Spatial–Temporal Changes and Prediction of Carbon Storage in the Tibetan Plateau Based on PLUS-InVEST Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have conducted an interesting work from ecologically intriguing territory of China. However, the authors are locals they may address more impressive their work more then the present one. Following are my comments,

Abstract: The findings are not clearly mentioned. Like under different scenarios means???? Vague sentence, what changes in vegetation types?? FVC and DEM again confusing.. These Letters are being used for the first time … acronyms or abbreviation should not be used… rewrite the abstract … the word scenario greatest are used frequently it may be negative impacts. Conclusion unclear … rephrase with clear sentences.

Keywords: should be changed. It would be better not to have title words.

Introduction: state of art is weak. Stick with your study area. The general info are given in detail. Although the study area is much fascinating based on ecology, topography, vegetation, and climate settings etc… at least give a paragraph articulating the vegetation types.

A paragraph should be included addressing the threats I mean the present status and challenges to the native vegetation types.

Justification is poor. Grammatical mistakes found in the intro…. Need to improve.. as work of same nature has been done in China Like Li et al. ,,,  Yang et al.  … What’s new in your study … Research gap is absent. At last why this study is necessary based on your study area?

Materials and methods: the study area is very indifferently and poorly described. I think much could have been written sequentially. In any ecologically work study area makes the study interesting for readers…  Precise description of the study is required. Research does not mean the few attractive figures and tables. You have done well but need to elaborate in sentences.  What is meant for suitable and unsuitable land … For what????

Data: The vegetation-type data were the reclassification data of Modis land-cover-type 123 product MCD12Q1 in 2000, 2010 and 2020. Why did you use this model ???????

Results: Figures may be improved. Bush desert is ambiguous ????  I thing Qinghai lowlands show cold desert climate. If yes then how carbon storage increasing in deserts. And that of dwarf grass unchanged??? I think there is need to give overall vegetation profile of the area. Study area then it could be more easy to understand.  Figure 2 showing 4 figures … Tag them with A, B, C and D. Write separate caption. Again caption of Figure four is common for 4 figures. Make them collage if it is shown in one caption. Otherwise give them Letters to describe. Separate caption is needed. Figure five is poor does not show any thing as described in color legends change it. Or make it more clear. Again al figures are need to be collaged and described.

The findings are need to be discussed more in China scenario. Already literature of on this topic found a lot in China.

Rewrite the conclusion addressing the key fining and recommendations.

Need to improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1) Lines 29-33 – FVC, DEM - abbreviation should be explained when first mention.

2) Keywords – keywords repeat the title of the manuscript. Not sure its a good idea.

3) Lines 59-95 – too large paragraph. Should be divided at least into two parts.

4) Line 109 – some interesting information about the importance of the study site should be moved to the Introduction.

5) Line 198 – so many tables in the Methods section. Maybe Tables 4 and 5 can be moved to the Results of provided as supplementary?

6) The results section is too long and extremely difficult to understand. I strongly recommend authors to optimize this section by deleting tables and figures with supporting and raw data or moving them to the supplementary. It is better to focus on the models.

7) Lines 523-526 – this section should be expanded with discussion of the mechanisms of the factors’ influence on the ecosystems drawing on additional references. Without this, the research is too descriptive.

8) References section is poor. I think that some more references about global carbon studies should be added at least into the Introduction and Discussion.

 

I suggest the sentences are to be shorter. Authors should also avoid passive voice in the text, except for the methods section

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled “Spatial–temporal changes and prediction of carbon storage in the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau based on PLUS-InVEST model” reflects the development of research and the topic is interesting. However, the introduction, materials, methods, results and discussion need to be improved. Thus, major changes are recommended.

 

Comments

1) Introduction – should be focused on the research objectives

2) Materials – need to be more detailed

3) Methods – are not completely described

4) Results – the authors describe the results both in tables and in the text. Please consider highlight in the text only the relevant results

5) Discussion – not all results are discussed and parts of the discussion do not seem to be in accordance to the results.

6) Abstract – Please revise English

7) Lines 29, 32 – What is the meaning of FVC? Prior to using an acronym provide its meaning

8) Line 30 – What is the meaning of q value?

9) Lines 48-54 – Please clarify

10) Lines 54-60 – Please clarify

11) Lines 61-82 – This paragraph is not clear. Are the authors referencing only to China? Please clarify

12) Line 91 – what do the authors mean by measured data? Which kind of data?

13) Lines 102-103 – Text is repeated

14) Lines 102-116 – References should be added

15) Line 137 – for cultivation of what? Agricultural crops? Forest?

16) Lines 144-157 – data source need to be better described

17) Lines 144-148 – but in lines 140-141 vegetation types do not include the forest ones

18) Line 150 and Table 1 – vegetation type is not a variable?

19) Table 1 – For several variables data source and pretreatment process is missing

20) Section 2.3.1 – needs to be clarified. It is not clear which biomass components were studied

21) Section 2.3.2 – needs to be clarified. It seems that the methods are not completely described

22) Section 2.3.3 – needs to be clarified. It seems that the methods are not completely described

23) Table 3 Why did the author include C_dead column if the values are always 0?

24) Section 2.3.4 – needs to be clarified. It seems that the methods are not completely described

25) Line 270 – coniferous forest belongs to which vegetation type?

26) Table 6 – What is the meaning of the values 1 to 10? Please make sure to use always the same name for each variable.

27) Lines 287-301 –The text is not clear. Also, the authors referee to several counties and cities as no map was provided it is not possible to understand the relevance of the text (the description per territorial unit is present along all the Results section, for example lines 335-350, 360-381)

28) Lines 315-318 – Please clarify

29) Lines 360-381 – Please consider replacing the text by table 3 of appendix A

30) Line 387-408 – This text is difficult to understand as scenarios are not completely described in the methods

31) Lines 433-437 – Consider moving this sentence to the discussion

32) Figure 8 – What is A, B and C?

33) Line 447 – “other environmental factors”. Which ones?

34) Along the text – The authors use several names for the same variable. Please standardise

35) Lines 526-583 – Please discuss the results and support the discussion with published references

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be accepted in the present form

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The second version of the manuscript improvements were made. Yet, comments considered relevant for the readers to understand the study were not addressed. Also more care should be taken by the authors when highlighting the changes made in the manuscript, only the new changes should be highlighted. Thus, major changes were recommended.

 

1) Lines 47-59 – the text is not clear

2) Lines 61-82 – this paragraph is not clear. Are the authors referencing only to China? Please clarify

3) Lines 93-93 – how was biomass estimated? With allometric functions or other functions? Which were the explanatory variables? Diameter at breast height, Total height or other variables? Please clarify in the text.

4) Table 1 – vegetation type is not a variable?

5) Lines 386-405 – Please consider replacing the text by a table

6) Lines 457-461 – Consider moving this sentence to the discussion

7) Line 473 – please include in the text which are the other environmental factors

8) Discussion – needs to be improved. Check for contradictions between results and discussion.

 

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx