observed degradation..."

Reduce technical terms without losing precision for greater readability for a multidisciplinary audience.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out these issues. We have revised them one by one according to your suggestions and incorporated the changes into the manuscript. [Title (l. 2–3); Abstract (l. 29–30) ]

Comments 2: [Introduction

 Well contextualized and with an adequate literature review.

 Suggestion: Explicitly include the literature gaps at the end of the second paragraph (l. 49–58), to reinforce the gap.

 Minor correction: Improve the transition between global experiences and the Chinese case (l. 56–60).]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out these issues. We have revised them one by one according to your suggestions and incorporated the changes into the manuscript. [(l. 60–68)]

Comments 3: [Methodology

The explanation of CCDM and LUDD is detailed and rigorous.

 Important methodological suggestion: include a diagram of the CCDM model applied to the study (L and B systems) for greater visual clarity.

Justify the choice of 14 indicators: why these and not others? Was there any sensitivity analysis?

Indicate whether cross-validation, robustness tests, or multicollinearity analysis were applied to calculate the entropy weights.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out these issues. We have supplemented the manuscript with a schematic diagram illustrating the application of the L system and B system within the CCDM model, and introduced the Leave-One-Out (LOO) bias test to verify the rationality and robustness of the 14 selected indicators. Given that this study relies on limited statistical data from a specific region, eliminating variables due to multicollinearity could weaken the indicator system’s ability to fully reflect the actual governance process. Moreover, since the entropy method is based on the degree of dispersion and, in principle, allows for a certain level of correlation among variables, multicollinearity testing was not conducted in this paper. Once again, we sincerely thank you for your rigorous and professional approach during the review process. [（1）Diagram of the CCDM model (l. 412)； （2）Indicator robustness test (l. 309–331)]

Comments 4: [Results

Well explained and with informative graphics (although Figures 3 and 4 could improve their resolution).

 Add temporal degradation/recovery maps to visualize spatial change beyond pivot tables.

Include discussion of outliers or atypical cases among interviewees (e.g., those who do not perceive improvements after external grazing).]

Response 4: Thank you for your comments regarding the figures and the analysis of interview materials. We have improved the resolution of several figures in the results section and supplemented the analysis of the interview content accordingly. We also fully understand the value of your suggestion to include temporal degradation/recovery maps for spatial visualization. However, due to limitations in the resolution and interpretation accuracy of annual remote sensing data in the study area, it is currently difficult to produce reliable and continuous spatial imagery at the required scale and time series for this research. Additionally, considering the number of figures and the overall length of the manuscript, we have chosen to present the data primarily through pivot analyses and comparative charts of representative years to ensure clarity of information. We will explore more spatial expression formats in future research. Thank you again for your valuable suggestion and understanding. [Herders’ Perceptions of Climate Stress and Grassland Responses  (l. 591–644)]

Comments 5: [Discussion

In-depth and with current references.

Add comparative reflections: How does this system compare with similar practices in Africa, Latin America, or Central Asia?

 Subsection 4.2 is valuable, but dense. I recommend dividing it into two subsections: a) Institutional Disarticulation and b) Resilience of Community Networks.]

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out these two issues. In response to your suggestions, we have incorporated research findings from similar practices in Africa and Central Asia to deepen the discussion and dialogue in our study. During the revision process, we also split the original Section 4.2 into two relatively independent parts to enhance the structure and logical clarity of the argument. We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback once again. [Expanded Discussion content (l. 736–769)]

Comments 6: [Conclusions

 Clear, relevant, with well-formulated implications.

Recommendation: Include a final paragraph with implications for specific public policy: What should the local/national government do?

Formal and Ethical Aspects

 Complies with ethical standards (no conflict of interest declared, implicit informed consent).

Formal correction: Review the format of the references (some URLs are incomplete or outdated).

Verify the uniform use of acronyms and abbreviations (e.g., LUCC, LUDD, CCDM) throughout the text.]

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added a section at the end of the paper discussing the potential policy implications of this study, along with a statement on compliance with ethical standards. The relevant ethical review documents have also been submitted to the editorial office. In addition, we have confirmed that all URL links in the manuscript are accessible via the Microsoft Edge browser and conducted a thorough check to standardize the use of technical abbreviations such as LUCC, LUDD, and CCDM, ensuring consistency and accuracy in terminology. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your meticulous guidance in improving the quality of the manuscript. [Proposed implications (l. 849–861)]

Comments 1: [Line 67: Please try to avoid expressions such as "it" and "there be" with unclear subjects in the paper.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out these issues. We have revised them one by one according to your suggestions and incorporated the changes into the manuscript. [(l. 76)]

Comments 2: Line 153: Please indicate the specific location of Minghua Township in Figure 1.]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out this issue. We have added the boundary of Minghua Township in Figure 1 to enhance the spatial orientation and informational completeness of the illustration. [(l. 168)]

Comments 3: [Line 205 and 215: (1) The number of respondents in the main text is inconsistent with that in Table 1. (2) The research area is large but only has over 20 respondents. Please further explain the representativeness of the respondents, such as whether the sample size is sufficient and whether the area where the respondents are located is representative.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out the omission in our wording. We have corrected the error regarding the number of interviewees in the manuscript and have added an explanation in the revised version about the representativeness of the 20 herders interviewed and the rationale behind their selection. This aims to enhance the explanatory power and credibility of the study. Once again, we sincerely thank you for your meticulous review and guidance. [ (l. 222~233)]

Comments 4: [Line 236 and 238: The variable symbol for the single land use dynamic degree in the main text is inconsistent with that in the formula.]

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out our oversight. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and made the necessary corrections. [(l. 262)]

Comments 5: [Line 257: Please add a dedicated section in the results part for analyzing data from the borrowed pasture system.]

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings in the manuscript. We have added a detailed analysis of the herding-by-loan system in the results section to further enrich the study and enhance the completeness of the discussion. [(l. 491~549)]

Comments 6: [Line 275: Please provide the positive and negative attributes of each indicator.]

Response 6: Thank you for your correction. We have clearly indicated the positive or negative orientation of each indicator in the manuscript to enhance the clarity and accuracy of the indicator system. [(l. 289~298)]

Comments 7: [Line 277: Please introduce the specific meaning of "Grazing pressure index".]

Response 7: Thank you for raising this issue. We have provided a detailed explanation of the meaning and calculation method of the livestock carrying pressure index below Table 2 to help readers better understand it. [(l. 306~308)]

Comments 8: [Line 279: Please clarify whether the measurement of the land use system uses the single land use dynamic degree, the comprehensive land use dynamic degree, or other forms.]

Response 8: Thank you for raising this issue. To more comprehensively reflect the dynamic changes in the local land use system, the L system incorporates both the single land use dynamic degree indicators for each land category and the comprehensive land use dynamic degree. Based on this, we applied the entropy method for weighting, and the resulting weights were used in the coupling coordination degree calculation with the B system. This approach aims to balance both category-specific and overall changes to ensure the scientific rigor and completeness of the analysis. [(l. 333~344)]

Comments 9: [Line 390: (1) The subgraph number should be before the subgraph name, and the subgraph name in the graph should include the period. (2) The same color in the four subgraphs should represent the same numerical value for the convenience of readers.]

Response 9: Thank you for your suggestion to use the same color to represent the same values in the heatmap. We did attempt to apply a unified color scheme for multiple categorical values as proposed. However, due to the large number of value levels, this approach resulted in an overly complex visualization, reducing both aesthetics and readability. Therefore, this study retains the gradient color scheme based on continuous value changes to balance data differentiation with visual appeal. At the same time, we have adjusted the figure numbering and titles according to your suggestion to further enhance the logical flow and readability of the illustrations. Thank you again for your thoughtful advice. [(l. 455)]

Comments 10: [Line 447: Please add an analysis of the coupling coordination degree in the main text.]

Response 10: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added an analysis of the coupling coordination degree in the manuscript to further strengthen the study's discussion. [(l. 573~590)]

Comments 11: [Line 470: Please provide a complete analysis of the data in Table 6.]

Response 11: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added an analysis of the data in Table 6 to improve the completeness of this section. [(l. 591~641)]

Comments 12: [Line 472: There are too many textual descriptions in the discussion section. Please add some statistical charts and illustrations to explain the driving forces and mechanisms further.]

Response 12: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a table in the discussion section to help readers better follow the line of reasoning. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your thorough review and valuable feedback. [(l. 668)]

Comments 13: [Line 615~623: This section seems to have little relevance to the topic of the paper.]

Response 13: Thank you for raising this question. The content in lines 615–623 pertains to a research direction I am currently pursuing. For the sake of structural coherence, I wish to retain certain elements in the manuscript as a way to provide continuity and a foundation for future research. I appreciate your understanding and support.

Comments 14: [Line 625: In the paper, land use classification products were directly used instead of remote sensing images.]

Response 14: Thank you for raising this issue. In the revised manuscript, we have added a detailed description of the land use classification products, including data sources, classification methods, and accuracy assessment, to further improve the relevant content. [(l. 200~214)]

Comments 1: [However, the manuscript has important limitations that need to be addressed before its eventual publication. The most critical one concerns the insufficient description of the remote sensing data used. Although it is mentioned that the land use and land cover maps were obtained from a dataset developed by Wuhan University, the authors do not clearly specify which satellites, sensors or processing methodologies were used to generate this data. Fundamental information, such as the sensors involved, temporal and spatial resolutions, classification methods, map accuracy and possible pre-processing, are missing. The format presented is valid, but for a more consistent and technical reading of the article, it is important that the authors include in the text a paragraph indicating which datasets were used, at least.]

Response 1: Thank you for raising this issue. In the revised manuscript, we have added a detailed description of the land use classification products, including data sources, classification methods, and accuracy assessment, to further improve the relevant content. [(l. 200~214)]

Comments 2: [This weakness is directly related to a second relevant problem: the low reproducibility of the study. Although the formulas and mathematical procedures are well described and theoretically allow the replication of the CCDM model and LUDD calculations, the lack of detailed information on the data used — both spatial and socioeconomic — is a problem. Essential data, such as official local government statistical records used in modeling the external pasture system, are not publicly accessible, which restricts validation by other researchers. In addition, there is no provision of scripts, codes or complementary materials that could assist in replicating the analyses performed. It is important that in section 4.3. Limitations and Prospects, the authors acknowledge this limitation.]

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. Regarding the acquisition of data related to off-site herding-by-loan, it is indeed necessary to present an introduction letter or research request to the Sunan County Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Service Center, as the data is semi-public. Currently, the center is working on developing an online database, and in the future, relevant news, data, and materials will be gradually made public. We have added an explanation of this limitation in Section 4.3 of the revised manuscript. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your thorough review and valuable feedback. [(l. 796~803)]

Comments 1: [Conceptual Consistency

The terms “adaptive capacity” and “resilience” appear to be used somewhat interchangeably. Clarify their usage to reflect their distinct meanings in socio-ecological literature.]

Response 1: Thank you to the reviewer for the valuable suggestions regarding terminology usage. In accordance with your comments, I have supplemented and clarified the different meanings of “adaptive capacity” and “resilience” in the context of social-ecological system research in the relevant parts of the manuscript, to ensure conceptual consistency and academic rigor in the use of terminology. Once again, thank you for your careful review and guidance. [ (l. 147–159) ]

Comments 2: [Table 3

Consider adding a brief footnote to clarify why some indicators are deemed less robust, even if the explanation appears in the text.]

Response 2: Thank you to the reviewer for the detailed suggestions regarding Table 3. In response to your comments, I have added a brief footnote below the table to explain the reasons why certain indicators are considered to have lower robustness, in order to enhance the clarity and coherence of the table. Thank you for your valuable guidance in improving the manuscript. [(l. 355–360)]

Comments 3: [Limitations

The limitations section could be expanded with a sentence on the scalability of the CCDM model to other arid regions outside China (e.g., Mongolia or North Africa), including potential methodological or institutional challenges.]

Response 3: Thank you to the reviewer for the suggestion to elaborate on the study's limitations. In response to your comments, I have added new content in the “Research Limitations” section to discuss the feasibility of applying the CCDM model to other arid regions beyond China (such as Mongolia or North Africa), and briefly highlighted the potential methodological and institutional challenges that may arise. I sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback in improving the manuscript. [(l. 889–903)]

Comments 4: [Academic Language

Overall excellent, though the phrase “it is worth noting that” appears twice in close proximity (e.g., Section 3.3). Consider varying phrasing to improve flow.]

Response 4: Thank you to the reviewer for the detailed suggestions regarding language expression. In accordance with your comments, I have revised the relevant sentences to enhance the diversity of expression as well as the overall fluency and professionalism of the language. I greatly appreciate your attention to and guidance on the language quality of the manuscript.