How Do Digitalization and Scale Influence Agricultural Carbon Emission Reduction: Evidence from Jiangsu, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The paper has been comprehensively revised in response to the reviewers' comments, and most of the issues have been addressed. It is recommended that the paper be considered for publication after making the following minor revisions: 1.Figure 4.1 should be placed below its corresponding analysis content. 2.It is suggested that Figure A1 be moved to the main text. This will allow the spatial heterogeneity analysis to be conducted in conjunction with the spatial map, making the analysis more intuitive.

Author Response

Reply to the review comments on land-3875338 review (1) paper

Overall opinion: The paper has been comprehensively revised in response to the reviewers' comments, and most of the issues have been addressed. It is recommended that the paper be considered for publication after making the following minor revisions: 1.Figure 4.1 should be placed below its corresponding analysis content. 2.It is suggested that Figure A1 be moved to the main text. This will allow the spatial heterogeneity analysis to be conducted in conjunction with the spatial map, making the analysis more intuitive.

Overall response: We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their recognition and affirmation of the comprehensive revision of our original manuscript land-3781818. We unanimously believe that your suggestions have greatly helped improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully discussed and reflected on the two suggestions you have put forward this time, and have revised the manuscript one by one according to your suggestions. The specific response is as follows:

 

Comments 1: Figure 4.1 should be placed below its corresponding analysis content

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer's viewpoint and express our understanding of it. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we attempted to place Figure 1 (original Figure 4.1) separately in the corresponding analysis section. However, in the later stage, considering that this part of the analysis content is divided into a paragraph as a whole, we placed Figure 1 above the analysis content so that readers can first have a clear and intuitive understanding of the main trends of our research variables, and then further understand them in conjunction with the analysis content. Thank you again for your suggestion and for reviewing our manuscript. If you think there are still any issues, please contact us.

 

Comments 2: It is suggested that Figure A1 be moved to the main text. This will allow the spatial heterogeneity analysis to be conducted in conjunction with the spatial map, making the analysis more intuitive.

Response 2: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion. We have made corresponding revisions to the article based on this suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have organized the sample distribution map and data survey route table in Figure A1 and moved it to [3.3 Regional Selection and Data Sources section, page 11]. We have also optimized it using GIS and adjusted it to the current d and e figures in Figure 2, in order to present the survey sample distribution and data collection situation of this study more clearly and intuitively. In addition, we have drawn an overview map of the research regions in China, the Yangtze River Delta, and Jiangsu Province, which is now the a, b, and c figures in Figure 2, in order to better demonstrate the spatial relationships of the research regions and support the view of spatial heterogeneity.

 

The above is our response after careful discussion and consideration of the reviewer's comments. Thank you to the editor and reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We unanimously agree that the overall quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved after making revisions based on the reviewer's suggestions. If there are any other areas that need to be modified and discussed, you are also welcome to point them out. Thank you for your understanding and guidance (please note: the yellow highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 1, the green highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 2, the blue highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 3, and the purple highlight is the modification content of  Reviewer 4. The revision mode is for polishing the modification content).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript is still not well-written.  I maintain that the submitted article is characterized by a chaotic, unusual arrangement of content, often redundant, which makes it difficult to read. There are very long sentences, for example line 14: Based on the data of 14 three follow-up surveys from 2022 to 2024 to quantify the level of moderate scale operation in 15 Jiangsu China, We verified that the boosting effect of carbon-constrained moderate scale manage- 16 ment (MSM) in agricultural digital emission reduction, and the intermediary and regulation mech- 17 anism of agricultural internal and external scale management. Or from line 18 to 24. Or from line 51 to 59…And specially from line 559: based on the data analysis of the above empirical results, we find that the purpose 559 of this study is to explore the relationship among land management scale, moderate 560 scale management level with carbon constraints and agricultural carbon emission reduc- 561 tion, find the boosting effect of moderate scale management level with carbon con- 562 straints, show the intermediary and regulation mechanism of large-scale management in 563 agricultural digital emission reduction, and provide some reference for the development 564 of agricultural digital emission reduction and moderate scale management in China. It is recommended to change it to more concise phrases.

I'm not an English expert, but I think the text needs to be revised in this regard.

I don't understand the meaning of the different colors used to color the sentences in the article.

Often repeated phrase: This study draws lessons from former scholars.

Results and discussion. Where are the data? As with any article, the results should appear and there should be discussion with other articles on the topic. This is unacceptable.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 I think the text needs to be revised in this regard

Author Response

Reply to the review comments on land-3875338 review (2) paper

Overall opinion: Overall, the manuscript is still not well written I maintain that the submitted article is characterized by a chaotic, unusual arrangement of content, often redundant, which makes it difficult to read.

Overall response: We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for their overall suggestions and feedback on our manuscript, and unanimously believe that their comments are the best motivation for us. We have streamlined and refined the overall language and text of the manuscript based on the suggestions of the reviewers, and have made revisions to the manuscript one by one according to your suggestions. The specific response is as follows:

 

Comments 1: There are very long sentences, for example line 14: Based on the data of 14 three follow-up surveys from 2022 to 2024 to quantify the level of moderate scale operation in 15 Jiangsu China, We verified that the boosting effect of carbon-constrained moderate scale manage- 16 ment (MSM) in agricultural digital emission reduction, and the intermediary and regulation mech- 17 anism of agricultural internal and external scale management.

Response 1: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and based on this suggestion, we have refined and revised the corresponding content in the manuscript. Simplify and extract the "Based on the data of three follow-up surveys from 2022 to 2024 to quantify the level of moderate scale operation in Jiangsu China, We verified that the boosting effect of carbon constrained moderate scale management (MSM) in agricultural digital emission reduction, and the intermediate and regulatory mechanism of agricultural internal and external scale management Newly revised as "Based on a series of three longitudinal surveys conducted by the Digital Countryside Research Institute at Nanjing Agricultural University from 2022 to 2024 in Jiangsu Province, China, a total of 258 valid questions from the price and when industry was collected. Methods such as member checking and audit trail were employed to ensure data reliability and validity. Using economic approaches including Tobit, mediation, and moderation models, the study quantified the Scale Management Level (SML), examine the mechanism pathways of digital emissions reduction in a scaled environment, further demonstrate the impact of scale management on digital emissions reduction, and verify the mediating and moderating effects of internal and external scale management. ” And highlight the modified content in green highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 2: Or from line 18 to 24

Response 2: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and based on this suggestion, we have refined and revised the corresponding content in the manuscript. Simplify and extract the "We found that: (1) Calculated DEA model, the scale of agricultural land in Jiangsu showed an" invested S "trend with MSM and an" invested W "trend with the overall agricultural carbon emission efficiency (ACEE), and the highest agricultural carbon emission efficiency is 0.855 in the moderate scale range of 20-36.667 hm2; (2) Tobit model showed that digital technology (DTE) has a sign. Significant inhibitory effect on ACEE (p<10%), and the boosting effect of moderate scale management with carbon constraints is studied from the whole and the part perspective We found that: (1) Calculated by DEA model, the scale of agricultural land in Jiangsu showed an "invested S" trend with SML and an "invested W" trend with the overall Agricultural Green Production Efficiency (AGPE), and the highest agricultural carbon emission efficiency is 0.855 in the moderate scale range of 20-36.667 hm2. (2) The Tobit model results indicate that Network Platform Employment (NPE) significantly promotes carbon reduction (p<1%). But their square terms exhibit an invested U-shape relationship with agricultural green production efficiency (p<1%). And in the short term, the scale management level has a significant negative impact on AGPE (p<5%), especially on the carbon reduction of online platforms And highlight the modified content in green highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 3: Or from line 51 to 59

Response 3: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and based on this suggestion, we have refined and revised the corresponding content in the manuscript. Simplify and extract the abstract section on page 2 of the manuscript, However, the environmental problems caused by agricultural non agricultural and non food, intensive and large-scale production and operational activities have gone through several impacts on the green and low-carbon transformation of agriculture, resulting in the synergistic effect of agricultural carbon sequestration and digital development (Guo et al., 2025; Crippa et al., 2022) [5-6], and there is an invested U-shape relationship between grain yield and soy area of land. At the agricultural scale and agricultural low-carbon development level (Zheng Zhihao et al., 2024; Li et al., 2022) [7-8], various factors have attacked the pressure of agricultural carbon emission reduction (Guo Yi et al., 2022) [9] However, environmental issues arising from non agricultural, non grain orientation, and intensive large-scale production pose serious challenges to the green and low-carbon transformation of agriculture. These practices affect the synergy between agricultural carbon sequestration and digital development [5-6], and result in an invested U-shape relationship between grain yield and soy area, as well as between farm size and the level of agricultural low-carbon development [7]. Collectively, these factors examine the pressure on agricultural carbon emission reduction [9]. "and highlight the revised content in green highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 4: And specially from line 559: based on the data analysis of the above empirical results, we find that the purpose 559 of this study is to explore the relationship among land management scale, moderate 560 scale management level with carbon constraints and agricultural carbon emission reduc- 561 tion, find the boosting effect of moderate scale management levelwith carbon con- 562 straints, show the intermediary and regulation mechanism of large-scale management in 563 agricultural digital emission reduction, and provide some reference for the development 564 of agricultural digital emission reduction and moderate scale management in China. It is recommended to change it to more concise phrases.

Response 4: Response 4: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and have refined and revised the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Regarding Article 4 Simplified and refined in the Results and Discussion section, page 13, from the original manuscript's "Based on the data analysis of the above empirical results, we found that the purpose of this study is to explore the relationship at land management scale, moderate scale management level with carbon constraints and agricultural carbon emissionreduction, find the boosting effect of moderate scale management level with carbon constraints, show the intermediate and regulatory mechanism of large-scale management in agricultural digital emission reduction, and provide some references for the development. Agricultural digital emission reduction and moderate scale management in China We employ a framework of scale management to analyze digital emission reduction mechanisms, specifically assessing the influence of management intensity on digital emission reduction, and revealing the mediating and moderating effects of internal and external scale operations. The specific findings are detailed below.

 

Comments 5: I'm not an English expert, but I think the text needs to be revised in this regard.

Response 5: We fully agree with the reviewer's point of view, which is a very important suggestion. Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. Our team members have optimized the language and wording of this manuscript multiple times, and have invited language experts from Southeast University (a 985 university) to polish and revise it to ensure that the wording of the manuscript is as accurate, beautiful, concise, and simplified as possible. The corresponding content is prominently displayed in the newly revised manuscript using the 'revision mode'.

 

Comments 6: I don't understand the meaning of the different colors used to color the sentences in the article.

Response 6: We appreciate the reviewer's point of view, which indeed needs clarification. Due to the fact that our manuscript land-3875338 is our second submission to your journal (original manuscript number: land-3781818), we have made revisions to each item based on your initial feedback. Therefore, we have marked it with a "green highlight" in the text to provide a more intuitive view of the corresponding changes. The content highlighted with other highlights in the article is the item by item modification by other reviewers, and the content modified by the "revision mode" in the article is the content that we independently modified, updated, andpolished. The above color annotations are highlighted in accordance with the suggestions of your journal, making it clearer and more convenient for editors and reviewers to conduct secondary reviews.

 

Comments 7: Frequently repeated phrase: This study draws lessons from former scholars

Response 7: We appreciate the reviewer's viewpoint and express our understanding of it. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have simplified and adjusted similar repetitive phrases in the article to ensure that it is more concise and can significantly and clearly present the research topic and results. The corresponding content is prominently displayed in the newly revised manuscript using the 'revision mode'.

 

Comments 8: Results and discussion. Where is the data? As with any article, the results should appear and there should be discussion with other articles on the topic. This is unacceptable.

Response 8: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have supplemented the results and discussion section with data, and integrated parts four and five of the manuscript to ensure that the research results can be presented intuitively. And based on the results of existing research, we will further expand and supplement the unreasonable areas. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

The above is our response after careful discussion and consideration of the reviewer's comments. Thank you to the editor and reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We unanimously agree that the overall quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved after making revisions based on the reviewer's suggestions. If there are any other areas that need to be modified and discussed, you are also welcome to point them out. Thank you for your understanding and guidance (please note: the yellow highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 1, the green highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 2, the blue highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 3, and the purple highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 4. The revision mode is for polishing the modification content).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- It is necessary to emphasise the novelty of the research, i.e. linking digitisation, volume management and emissions reduction simultaneously.

- The three hypotheses (H1–H3) are well formulated, but the formulation of the effects is confusing. For example, digital empowerment is described as "inhibiting efficiency", while the underlying goal is to reduce emissions. Needs rewording for clarity.

- Conceptual framework
Figure 2.1 is crucial but visually unclear. A graphical improvement and a clear division between mediating and moderating variables are needed.

- Methodology
The SBM-DEA model is justified, but a more detailed explanation of why this variant is more suitable than standard DEA should be included.

- The construction of the digital empowerment index (DRE, DTE, NTE) is innovative, but a discussion on the validation of the index should be added.

- Results
It is necessary to explain certain things in more detail (eg digital technology shows a negative effect on efficiency). A deeper explanation is needed: is the reason a transitional phase, regional differences or measurement?

Author Response

Reply to the review comments on land-3875338 review (3) paper

Overall response: We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for providing highly constructive revision suggestions for our manuscript. We unanimously believe that your suggestions have greatly helped improve the quality of our manuscript. All of your suggestions have been carefully discussed and considered by us, and the manuscript has been revised one by one based on your suggestions. The specific response is as follows:

 

Comments 1: It is necessary to emphasise the novelty of the research, i.e. linking digitisation, volume management and emissions reduction simultaneously.

Response 1: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and based on this suggestion, we have refined and revised the corresponding content in the manuscript. We are in manuscript 1 The last paragraph of the Introduction section, page 3, adds an emphasis on the innovation of research. Originally, this paragraph mainly introduced the potential contributions and innovations of this study. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have added a logical connection between digitization, scaling up, and carbon reduction in this paragraph, further highlighting the intrinsic connections between the main variables of this study. And highlight the modified content prominently in blue in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 2: The three hypotheses (H1–H3) are well formulated, but the formulation of the effects is confusing. For example, digital empowerment is described as "inhibiting efficiency", while the underlying goal is to reduce emissions. Needs rewording for clarity.

Response 2: Thank you for the reviewer's recognition of our hypothesis expression and the clarification of the corresponding effect ambiguity. We believe this is a very important suggestion, and based on the reviewer's suggestions, we have re examined and redefined the expression of the hypothesis here. In Article 2.2 In the Research Hypothesis section, page 5, clarify the internal logic between digitization, scaling up, and carbon reduction, and further articulate the research content we want to express. We greatly appreciate the reviewer's suggestions. The revised content has been highlighted in blue highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 3: [Conceptual framework] Figure 2.1 is critical but visually uncleared. A graphic improvement and a clear division between mediating and moderating variables are needed

Response 3: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and based on this suggestion, we have refined and revised the corresponding content in the manuscript. In Article 2.1 In the Theoretical Framework Analysis section, page 4, we have made adjustments to the path representations of mediation and moderation pathways based on the suggestions of the reviewers. In addition, we have reconsidered the main research variables and the intended research content of this study, adjusted the research framework, and made corresponding modifications to the analysis content below in conjunction with the new research framework. The revised content has been highlighted in blue highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 4: [Methodology] The SBM-DEA model is justified, but a more detailed explanation of why this variant is more suitable than standard DEA should be included.

Response 4: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and based on this suggestion, we have refined and revised the corresponding content in the manuscript. In Article 3.1.1 In the SBM-DEA model of unexpected output section, page 6, based on the reviewer's suggestions, we have added why we chose the SBM-DEA model instead of the DEA model to ensure that readers can understand the rationality and reliability of our choice of this variant DEA model. The revised content has been highlighted in blue highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 5: The construction of the digital empowerment index (DRE, DTE, NTE) is innovative, but a discussion on the validation of the index should be added.

Response 5: Thank you to the reviewer for recognizing the innovation of our digital empowerment indicator construction and for proposing suggestions to increase discussions on index validation. We believe this is a very important suggestion, and based on the reviewer's suggestions, we have made revisions to the corresponding sections. In the [Table 3.6 Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Main Variables section, page 12], we conducted descriptive statistical analysis on various variable indicators from the perspectives of minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation, and median. We also supplemented and modified the textual analysis content above the table, adding processing methods and steps for each variable indicator to enhance the rationality and reliability of data processing. The revised content has been highlighted in blue highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 6: [Results] It is necessary to explain certain things in more detail (eg digital technology shows a negative effect on efficiency). A deeper explanation is needed: is the reason a transitional phase, regional differences or measures?

Response 6: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and based on this suggestion, we have refined and revised the corresponding content in the manuscript. Add a discussion on the possible reasons why digital technology may increase agricultural carbon emissions in the context of scaling up in the Impact of digital empowerment to agricultural green production efficiency section on page 14. The revised content has been highlighted in blue highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

The above is our response after careful discussion and consideration of the reviewer's comments. Thank you to the editor and reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We unanimously agree that the overall quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved after making revisions based on the reviewer's suggestions. If there are any other areas that need to be modified and discussed, you are also welcome to point them out. Thank you for your understanding and guidance (please note: the yellow highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 1, the green highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 2, the blue highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 3, and the purple highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 4. The revision mode is for polishing the modification content).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title of the manuscript: Study on Scale Regulation Mechanism and Path of Agricultural Digital Carbon Emission Reduction-Based on Jiangsu Evidence

Manuscript ID: land-3875338-peer-review-v1

This study investigates the scaling mechanism and carbon emission reduction of digital agriculture in China. Despite the authors' efforts, this paper faces some problems. Addressing the following comments will strengthen this paper:

General comments

1. Please start captions and titles of all Figures and Tables with 1, 2, 3,... and avoid naming them as "Table 2.1, or Figure 3.1. ",...
2. Please specify a higher resolution of Figure A1. Add the north symbol, geographic coordinates, and legend to the map.
3. Please add the study questionnaire in the attachments section.

Abstract

4. Page 1, Lines 14-17: "Based on the data of three follow-up surveys from 2022 to 2024 to quantify the level of moderate scale operation in Jiangsu China, We verified that the boosting effect of carbon-constrained moderate scale management (MSM) in agricultural digital emission reduction, and the intermediary and regulation mechanism of agricultural internal and external scale management." In this sentence, you briefly mentioned the methodology and then went on to the results. Please provide these sentences separately. Also, please explain in the methodology section who the survey was based on? What was the sample size? How was the validity and reliability assessed?
5. Please add a sentence to the abstract section explaining how the data from this study was analyzed.
6. Page 1, Lines 31-32: " Finally, we provided suggestions and measures for the digital, large-scale and low-carbon development of agriculture in China and even in the world." Please explain your most important solution here instead of this sentence.

Introduction

7. Why did you write the references in parentheses and number them in the text? Please cite the references according to the journal format.
8. Page 3, Lines 102-109: "We found that, firstly, most of the existing literature studies digitalization and low carbonization, digitalization and scale, or scale and low carbonization. and there are few studies linking the three; Second, most of the research only analyzes and discusses the scale operation, and rarely explores the influence mechanism and path of "moderate scale operation" on agricultural carbon emission reduction; Third, most of the existing studies use DEA model to measure the scale operation level, but less about the moderate scale operation level of agriculture, and even less about the moderate scale operation level of agriculture under low-carbon constraints." Please revise this section and clearly explain what the study gap is in terms of theoretical and methodological literature. When referring to previous studies, please also reference multiple studies to identify which studies have what shortcomings. Also, please do not use pronouns such as "we/our/us" throughout the paper.
9. Page 3, Lines 114-116: "The potential marginal contributions of this study were as follows: first, innovatively design the measurement method of agricultural moderate scale operation level, and bring "carbon" into the measurement range of moderate scale operation level". What was your innovative design in this methodology? Did you create a special design or use new variables that did not exist in previous studies? Please state the innovation clearly.
10. Page 3, Lines 125-129: "These were helpful for China to better control the scale of moderate-scale agricultural operation, achieve effective carbon reduction under both economic and green benefits, and provide scientific reference for promoting moderate-scale agricultural operation and formulating effective carbon emission reduction measures." This sentence is appropriate for the conclusion section, not the introduction section. Please move this section to the conclusion section where it is appropriate.
11. Please state the purpose of the study clearly at the end of the introduction.

Literature review

12. Please change the number of Figure 2.1 to “Figure 1” and explain which studies this framework is derived from.
13. Page 4, Lines 139-165: "Based on the Figure 2. 1, we established the theoretical basis of this study as follows: Digital empowerment elements include data elements, digital technology and network platform. First, digital empowerment can act on agricultural carbon emission efficiency through the innovation of digital technology, so as to realize effective emission reduction of agricultural digital, and realize effective use of technology in this process, thus improving technology utilization efficiency; Second, the digital empowerment act on the internal scale operation of agriculture, and realize the synchronous operation of digitalization and scale through the impact effect of digital technology, thus affecting the internal scale operation of agriculture....". The authors provided a conceptual framework for the theoretical foundations of this study, but it is not clear what background these theoretical foundations are based on? This conceptual framework cannot be relied upon without reference to existing theory and theories. Each of the links presented in this framework must be supported by theoretical foundations to have scientific validity. Please strengthen this section by adding background information.
14. Also, please replace the figure related to the theoretical framework with a clearer one so that the text inside the boxes is clearer.

Methodology

15. Please indicate the number of all formulas with Eq, for example Formula 1 (Eq 1). Also, cite the number of all formulas within the text to make it clear what content and explanation each formula has. Without citing the formula numbers, confusion has been created in the presentation of the methodology section.
16. Please clarify the input and output indicators in Table 3.2. For example, agriculture can be considered both an input and an output. You should specify exactly which indicators measure inputs and which indicators measure outputs.
17. Also, please clarify in Table 3.2 what the difference is between "Indicator type" and "Specific indicators".
18. The authors did not provide an explanation regarding "Expected output" and "Unexpected output". Please provide examples of both and refer to these as sub-indicators in Table 3.2.
19. Table 3.6, Figure 4.1, Table 4.1, Table 4.2, Table 4.3, Table 4.4, Table 4.5, Table 4.6, and their explanations should be moved to the Results section. These tables and figures are the main findings of your study, so they should be described in the Results section, not in the Methodology section.

Results

20. Page 17, Lines 559-565: "Based on the data analysis of the above empirical results, we find that the purpose of this study is to explore the relationship among land management scale, moderate scale management level with carbon constraints and agricultural carbon emission reduction, find the boosting effect of moderate scale management level with carbon constraints, show the intermediary and regulation mechanism of large-scale management in agricultural digital emission reduction, and provide some reference for the development of agricultural digital emission reduction and moderate scale management in China." This section needs to be revised grammatically. Various objectives are presented in a vague manner that lacks the necessary clarity.
21. Page 17, Lines 573-575: "According to the research findings (2), DTE can effectively and significantly inhibit ACEE, and the robustness test of three methods, namely reducing sample size, replacing explanatory variables and shortening research period, is basically valid, that is, assuming H1 part is valid." How was the validity of the DTE method assessed? Please provide an explanation in this regard.
22. In the title of this section, the authors wrote "Results and Discussion" but did not provide any discussion. In this section, please compare and contrast the findings of your study with the findings of other studies and provide a more in-depth interpretation of the findings. Also, please provide a separate Results and Discussion section.

Conclusion

23. It is unclear what the implications and contributions of this study to theoretical and methodological knowledge are. Please strengthen the conclusion section by adding the implications of this study in terms of theoretical and methodological literature.

Author Response

Reply to the review comments on land-3875338 review (4) paper

Overall opinion: This study investigates the scaling mechanism and carbon emission reduction of digital agriculture in China. Despite the authors' efforts, this paper faces some problems. Addressing the following comments will strengthen this paper:

Overall response: We sincerely thank Reviewer 4 for providing highly constructive revision suggestions for our manuscript. We unanimously believe that your suggestions have greatly helped improve the quality of our manuscript. All of your suggestions have been carefully discussed and considered by us, and the manuscript has been revised one by one based on your suggestions. The specific response is as follows:

 

【General comments】

Comments 1: Please start captions and titles of all Figures and Tables with 1, 2, 3,... and avoid naming them as "Table 2.1, or Figure 3.1. ",...

Response 1: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. We have renumbered the figures and tables in the manuscript, starting from 1, 2, 3, etc., to indicate the titles of the figures and tables, and will no longer include annotations similar to those in Table 2.1 or Figure 3.1. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 2: Please specify a higher resolution of Figure A1. Add the north symbol, geographic coordinates, and legend to the map.

Response 2: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. We have modified Figure d in Figure 2 (original Figure A1.) by adding symbols, coordinates, legends, etc. through GIS, and improving the resolution of the image to ensure its clarity. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 3: Please add the study questionnaire in the attachments section

Response 3: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have added the main section on the relevant variables in the survey questionnaire in Appendix B. Original Survey questionnaire, page 21. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

 

【Abstract】

Comments 4: Page 1, Lines 14-17: "Based on the data of three follow-up surveys from 2022 to 2024 to quantify the level of moderate scale operation in Jiangsu China, we verified that the boosting effect of carbon constrained moderate scale management (MSM) in agricultural digital emission reduction, and the intermediate and regulatory mechanism of agricultural internal and external scale management In this sentence, you briefly mentioned the methodology and then went on to the results. Please provide these sentences separately. Also, please explain in the methodology section who the survey was based on?  What was the sample size?  How was the validity and reliability assessed?

Response 4: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. In this section of the abstract, we will explain the survey subjects of the data source, as well as the number of valid questionnaires obtained, to supplement the validity and reliability of the data evaluation. In addition, based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we will elaborate on this section separately to ensure that the methods and results become independent sentences. In the Abstract section of the manuscript, page 1, it is specifically revised as follows: "Based on a series of three longitudinal surveys conducted by the Digital Countryside Research Institute at Nanjing Agricultural University from 2022 to 2024 in Jiangsu Province, China, a total of 258 valid questions from the rice and when industry was collected. Methods such as member checking and audit trail were employed to ensure data reliability and validity. Using economic approaches includes Tobit, media, and moderation models, the study quantity. Fighting the Scale Management Level (SML), examine the mechanism pathways of digital emissions reduction in a scaled environment, further demonstrate the impact of scale management on digital emissions reduction, and verify the mediating and moderating effects of internal and external scale management. ” The revised content has been highlighted in green highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 5: Please add a sentence to the abstract section explaining how the data from this study was analyzed.

Response 5: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. In the Abstract section of the manuscript, page 1, we have added "Using economic approaches including Tobit, mediation, and moderation models, the study quantified the Scale Management Level (SML), examined the mechanism pathways of digital emissions reduction in a scaled environment, further demonstrated the impact of scale management on digital emissions reduction, and verified the mediation and moderation effects of internal and external scale management." to illustrate the model methods used to analyze the data required for this study. The revised content has been highlighted in green highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 6: Page 1, Lines 31-32: "Finally, we provided suggestions and measures for the digital, large-scale, and low-carbon development of agriculture in China and even in the world." Please explain your most important solution here against this sentence

Response 6: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. In the Abstract section of the manuscript, page 1, we have translated the content into specific solutions based on the reviewer's suggestions. The specific modification is: "Finally, we suggest controlling the scale of land management logically and developing moderate agricultural scale management according to local conditions. Enhance the digital literature and agricultural machinery training of scale entities, while inspiring the improvement of organizational level and social service innovation, and logically reducing labor and mechanism inputs, in order to standardize the digital emission reduction effect of agriculture under the background of scale." The purple highlight has been prominently marked in the newly revised manuscript. Revise the content.

 

 

【Introduction】

Comments 7: Why did you write the references in parents and number them in the text?  Please cite the references according to the journal format.

Response 7: Thank you for the important point raised by the reviewer on our manuscript. Based on the reviewer's suggestions, we carefully checked the reference section in the manuscript body and strictly compared it with the reference formats of Land journal and MDPI, checked the correct citation format of journal references, and made revisions one by one. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 8: Page 3, Lines 102-109: "We found that, firstly, most of the existing literature studies are digital and low carbon, or scale and low carbon. And there are few studies linking the three; secondly, most of the research only analyzes and discusses the scale operation, and rarely explores the influence mechanism and path of" moderate scale operation "on agricultural carbon emission reduction; thirdly, most of the existing studies use DEA models to measure the scale operation. Level, but less about the moderate scale operation level of agriculture, and even less about the moderate scale operation level of agriculture under low carbon constraints Please revise this section and clearly explain what the study gap is in terms of theoretical and methodological literature. When referring to previous studies, please also reference multiple studies to identify which studies have what shortcomings. Also, please do not use pronouns such as "we/our/us" throughout the paper.

Response 8: Thank you for the reviewer's point of view. We understand and support it. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have reorganized this section and checked for grammar, vocabulary, and logical issues. In [Article 1] Introduction section, page 3: Conduct a more in-depth analysis from three aspects: theoretical basis, research methods, and data sources by referring to more literature. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 9: Page 3, Lines 114-116: "The potential marginal contributions of this study were as follows: First, innovatively design the measurement method of agricultural moderate scale operation level, and bring" carbon "into the measurement range of moderate scale operation level. What was your innovative design in this methodology?  Did you create a special design or use new variables that did not exist in previous studies?  Please state the innovation clearly.

Response 9: We appreciate the reviewer's point of view. Based on the reviewer's suggestions, we have added the innovative point of measuring the level of large-scale operation in the original manuscript, which can be found in [Manuscript 1] Introduction section, page 3] Specifically revised to "First, this study innovatively incorporates' carbon 'into the measurement system of scale management level. Based on the entropy weight method and practical survey data, both scale efficiency and scale frequency were taken into account in the calculation." The revised content has been highlighted in blue highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 10: Page 3, Lines 125-129: "These were helpful for China to better control the scale of moderate scale agricultural operation, achieve effective carbon reduction under both economic and green benefits, and provide scientific references for promoting moderate scale agricultural operation and formulating effective carbon emission reduction measures This sentence is appropriate for the conclusion section, not the introduction section. Please move this section to the conclusion section where it is appropriate.

Response 10: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestions on the applicability of this part of the manuscript. Based on the reviewer's suggestions, we have moved this part to the conclusion section and included it in [Manuscript 5.1] Make corresponding modifications and adjustments to the Conclusion section on page 20. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 11: Please state the purpose of the study clearly at the end of the introduction

Response 11: Thank you for the reviewer's point of view. We understand and support it. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, in order to connect the context, we have included [Manuscript 1] The main purpose of this study is summarized in the paragraph on potential marginal contributions in the Introduction section, page 3, The specific added content is: "Building on this foundation, the primary objective of this study is to construct an analytical framework to examine how digitization affects carbon reduction within the context of agricultural scale management. Further research was conducted on the impact of digitization on agricultural carbon emission intensity and the role of scale management in agricultural digital emission reduction, verifying the mediating and regulatory mechanisms played by internal and external scale management. The findings aim is to provide evidence. Based on support for the policy formulation of China's agricultural scale transformation and digital decarbonization, the revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

 

【Literature review】

Comments 12: Please change the number of Figure 2.1 to “Figure 1” and explain which studies this framework is derived from.

Response 12: Thank you for the reviewer's point of view. We understand and support it. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have changed the numbering of Figure 2.1 to Figure 1 and included it in manuscript 2.1 The content analysis section on page 4 of the Theoretical Framework Analysis section will cite relevant academic literature to support the framework content of this study. The revised content has been highlighted in blue highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 13: Page 4, Lines 139-165: "Based on the Figure 2. 1, we established the theoretical basis of this study as follows: Digital empowerment elements include data elements, digital technology and network platform. First, digital empowerment can act on agricultural carbon emission efficiency through the innovation of digital technology, so as to realize effective emission reduction of agricultural digital, and realize effective use of technology in this process, thus improving technology utilization efficiency; Second, the digital empowerment act on the internal scale operation of agriculture, and realize the synchronous operation of digitalization and scale through the impact effect of digital technology, thus affecting the internal scale operation of agriculture....".  The authors provided a conceptual framework for the theoretical foundations of this study, but it is not clear what background these theoretical foundations are based on?  This conceptual framework cannot be relied upon without reference to existing theory and theories. Each of the links presented in this framework must be supported by theoretical foundations to have scientific validity. Please strengthen this section by adding background information.

Response 13: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. In section 2.1. Theoretical Framework Analysis, page 3, based on the reviewer's suggestions, we have organized the logical framework of this study, clarified the theoretical background of this research, and supported the existing research content through corresponding mechanism effect terminology and academic literature. The revised content has been highlighted in blue highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 14: Also, please replace the figure related to the theoretical framework with a clearer one so that the text inside the boxes is clearer.

Response 14: Thank you for the reviewer's point of view. We believe it is a very important suggestion. For this part of the research framework, we have optimized and adjusted Figure 1 to ensure that the research framework is clearly presented while the research content is expressed correctly. The revised content has been highlighted in blue highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

【Methodology】

Comments 15: Please indicate the number of all formulas with Eq, for example Formula 1 (Eq 1). Also, cite the number of all formulas within the text to make it clear what content and explanation each formula has. Without citing the formula numbers, confusion has been created in the presentation of the methodology section.

Response 15: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. In Article 3.1 Research Methods section, page 6, combined with the reviewer's suggestions. We adjusted the formula numbering for this study, using Eqs to indicate the quantity of all formulas and referencing the quantity of all formulas in the text to ensure that the content and explanation of each formula are presented clearly. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 16: Please clarify the input and output indicators in Table 3.2. For example, agriculture can be considered both an input and an output. You should specify exactly which indicators measure inputs and which indicators measure outputs.

Response 16: Thank you for the reviewer's question here. We understand the reviewer's viewpoint here. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have included them in manuscript 3.2.1 (2) Add a column "Measured indicator variable" to Table 2 (formerly Table 3.2) on page 9 of the Calculation of Agricultural Green Production Efficiency section to provide a detailed explanation of which indicator variables are used to measure and calculate each indicator in this column. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 17: Also, please clarify in Table 3.2 what the difference is between "Indicator type" and "Specific indicators".

Response 17: Thank you for the reviewer's question here. We understand the reviewer's viewpoint here. Indicator type "is used to distinguish input-output indicators, while" Specific indicators "are used to specify which input-output indicators are used in this study. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, in order to avoid confusion among editors, reviewers, and readers during reading, we will revise manuscript 3.2.1 (2) Change the "Indicator type" in Table 2 of the Calculation of Agricultural Green Production Efficiency section to "Indicator division" on page 9. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

 

Comments 18: The authors did not provide an explanation regarding "Expected output" and "Unexpected output". Please provide examples of both and refer to these as sub-indicators in Table 3.2.

Response 18: Thank you for the reviewer's point of view. We believe it is a very important suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have included them in manuscript 3.2.1 (2) In the Calculation of Agricultural Green Production Efficiency section, on page 9, Table 2 introduces the research results of relevant scholars and mentions them as sub indicators in Table 3.2. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

Comments 19: Table 3.6, Figure 4.1, Table 4.1, Table 4.2, Table 4.3, Table 4.4, Table 4.5, Table 4.6, and their explanations should be moved to the Results section. These tables and figures are the main findings of your study, so they should be described in the Results section, not in the Methodology section.

Response 19: Thank you for the reviewer's question here. We understand the reviewer's viewpoint and this is an important suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, please refer to manuscript 4 In the Results and Discussion section, on page 12, we have integrated the fourth and fifth parts of this study into one section and further deepened the analysis and discussion in each paragraph. However, Table 6 (formerly Table 3.6) was originally intended to present descriptive statistical analysis of the research data. After discussion, we believe that it would be more appropriate to place it in its original location [Section 3.3 Regional Selection and Data Sources, page 12]. We apologize for any inconvenience caused. If the reviewer finds that this section still needs to be adjusted and revised after further review, please contact us again. Thank you for your hard work. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

 

【Results】

Comments 20: Page 17, Lines 559-565: "Based on the data analysis of the above empirical results, we found that the purpose of this study is to explore the relationship at land management scale, moderate scale management level with carbon constraints and agricultural carbon emission reduction, find the boosting effect of moderate scale management level with carbon constraints, show the intermediate and regulatory mechanism of large-scale management in agricultural digital emission reduction, and provide some references for the development of agricultural digital emissions. Emission reduction and moderation scale management in China This section needs to be revised grammatically. Various objectives are presented in a vague manner that lacks the necessary clarity.

Response 20: We appreciate the viewpoint raised by the reviewer, and based on their suggestions, we have included them in manuscript 4 Revise the grammar of the Results and Discussion section on page 12 and supplement specific research objectives and content to ensure clear presentation. The revised content has been highlighted in green highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

 

Comments 21: Page 17, Lines 573-575: "According to the research findings (2), DTE can effectively and significantly inhibit ACEE, and the robustness test of three methods, reducing sample size by name, replacing explanatory variables and shortening the research period, is basically valid, that is, assessing H1 part is valid." How was the validity of the DTE method assessed?  Please provide an explanation in this regard.

Response 21: Thank you for the reviewer's question on this part. We understand the reviewer's viewpoint here and need to clarify it. In Table 7, we used the Tobit regression model to explore the impact of three variables: data resources, digital technology, and online platforms on agricultural carbon emissions reduction. The analysis of the data results showed that the online platform variable had a positive and significant effect, but the other variables were not significant. Therefore, we assume that the H1 part is valid. Thank you to the reviewer for your questions here. Based on the reviewer's suggestions, we have integrated the fourth and fifth parts of this study into one section. Based on the questions in this section, we have conducted a supplementary analysis of the hypothesis section in [Manuscript 4.2 Agricultural digital emission reduction mechanism in a scale environment, page 14] to ensure that the editor, reviewer, and readers can clearly understand. In addition, we conducted robustness tests from three aspects: reducing sample size, replacing explanatory variables, and shortening the research period. In Table 8, we found that the impact and significance of each variable were basically the same, so we believe that the results of the robustness test are good.

 

Comments 22: In the title of this section, the authors wrote "Results and Discussion" but did not provide any discussion. In this section, please compare and contrast the findings of your study with the findings of other studies and provide a more in-depth interpretation of the findings. Also, please provide a separate Results and Discussion section.

Response 22: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have made revisions to manuscript 4 In the Results and Discussion section, page 12, corresponding discussion content has been added to each paragraph of the analysis, mainly expressing the differences between this part of the research results and existing research results, and adding a discussion on the data of digitalization on agricultural carbon emission intensity, further connecting with reality for further in-depth exploration. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

【Conclusion】

Comments 23: It is unclear what the implications and contributions of this study to theoretical and methodological knowledge are. Please strengthen the conclusion section by adding the implications of this study in terms of theoretical and methodological literature.

Response 23: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. In Article 5.1 Supplement the impact and contribution of this study on theory, methods, and existing literature in the Conclusion section, page 19, to strengthen the conclusion section. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

The above is our response after careful discussion and consideration of the reviewer's comments. Thank you to the editor and reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We unanimously agree that the overall quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved after making revisions based on the reviewer's suggestions. If there are any other areas that need to be modified and discussed, you are also welcome to point them out. Thank you for your understanding and guidance (please note: the yellow highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 1, the green highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 2, the blue highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 3, and the purple highlight is the modification content of Reviewer 4. The revision mode is for polishing the modification content).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the text, but it's still very expansive, so I suggest reducing its length by rewording the sentences. Especially the conclusions, which should be left alone without any suggestions. Finally, the authors do not follow the guidelines required by the journal in the references section; therefore, the references should be improved.

Author Response

Reply to the second round of review comments on the paper land-3875338 review (2)

Overall Comment: The authors have improved the text, but it's still very expansive, so I suggest reducing its length by rewording the sentences. Especially the conclusions, which should be left alone without any suggestions. Finally, the authors do not follow the guidelines required by the journal in the references section; therefore, the references should be improved.

Overall response: We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for their support and recognition of our work. We unanimously believe that the suggestions you provided in the second round of review have greatly helped improve the quality of our manuscript. All of your suggestions have been carefully discussed and considered by us, and the manuscript has been revised one by one based on your suggestions. The specific response is as follows.

Comment 1: The authors have improved the text, but it's still very expansive, so I suggest reducing its length by rewording the sentences.

Response 1: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have rewritten the long sentences throughout the entire article to shorten and refine each sentence as much as possible, and to shorten the overall length of the article. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in green highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

Comment 2: Especially the conclusions, which should be left alone without any suggestions.

Response 2: Thank you for the reviewer's point of view. We believe it is a very important suggestion. We will re-examine the conclusion section of the manuscript, remove the content with policy recommendations, and integrate this part into the recommendations section. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in green highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

Comment 3: Finally, the authors do not follow the guidelines required by the journal in the references section; therefore, the references should be improved.

Response 3: Thank you for the reviewer's question here. We understand the reviewer's viewpoint and this is an important suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we carefully checked the reference section of the manuscript and strictly compared it with the reference formats of Land journal and MDPI. We made modifications and adjustments to the reference section of the manuscript, and checked and adjusted the relevant citations in the main text based on the references. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in green highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

The above is our response after careful discussion and consideration of the reviewer's comments. Thank you to the editor and reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We unanimously agree that the overall quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved after making revisions based on the reviewer's suggestions. If there are any other areas that need to be modified and discussed, you are also welcome to point them out. Thank you for your understanding and guidance (please note: the green highlight is the modified content by Reviewer 2, the purple highlight is the modified content by Reviewer 4, and the revision mode is for polishing the modified content).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title of the manuscript: How do digitalization and scale influence agricultural carbon emissions reduction: Evidenced from Jiangsu China

Manuscript ID: land-3875338-peer-review-v2 (1)

This study examines the impact of digitalization and scale management on agricultural carbon emissions reduction in China. Despite the authors’ efforts, this paper faces some difficulties. Addressing the following comments will strengthen this paper:

Abstract

1. Page 1, lines 11-13: "In order to alleviate the constraints of global warming and sustainable development, digitalization has become an inevitable trend to promote agricultural carbon emission reduction." Please explain in this sentence how digitalization helps reduce agricultural carbon emissions.
2. Page 1, lines 13: "However, what role does scale operation play in agricultural digital emission reduction?" The study question is not clearly stated. Please revise this sentence and clearly state the purpose and study question.
3. The results presented in the abstract section are presented in a list format without explaining the causal mechanism. Please show the results of the section on the scale of digital agriculture with carbon reduction as causal.

 

Introduction

4. The content of the introduction does not create good coordination between the paragraphs. Please present the introduction section with more coherence and coordination.
5. The literature review in the introduction is mostly a list and does not provide a critical analysis of the gaps in previous studies. Please provide a critical analysis of the research literature and explain what gaps there are in the theoretical and methodological literature and how this study fills the existing gaps.
6. Although the overall issue of this study is (carbon reduction in agriculture), the necessity and urgency of this study in the context of combining digitalization and scale management is not well demonstrated. Please reinforce this necessity of this type of study in the introduction section.

Literature review

7. The theoretical diagram (Figure 1) is complex and somewhat confusing. Please explain the diagram in Figure 1 further and clearly identify the relationships between the variables.
8. Although the hypotheses are straightforward, some of them (such as H2 and H3) are more like general predictions than testable hypotheses. The authors would do well to revise these hypotheses.

Methodology

9. Please include the population size and explain how the sample size (258 questionnaires) was calculated?
10. Some variables (such as external management levels) are measured with subjective and questionnaire-based indicators, which may reduce generalizability. Please provide more details on how the indicators were constructed.
11. Please explain why you used Tobit models, what are the advantages of this model over other models and assumptions.

Results

12. Please elaborate on the results of Tables 7 and 8, and explain the results of statistical significance and interpret the coefficients.
13. Please explain the final result of the comparison of the four models in the explanation of Table 10.
14. Also, please explain the results related to nonlinear effects in more detail.

Discussion

15. In the discussion section, the comparison of the results with previous studies is superficial and the reason for the differences is not analyzed in depth. Please interpret the comparisons in depth.

Author Response

Reply to the second round of review comments on the paper land-3875338 review (4)

Overall Comment: This study examines the impact of digitalization and scale management on agricultural carbon emissions reduction in China. Despite the authors’ efforts, this paper faces some difficulties. Addressing the following comments will strengthen this paper:

Overall response: We sincerely thank Reviewer 4 for their support and recognition of our work. We unanimously agree that the suggestions you provided in the second round of review are very valuable and constructive, and they have greatly helped improve the quality of our manuscript. All of your suggestions have been carefully discussed and considered by us, and the manuscript has been revised one by one based on your suggestions. The specific response is as follows:

 

【Abstract】

Comment 1: Page 1, lines 11-13: "In order to alleviate the constraints of global warming and sustainable development, digitalization has become an inevitable trend to promote agricultural carbon emission reduction." Please explain in this sentence how digitalization helps reduce agricultural carbon emissions.  

Response 1: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. We have modified this sentence in the abstract to supplement the description of the means and ways in which digitalization promotes agricultural carbon reduction. In the abstract section of the manuscript, page 1, the specific modification is as follows: "In order to alleviate the constraints of global warming and sustainable development, digitization has made significant contributions to promoting agricultural carbon reduction through resources, technology, and platforms." The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple in the newly revised manuscript.

Comment 2: Page 1, lines 13: "However, what role does scale operation play in agricultural digital emission reduction?" The study question is not clearly stated. Please revise this sentence and clearly state the purpose and study question.

Response 2: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. We have revised this sentence in the abstract to further clarify the research question and purpose of this study. In the Abstract section of the manuscript, page 1, the specific modification is: "However, what impact will the development of large-scale operations in agricultural digital emission reduction have mechanisms and pathways?" The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple in the newly revised manuscript.

Comment 3: The results presented in the abstract section are presented in a list format without explaining the causal mechanism. Please show the results of the section on the scale of digital agriculture with carbon reduction as causal.

Response 3: Thank you for the reviewer's point of view. We believe it is a very important suggestion. We connect the results section of the abstract and demonstrate the digital agriculture scale mechanism with carbon reduction as the causal relationship by linking the four results. We found that: (1) In scale and carbon reduction, the SBM-DEA model calculates that the scale of agricultural land in Jiangsu showed an "inverted S" trend with SML and an "inverted W" trend with the overall Agricultural Green Production Efficiency (AGPE), and the highest agricultural green production efficiency is 0.814 in the moderate scale range of 20-36.667 hm2. (2) In digitization and carbon reduction, the Tobit regression Model results indicate that Network Platform Employment (NPE) significantly promotes carbon reduction (p<1%), but their squared terms exhibit an invested U-shape relationship with agricultural green production efficiency (p<1%). And in the short term, the scale management level has a significant negative impact on AGPE (p<5%), especially on the carbon reduction of online platforms. (3) Adding scale in agricultural digital emission reduction, intermediary mechanism results showed that the significant intensity (p<5%) of mediating role of Agricultural Mechanization Level (AML) is DTE>NPE>DRE, and that of the Employment of Labor(EOL) is NPE>DTE>DRE. (4) Adding scale in agricultural digital emission reduction, the regulatory effect results showed that the Organized Management Level (OML) and Social Service System (SSS) significantly positively regulates the inhibitory effect of DRE and DTE on AGPE. ” The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

【Introduction】 

Comment 4: The content of the introduction does not establish good coordination between paragraphs. Please make the introduction more coherent and coordinated.

Response 4: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have made language connections at the beginning of each paragraph in the Introduction section of the manuscript, pages 2-3, to connect the descriptions between paragraphs and make them more cohesive as a whole. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

Comment 5: The literature review in the introduction is mostly a list without a critical analysis of the gaps in previous research. Please conduct a critical analysis of the research literature and explain what gaps exist in the theoretical and methodological literature, as well as how this study fills the existing gaps.

Response 5: Thank you for the reviewer's question on this part. We understand the reviewer's viewpoint here and need to clarify it. The second paragraph of the introduction mainly presents the existing research achievements and progress in the academic community. For the critical analysis of existing literature, we mainly focus on the third paragraph (literature review section), summarizing the gaps and shortcomings of existing literature from three aspects: theory, methods, and data. The fourth paragraph of the introduction mainly demonstrates how we have improved the existing research gaps, further highlighting the research contribution, research purpose, and research theme of this study.

Comment 6: Although the overall issue of this study is carbon reduction in agriculture, the necessity and urgency of this research have not been well demonstrated in the context of the combination of digitization and scale management. Please emphasize the necessity of this research in the introduction section.

Response 6: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have provided a deeper description of the urgency and necessity of this study at the end of the first and third paragraphs of the [Introduction section, pages 2-3], further highlighting the importance of this study to existing research. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

【Literature Review】

Comment 7: The theoretical diagram (Figure 1) is quite complex and a bit confusing. Please further explain the chart in Figure 1 and clearly determine the relationship between variables. 

Response 7: Thank you for the reviewer's question on this part. We understand the reviewer's viewpoint here and need to clarify it. Figure 1 mainly consists of two parts, namely the external environmental background and the internal mechanism path. In the textual description of the research framework, we mainly express that: based on the survey object of this study, we determine the research background. Firstly, we introduce the potential impact of large-scale research on agricultural digital emission reduction. Secondly, we introduce the main paths of digitalization on carbon emission reduction. Then, we introduce the mediating role of internal scale operation in agricultural digital emission reduction. Finally, we describe the regulatory effect of external scale operation on agricultural digital emission reduction, and correspond to the mechanism effect in each paragraph of the description in the figure.

Comment 8: Although these hypotheses are simple, some of them (such as H2 and H3) are more like general predictions than testable hypotheses. It is best for the author to modify these assumptions.

Response 8: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have included them in manuscript 2.2 In the research hypothesis section, on page 5, modify hypotheses H2 and H3 to clarify their predictability, and optimize and adjust hypothesis H1. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

【Methodology】

Comment 9: Please include the population size and explain how the sample size (258 questionnaires) was calculated?

Response 9: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we describe the acquisition and screening of 258 questionnaire samples in section 3.3 Regional Selection and Data Sources, page 12. The main focus is on randomly selecting 3-5 counties and districts from various prefecture level cities for social surveys, obtaining 263 industrial questionnaires, and conducting validity screening to obtain 258 valid questionnaires. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

Comment 10: Some variables (such as external management levels) are measured with subjective and questionnaire-based indicators, which may reduce generalizability. Please provide more details on how the indicators were constructed.

Response 10: Thank you for the reviewer's question on this part. We understand the reviewer's viewpoint here and need to clarify it. We have referenced and cited relevant scholars' literature in each text description for the construction of indicators such as digital empowerment, internal scale management, and external scale management. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, in order to avoid a decrease in the universality of indicator construction, we have added textual descriptions on how to construct these indicators and how to handle them in sections 3.2.2-3.2.4 of the manuscript, pages 9-10. The relevant content has been highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

Comment 11: Please explain why you used Tobit models, what are the advantages of this model over other models and assumptions.

Response 11: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have included them in manuscript 3.1.3 In the Measurement Model section, on page 7, explain the advantages of selecting the Tobit model for this study. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

【Results】

Comment 12: Please elaborate on the results of Tables 7 and 8, and explain the results of statistical significance and interpret the coefficients.

Response 12: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have added statistical regression significance results and explained regression coefficients to the textual analysis content in Tables 7 and 8 of section 4.2.1 of the manuscript, pages 14-15, to ensure that the table content can be presented clearly and completely. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

Comment 13: Please explain the final result of the comparison of the four models in the explanation of Table 10.

Response 13: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Based on the reviewer's suggestion, we have added the comparison results of Model 2-4 in section 4.2.3, page 17 of the manuscript, which indicates the strength of the impact of SML on the three core variables. Since Model 1 is the overall regression result of the three core variables after adding SML, we will not compare it with Model 2-4 here, but will briefly explain the differences in regression results with Table 7 in the text. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

Comment 14: Also, please explain that the results are related to non-linear effects in more detail

Response 14: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have included them in manuscript 4 The Results and Discussion section, pages 14-21, provides a more in-depth explanation of the relevant content related to nonlinear results in this study, such as the final description of the text in section 4.2.2. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

 

【Discussion】

Comment 15: In the discussion section, the comparison of the results with previous studies is superficial and the reason for the differences is not analyzed in depth. Please interpret the comparisons in depth.

Response 15: We fully agree with the reviewer's viewpoint, which is a very important suggestion, and we will make revisions to the corresponding content in the manuscript based on this suggestion. Based on the suggestions of the reviewers, we have included them in manuscript 4 The Results and Discussion section, pages 14-21, provides supplementary and in-depth discussions on the relevant mechanisms that relate to existing literature research results, further analyzing the reasons for differences and their differences from existing literature. The revised content has been prominently highlighted in purple highlight in the newly revised manuscript.

The above is our response after careful discussion and consideration of the reviewer's comments. Thank you to the editor and reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We unanimously agree that the overall quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved after making revisions based on the reviewer's suggestions. If there are any other areas that need to be modified and discussed, you are also welcome to point them out. Thank you for your understanding and guidance (please note: the green highlight is the modified content by Reviewer 2, the purple highlight is the modified content by Reviewer 4, and the revision mode is for polishing the modified content).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript analyzes the role of moderate-scale operation in agricultural digital emission reduction, the boosting effect of MSM under carbon constraints in agricultural digital emission reduction, as well as the intermediary and regulation mechanisms of agricultural internal and external scale operation. The study can provide suggestions and measures for agricultural digital emission reduction in Jiangsu and has certain practical guiding significance. However, the manuscript still shows clear shortcomings in sample selection, temporal data handling, spatial heterogeneity disclosure, depth of discussion, and specificity of policy recommendations, and needs to be supplemented and revised.

1. Jiangsu was selected as a typical region. What is the basis for selecting sample sites in several different areas within this region? Why were these specific areas chosen? What are the specific characteristics of these sites, and what are their differences? It is recommended to provide a clear analysis. At minimum, specify the stratified or random sampling principles adopted (such as terrain, GDP, agricultural structure, digitalization level, etc.), including the core characteristics of the selected sites, such as differences in operational scale, digital foundation, and carbon emission intensity between southern, central, and northern Jiangsu.
2. Are the survey subjects consistent across the three follow-up surveys conducted from 2022 to 2024? Please clarify this explicitly.If sample replacements occurred, the replacement rules and their impact on the robustness of the results should be explained.
3. The analysis incorporatesdata from 2022 through 2024, but it lacks a temporal comparison; it is recommended to clarify whether differences exist among the
4. It is recommended to include a spatial distribution map of the study area with the surveyed sites clearly marked. Additionally, whether the selected sites differ in the scale regulation mechanism and path of agricultural digital carbon emission reduction should be analyzed.
5. Full names should be provided for all abbreviations at their first mention, such as MSM in the abstract.
6. The numerical units in Figure 4 have not been translated. International standard units should be used. Ensure that all other units throughout the manuscript also follow international standards.
7. Unit formatting is inconsistent. For example, in Table 3.1, there should be a space between numbers and units. Other instances should be checked and revised accordingly.
8. The discussion section is overly brief. It should be presented as a separate section, including the generalizability of the results within the Yangtze River Delta and nationwide. Comparisons with existing studies are needed to demonstrate whether the findings are comparable, applicable, and generalizable.
9. Policy recommendations are broad and lack specificity. Suggestions should be refined and detailed. Moreover, it should be clarified whether these recommendations are targeted at Jiangsu Province or applicable to all regions. Differentiated pathways should be proposed based on regional differences within Jiangsu.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Review Comments on Manuscript land-3781818-review (1)

 

Overall Comments:

The manuscript analyzes the role of moderate-scale operation in agricultural digital emission reduction, the boosting effect of MSM under carbon constraints in agricultural digital emission reduction, as well as the intermediary and regulation mechanisms of agricultural internal and external scale operation. The study can provide suggestions and measures for agricultural digital emission reduction in Jiangsu and has certain practical guiding significance. However, the manuscript still shows clear shortcomings in sample selection, temporal data handling, spatial heterogeneity disclosure, depth of discussion, and specificity of policy recommendations, and needs to be supplemented and revised.

Overall Response:

We sincerely thank Reviewer #1 for their encouragement and recognition of our research work, as well as for providing highly constructive revision suggestions for the manuscript. We fully agree that all your suggestions are immensely helpful for improving our paper. We have carefully revised the manuscript point-by-point according to your recommendations. Our detailed responses are as follows:

 

Comment 1: Jiangsu was selected as a typical region. What is the basis for selecting sample sites in several different areas within this region? Why were these specific areas chosen? What are the specific characteristics of these sites, and what are their differences? It is recommended to provide a clear analysis. At minimum, specify the stratified or random sampling principles adopted (such as terrain, GDP, agricultural structure, digitalization level, etc.), including the core characteristics of the selected sites, such as differences in operational scale, digital foundation, and carbon emission intensity between southern, central, and northern Jiangsu.

Response 1: We fully agree with the reviewer's opinion; this is a very important suggestion. Based on this comment, we have made corresponding revisions to the article. In [Page 11, Section 3.3 "Regional Selection and Data Sources"], we have optimized the entire paragraph. We added the reason why Jiangsu was selected as a typical region and supplemented the explanation for conducting a random sample survey in Jiangsu based on considerations of its disparities in terrain, operational scale, environmental conditions, digitalization level, and carbon emissions. The modifications in the newly revised manuscript are prominently highlighted in yellow.

 

Comment 2: Are the survey subjects consistent across the three follow-up surveys conducted from 2022 to 2024? Please clarify this explicitly. If sample replacements occurred, the replacement rules and their impact on the robustness of the results should be explained.

Response 2: We fully understand the reviewer's concern regarding potential inconsistencies in the survey subjects across the three follow-up surveys (2022-2024) and completely agree with the proposed revision. The survey subjects were indeed not entirely consistent across the three years due to multiple rounds of surveys and supplementary surveys, leading to some sample replacement. Following the reviewer's suggestion, we have added robustness test results by replacing the core explanatory variables in [Page 14, Table 4.2 "Robustness Test Results"]. In the new table, Model 2-4 present the robustness test results obtained by sequentially replacing the three core explanatory variables (DRE, DTE, NPT). The results indicate good robustness. Corresponding textual explanations have also been optimized and adjusted. These changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 3: The analysis incorporates data from 2022 through 2024, but it lacks a temporal comparison; it is recommended to clarify whether differences exist among the years.

Response 3: We completely agree with the reviewer's viewpoint; this is a very important suggestion. Accordingly, we have modified the article. In [Page 14, Table 4.2 "Robustness Test Results"], we added Model 5, which shows the robustness test results obtained by shortening the study period (i.e., removing data from one year). The results demonstrate good robustness. Furthermore, in [Page 20, Appendix A], we added Figure A2 (a), which provides a comparative analysis of Jiangsu's agricultural development status across different years. These additions are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 4: It is recommended to include a spatial distribution map of the study area with the surveyed sites clearly marked. Additionally, whether the selected sites differ in the scale regulation mechanism and path of agricultural digital carbon emission reduction should be analyzed.

Response 4: We fully understand the reviewer's concern regarding the need for spatial heterogeneity analysis and completely agree with the suggestion. Accordingly, we have supplemented [Page 20, Appendix A] with Figure A1, Table A1, Table A2, and Table A3. These new elements display the data selection distribution map from the research team's survey and detailed route tables. Additionally, we added Figure A2 (b), which provides a comparative analysis of Jiangsu's agricultural development status from a regional perspective. All these new additions are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 5: Full names should be provided for all abbreviations at their first mention, such as MSM in the abstract.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for raising this point, which indeed requires clarification. Upon checking, we found that in the abstract section of the manuscript, while full names were provided for most variable abbreviations upon first mention, a few were omitted due to oversight during translation. We have rectified this. To avoid any misunderstanding, we have ensured that all variable abbreviations in [Page 1, Abstract Section] are accompanied by their full names upon first occurrence. The full names in the original text have also been highlighted in yellow for your review. Thank you for your understanding and suggestion.

 

Comment 6: The numerical units in Figure 4 have not been translated. International standard units should be used. Ensure that all other units throughout the manuscript also follow international standards.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out; it was indeed an oversight in translation and unit conversion. We have converted the units for land scale from the Chinese "mu" to the international standard unit "hectares" in [Page 1 (Abstract), Page 12 (Section 4.1), Page 12 (Figure 4.1), and Page 19 (Section 6.1)]. Additionally, we have translated the corresponding numerical units in [Page 12, Figure 4.1]. These changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 7: Unit formatting is inconsistent. For example, in Table 3.1, there should be a space between numbers and units. Other instances should be checked and revised accordingly.

Response 7: We appreciate the reviewer bringing this to our attention; it was indeed an oversight in the formatting of numbers and units within the table. We have corrected the formatting by adding spaces between numbers and units in [Page 8, Table 3.1]. Furthermore, we have thoroughly checked the entire manuscript to ensure similar issues are resolved elsewhere. Thank you for your understanding and suggestion. The corrections have been highlighted in yellow.

 

Comment 8: The discussion section is overly brief. It should be presented as a separate section, including the generalizability of the results within the Yangtze River Delta and nationwide. Comparisons with existing studies are needed to demonstrate whether the findings are comparable, applicable, and generalizable.

Response 8: We thank the reviewer for this crucial point. We understand and agree with the suggestion and have revised the article accordingly. We have added a separate "Results and Discussion" section [Page 17, Section 5] to provide a deeper discussion of the empirical results presented earlier. This section elaborates on the research findings in greater detail, includes a brief comparison with the Yangtze River Delta region, and highlights the comparability, applicability, and generalizability of the results. Furthermore, we have renumbered the original Section 5.1 ("Research Conclusions") to Section 6.1 [Page 19, "6.1 Conclusion"] and optimized this section to ensure "Results and Discussion" and "Conclusion" are two distinct and complete parts. These modifications are highlighted in yellow.

 

Comment 9: Policy recommendations are broad and lack specificity. Suggestions should be refined and detailed. Moreover, it should be clarified whether these recommendations are targeted at Jiangsu Province or applicable to all regions. Differentiated pathways should be proposed based on regional differences within Jiangsu.

Response 9: We fully agree with the reviewer's opinion; this is a very important suggestion. Based on this, we have revised the policy recommendations section of the manuscript. In [Page 19, Section 6.2 "Suggestion"], we have added clarifications regarding the applicability of the recommendations. We propose more targeted policy measures based on the empirical results and regional disparities within Jiangsu. The text in this section has also been refined and simplified. These changes are highlighted in yellow.

 

The above responses are the result of our serious discussion and consideration of the reviewer's comments. We thank the reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript amidst a busy schedule. We sincerely welcome any further points requiring modification or discussion. Thank you for your understanding and guidance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of this paper say that measures agricultural carbon emission efficiency based on SBM-DEA model, innovatively designs the measurement method of agricultural moderate scale operation level, and explores the mechanism of agricultural digital emission reduction under the moderate scale operation environment with carbon constraints by using intermediary and regulation models, which has an important role in promoting agricultural green and low-carbon development. Said like that, they are very unambitious objectives. I thought they should be rewritten.

Overall, the manuscript is not well-written. Unfortunately, the submitted article is characterized by a chaotic, unusual arrangement of content, often redundant, which makes it difficult to read. Here are some suggestions to back up my idea and help the author improve the quality of the paper:

The experimental design does not exhibit a reasonable degree of scientific rigor and comparability.

Full names of abbreviations (e.g., MSM) should be stated when they are first introduced in the text.

Line 42. At present, its carbon emission reaches 801 million tons, which still accounts for 6.8~15% of the national total despite the downward trend. Author?

Lin 45… the strategic implementation of "actively and steadily promoting carbon neutrality in peak carbon dioxide emissions", and vigorously promoted the digital production mode to promote the double improvement of production efficiency and carbon efficiency, which has contributed more than 10% to various industries. This is probably taken out of its context, because read like this it is difficult to understand. It is recommended to change it to a more concise phrase.

Line 56. Therefore, exploring the key factors that affect the efficiency of agricultural carbon emission, clarifyinging the mechanism path of digitalization, scale and low carbon, and making the future agriculture develop towards mechanization, digitalization, standardization, industrialization and greening by realizing moderate scale operation of agriculture will become an important issue that needs to be solved urgently under the coupling background of China's "double carbon" goal and rural revitalization strategy. Phrases like this are very striking and very generic. Also it would have to be rewritten. Please clarify.

Line 65. …effect of digital economy on agricultural carbon emission. With phrases like this it is necessary to have knowledge in economics. Do you think this is really appropriate for a journal like Land?.

Line 70…. and some scholars have found that digital technology can significantly reduce the intensity of pesticide fertilization in rice production, especially in large-scale and part-time farmers. It is worth asking why highlight the “intensity of pesticide fertilization”.

Line 196. On the one hand, through the regulation 196 of external scale operation, optimize production process and adopt low-carbon 197 technology to reduce carbon emissions in agricultural activities; On the other hand…Please rewrite. It is recommended to change it to a more concise phrase.

Line 508. this study uses 258 data of Jiangsu rice and wheat industry obtained from the three-phase follow-up survey in 2022-2024. Where is that data?

Line 505. 5. Results and discussion 505 5.1. Research conclusion. It is unacceptable that conclusions appear within the results.

Neither the text nor the references follow the journal's rules.

Language of the entire manuscript should be checked by a language expert in a similar field of experience.

The current version is not ready for publication. I believe that major improvements are needed before this manuscript can be considered for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I believe it is of sufficient quality.

Author Response

Response to Review Comments on Manuscript land-3781818-review (2)

 

Overall Comments:

The authors of this paper state that they measure agricultural carbon emission efficiency based on the SBM-DEA model, innovatively design the measurement method for the level of agricultural moderate-scale operation, and explore the mechanism of agricultural digital emission reduction under a carbon-constrained moderate-scale operation environment using intermediary and regulation models. This is claimed to play an important role in promoting agricultural green and low-carbon development. Such stated objectives seem very unambitious and should be rewritten. Overall, the manuscript is not well-written. Unfortunately, the submitted article is characterized by a chaotic, unusual arrangement of content, often redundant, which makes it difficult to read.

Overall Response:

We sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for providing highly constructive revision suggestions for our manuscript. We unanimously agree that your suggestions are greatly helpful for improving the quality of our paper. We have carefully discussed and considered all your recommendations and revised the manuscript point-by-point accordingly. Our detailed responses are as follows:

 

Comment 1: The experimental design does not exhibit a reasonable degree of scientific rigor and comparability.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We fully understand the concerns regarding the rationality, scientificity, rigor, and comparability of the experimental design. Based on this comment, we have supplemented and improved the manuscript in three aspects:

Data Sources: Considering the reviewer's opinion, we have added further clarification regarding the data sources. In [Page 11, Section 3.3 "Regional Selection and Data Sources"], we optimized the entire paragraph, adding reasons for selecting Jiangsu as the study region, briefly introducing the digital and scale development status of Jiangsu and the Yangtze River Delta overall, and explaining the random sampling nature of the survey data. Furthermore, in [Page 20, Appendix A], we added Figure A1, Table A1, Table A2, and Table A3 to detail the distribution and sampling of the survey data.

Overall Experimental Model Design: Drawing on existing research by scholars in digitalization, scaling, and low-carbon development, we designed our experimental model by drawing from widely used methods in carbon emission efficiency measurement, Tobit model selection, robustness tests, mediation mechanism models, moderation effect models, and heterogeneity tests. Our model demonstrates certain applicability and reliability. Considering the reviewer's concern, we carefully reviewed the experimental design process, supplemented the textual descriptions, and repeatedly verified the data results.

Innovation in Measuring Carbon-Constrained Moderate-Scale Operation Level: Based on the Jiangsu survey practice and referencing existing research methods, we incorporated "carbon" into the considerations and innovatively designed the measurement method for the moderate-scale operation level. The research conclusions derived from this method have been submitted to the Provincial Government as a reference for the 2025 Q2 "Agricultural and Rural Survey and Research" content, indicating a certain level of rationality. Considering the reviewer's input, we have further supplemented and refined this measurement method.

 

We thank you for your understanding. Please review the changes, which are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 2: Full names of abbreviations (e.g., MSM) should be stated when they are first introduced in the text.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this point, which indeed requires clarification. Upon checking, we found that in the abstract section, while most variable abbreviations were accompanied by their full names upon first mention, a few were omitted due to oversight during translation. To avoid misunderstanding, we have ensured all variable abbreviations in [Page 1, Abstract Section] are provided with full names upon first occurrence. The full names in the original text are also highlighted in yellow for your review. Thank you for your understanding and suggestion.

 

Comment 3: Line 42. At present, its carbon emission reaches 801 million tons, which still accounts for 6.8~15% of the national total despite the downward trend. Author?

Response 3: We fully agree with the reviewer's opinion; this is a very important suggestion. Based on this comment, we identified and verified the current status of China's agricultural carbon emissions from official reports. In [Page 1, Section 1 "Introduction"], we optimized the relevant data and text, citing existing literature and combining it with current policy reports to provide an in-depth analysis of China's agricultural carbon emission status. The original text: "At present, its carbon emission reaches 801 million tons, which still accounts for 6.8~15% of the national total despite the downward trend." has been revised to: "With its rapid development, high input such as pesticides, fertilizers, agricultural machinery, and high emission of livestock manure have increased agricultural carbon emissions. The 2023 Low Carbon Development Report of China Agriculture and Rural Areas shows that the total carbon emissions of agricultural production in China are 828 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, accounting for 6.7% of the national carbon emissions, and the agricultural 'carbon deficit' (emission-absorption > 0) will exist for a long time (Yang et al., 2019) [2]." The modifications are highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 4: Lin 45… the strategic implementation of "actively and steadily promoting carbon neutrality in peak carbon dioxide emissions", and vigorously promoted the digital production mode to promote the double improvement of production efficiency and carbon efficiency, which has contributed more than 10% to various industries. This is probably taken out of its context, because read like this it is difficult to understand. It is recommended to change it to a more concise phrase.

Response 4: We fully agree with the reviewer's opinion; this is a very important suggestion. Based on this comment, we refined and modified the corresponding content in the manuscript to improve coherence and context linkage. In [Page 2, Section 1 "Introduction"], after deeply understanding the referenced research content, we simplified and refined the text. The original text: "In order to solve the problem of resource and environment constraints and achieve sustainable development, China proposed the strategic deployment of 'actively and steadily promoting carbon neutrality in peak carbon dioxide emissions', and vigorously promoted the digital production mode to promote the double improvement of production efficiency and carbon efficiency, which has contributed more than 10% to various industries. Emission effect (GSMA,2020; Sakshial.,2024）[2−3]." has been revised to: "In order to solve the problem of resource and environment constraints and achieve sustainable development, in 2022, China put forward the strategic plan of 'actively and steadily promoting carbon neutrality in peak carbon dioxide emissions', and has contributed more than 10% of emission effects to various industries with the help of digital model (GSMA,2020; Sakshial.,2024）[3-4]." The modifications are highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 5: Line 56. Therefore, exploring the key factors that affect the efficiency of agricultural carbon emission, clarifyinging the mechanism path of digitalization, scale and low carbon, and making the future agriculture develop towards mechanization, digitalization, standardization, industrialization and greening by realizing moderate scale operation of agriculture will become an important issue that needs to be solved urgently under the coupling background of China's "double carbon" goal and rural revitalization strategy. Phrases like this are very striking and very generic. Also it would have to be rewritten. Please clarify.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this point. We understand and agree that this paragraph was too generic. Combining the reviewer's suggestion with the theme of our study, we have rephrased the text in [Page 2, Section 1 "Introduction"]. The original text: "Therefore, exploring the key factors that affect the efficiency of agricultural carbon emission, clarifying the mechanism path of digitalization, scale and low carbon, and making the future agriculture develop towards mechanization, digitalization, standardization, industrialization and greening by realizing moderate scale operation of agriculture will become an important issue that needs to be solved urgently under the coupling background of China's 'double carbon' goal and rural revitalization strategy." has been revised to: "Therefore, it is an urgent problem to find out the influence effect of land scale management in agricultural digital emission reduction, clarify the internal relationship between land scale management, moderate scale management level and carbon emission reduction, and study the scale control mechanism and path of agricultural digital emission reduction, which will promote moderate scale management of agriculture in China, help realize the goal of 'double carbon' and rural revitalization strategy." The modifications are highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 6: Line 65. …effect of digital economy on agricultural carbon emission. With phrases like this it is necessary to have knowledge in economics. Do you think this is really appropriate for a journal like Land?.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this point and understand the concern. Based on the reviewer's comment, we revisited the two references cited here and agreed that the description related to the "digital economy" might not be deeply connected enough with the scope of this journal and our paper. We have therefore changed the text and references in [Page 2, Section 1 "Introduction"] to cite references more relevant to our study. The original text: "Existing scholars have conducted in-depth research on digital empowerment of agricultural carbon emission reduction, and explored the nonlinear characteristics and scale effect of digital economy on agricultural carbon emission (Zhu et al.,2024; Feng et al.,2025)[9−10]," has been revised to: "Existing scholars have conducted in-depth research on carbon emission reduction of digital empowerment agriculture, and explored the contribution of digital agriculture to carbon emission reduction and the nonlinear relationship between numbers and carbon (Ma et al.,2022; Zhu et al.,2024）[10-11]，" The modifications are highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 7: Line 70…. and some scholars have found that digital technology can significantly reduce the intensity of pesticide fertilization in rice production, especially in large-scale and part-time farmers. It is worth asking why highlight the “intensity of pesticide fertilization”.

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for this question and understand the point raised. Regarding the impact factors between digitalization and agricultural carbon emissions, this paper primarily considers carbon emissions from agricultural land use in the rice-wheat industry, including emissions from the consumption of agricultural inputs such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural film, and diesel. We cited the finding that digital technology reduces the pesticide and fertilizer application rate in rice production, particularly among large-scale and part-time farmers, intending to indirectly demonstrate the impact of digitalization on the components of agricultural carbon emissions. Considering the reviewer's input, we have rephrased the wording in [Page 2, Section 1 "Introduction"] in conjunction with the literature. The original text: ", and some scholars have found that digital technology can significantly reduce the intensity of pesticide fertilization in rice production, especially in large-scale and part-time farmers (Deng et al)[14]." Has been revised to: ", some scholars have also found that digital technology significantly reduces the utilization rate of pesticides and fertilizers in rice production, especially among large-scale and part-time farmers (Deng et al., 2024) [15]." The modifications are highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 8: Line 196. On the one hand, through the regulation 196 of external scale operation, optimize production process and adopt low-carbon 197 technology to reduce carbon emissions in agricultural activities; On the other hand…Please rewrite. It is recommended to change it to a more concise phrase.

Response 8: We fully agree with the reviewer's opinion; this is a very important suggestion. Following the reviewer's advice, we have concisely refined this section. In [Page 5, Section 2.2.3], the original text: "On the one hand, through the regulation of external scale operation, optimize production process and adopt low-carbon technology to reduce carbon emissions in agricultural activities; On the other hand, through economies of scale, the output of land per unit area is increased, and the consumption of land resources is reduced, and water resources, fertilizer and energy are used intensively." has been revised to: ", through the regulation of large-scale operation and the investment of scale economy, the consumption of chemical inputs is reduced, thus further reducing agricultural carbon emissions." The modifications are highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 9: Line 508. this study uses 258 data of Jiangsu rice and wheat industry obtained from the three-phase follow-up survey in 2022-2024. Where is that data?

Response 9: We fully agree with the reviewer's opinion; this is a very important suggestion. Based on this comment, we have modified the article accordingly. In [Page 11, Section 3.3 "Regional Selection and Data Sources"], we optimized the entire paragraph, adding the reason for selecting Jiangsu as a typical region and supplementing the explanation for conducting a random sample survey in Jiangsu based on considerations of its disparities in terrain, operational scale, environmental conditions, digitalization level, and carbon emissions. Furthermore, in [Page 21, Appendix A], we added a data selection distribution map and detailed survey route tables. These changes are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 10: Line 505. 5. Results and discussion 505 5.1. Research conclusion. It is unacceptable that conclusions appear within the results.

Response 10: We fully agree with the reviewer's opinion; this is a very important suggestion. Based on this comment, we have modified the article accordingly. We added a separate "Results and Discussion" section [Page 17, Section 5] to provide a deeper discussion of the empirical results presented earlier, detailing the research findings as much as possible and including a brief comparison with the Yangtze River Delta region to highlight the comparability, applicability, and generalizability of the results. Furthermore, we renumbered the original Section 5.1 ("Research Conclusions") to Section 6.1 [Page 19, "6.1 Conclusion"] and optimized this section to ensure "Results and Discussion" and "Conclusion" are two distinct and complete parts. These modifications are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 11: Neither the text nor the references follow the journal's rules.

Response 11: We thank the reviewer for this important point regarding our manuscript. Combining the reviewer's suggestion, we carefully checked the references section of the manuscript and strictly followed the reference format of the Land journal and MDPI. We made corresponding adjustments in [Page 22, "References" Section] and also checked and adjusted the relevant in-text citations against the references. These changes are highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 12: Language of the entire manuscript should be checked by a language expert in a similar field of experience.

Response 12: We thank the reviewer for this point and understand the concern. Following the reviewer's suggestion, our team members sequentially optimized the language of the manuscript, and it has been polished by a relevant language expert to ensure the wording is as accurate and refined as possible. The corresponding content is clearly shown in track changes mode in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 13: The current version is not ready for publication. I believe that major improvements are needed before this manuscript can be considered for publication.

Response 13: We thank the reviewer for the feedback on our current manuscript version. Incorporating the opinions of the editors and reviewers, we have made significant revisions to the manuscript, including restructuring the research background, references, data sources, model design, result accuracy, feasibility of suggestions, and overall language usage. The overall quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved with the help of the editors and experts. Thank you very much.

 

The above responses are the result of our serious discussion and consideration of the reviewer's comments. We thank the reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript amidst a busy schedule. We sincerely welcome any further points requiring modification or discussion. Thank you for your understanding and guidance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf