Dynamic Analysis of Provincial Forest Carbon Storage Efficiency in China Based on DEA Malmquist Index
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The subject of the manuscript entitled “Dynamic Analysis of Provincial Forest Carbon Storage Effi- 2 ciency in China Based on DEA Malquist Index.” fits the profile of “Forests” journal. The study delivers some interesting results and can be a source of valuable information for the local as well as for the international redears. However, the authors made shortcomings that should be corrected and/or revised before the publication of this work.
Abstract
Kindly check minor spelling mistake. The abstract needs a better composition of words. Moreover, I would suggest to mention the values (Results) in this section.
Introduction
Introduction is well documented. I would suggest to add some figures indicating annual CO2 emissions in China and than compare with the overall world emissions.
Material and methods
Materials and Method section is well explained.
Results
Results are well indicated.
Discussion
This portion needs improvements. The authors must some lines which should be more focused for highlighting the important finding of this work and also compare the findings with previous studies used DEA Malquist Index for estimating FCS.
References
Strengthen the part of the discussion with 2 or 3 new references.
Conclusion
Minor language issues must be addressed to improve quality of the MS.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Article is focused on the important aspect of the general mitigation strategy , i.e. carbon storage in the forest . Especially data form China are very important, Assessing the efficiency of forest carbon storage (FCSE) is important because the lack of evaluation methods for forest carbon storage on a large spatial scale and long time series is missing. As the weakness of presented paper is see the absence of correct definition of FCSE. The same problem I see in the introduction of others parameters, which are used.
Paper is based on the big amount of data from different parts of China with different natural conditions. However the MAIN problem for me is the chapter „ Results and discussion“ I can not see ANY DISCUSSION an comparison to other outputs from others authors!!! I This chapter I gives only information on achieved result nothing more. It is really big weakness of presented paper. Especially when the final article conclusion statement is „ The FCSE evaluation process proposed in the paper can effectively evaluate FCSE on large spatial scale“ This statement is NOT supported by serious scientific discussion
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I am accepting new version of the article
