Evaluating the Ecological Restoration Effectiveness of Poverty Alleviation Relocation through Carbon Storage Analysis: Insights from Karst Regions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) I suggest to the authors to remove text in the introduction section which span at Line 97 to Line 117 from the introduction, Please make a synthesis and add to Material and Method in order to reduce the INTRODUCTION
2) Line 126: Pleas put a full stop instead of coma after "...China"
3) Line 127-129: Sentence is too long
4) Line 154-166: I suggest to the authors to put all these informations in a table.
4) Line 183-187: This sentence is too long, please split it into short sentences.
5) Line 194-200: I suggest to reduce the size of font if it is to explain the variables of Formula
6) Line 216-222: I suggest to reduce the size of font if it is to explain the variables of Formula
7) Line 226-227: Please rewrite by going straight to the results. FOR EXAMPLE " Resuts showed that before.......in 2015..... . After ....in 2021"
8) Line 228: " Acording statistics...." Please avoid to use the word " statistics " here, pleace replace it by "Results"
8) Line 304-316: This is a good synthesis of your results that can be used for discussion
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
English is perfect, just some minor editing to clearly presents the results as some sentences are too long
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Your input will greatly assist us in refining the structure of our paper and clarifying the significance of our research. We will diligently address your suggestions to ensure that our paper meets your expectations. The word is our response to your specific comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsChina’s Poverty Alleviation Relocation (PAR) program in the karst regions of southwest China has the dual goal of reducing poverty and improving ecological conditions. To achieve these goals, farmers in ecologically sensitive areas are relocated to urban centers and provided various amenities, such as housing and healthcare. However, the ecological effectiveness of the project is difficult to gauge due to the lack of experimental data. To address this, the current project uses onsite experimental data to assess the impact of PAR on carbon storage in forest ecosystems. More specifically, the researchers identified three townships within the Guizhou Province representing different land cover types: severely rocky desertification; typical karst; and non-karst, and utilized standard sample plots to estimate carbon storage. Samples were taken in 2015, prior to the implementation of PAR and in 2021, after PAR implementation. The researchers then compared the results to determine overall ecological restoration effectiveness of PAR.
The research is interesting and addresses an important topic—namely the effectiveness of a particular ecological restoration effort. However, I have several concern that I believe should be addressed before the article is published. First and foremost, the article will need extensive English editing. I recommend the authors use an English language editing service if one is available to them. Second, I question whether one can gauge the overall effectiveness of a program after only six years. That doesn’t negate the importance of the study, merely it acknowledges some limitations in drawing in specific conclusions beyond there is a post-PAR increase in carbon storage. This also begs the question of whether other factors may have contributed to the changes as well. Therefore, my second recommendation is that the authors acknowledge these limitations.
Below, I have some specific comments. Due to the extensive English language editing I believe this paper requires, I typically will not address individual grammatical issue unless something was unclear or otherwise worthy of note.
The second sentence in the introduction is incomplete (starting on Ln. 31). Perhaps this was supposed to be part of the first sentence?
On line 40, the others write about the “prominent conflicts between people and land”. I am unsure what they mean by this. Please explain.
Beginning on line 70, the authors present a review of some of the literature related to PAR. This is an important paragraph, but it needs a lot of work. For instance, as written, it essentially states “some studies did this…and some studies did this…and some studies did this.” This is a good example of where good English editing could be useful.
Line 97: Minor issue, the word “practice” should likely be “conducted.”
Line 127: What is meant by “demonstration area”? Is this a region in which the Chinese government has implemented PAR and using it to show the effectiveness of the policy?
On lines 130-131, the authors write that 1.92 million people in the Guizhou Province were relocated under PAR. They then state this is approximately one-fifth of the national total. This is quite perplexing. China’s current population is approximately 1.4 billion. 1.92 million is far less than 1/5th of the national population. Even if the authors mean the provincial population, this can’t be correct. According to a quick Google search, the population of the province is approximately 38.56 million. 1.92 million would be about 5% of 38.56 million. Is that what the authors meant?
On line 147, the authors write “this article selects…” The selected sites, I presume, were not selected by or for the article, rather for analysis, which resulted in the article.
Starting on line 154—the descriptions of the individual study sites would work well in a table. I recommend this rather than writing out as the authors have.
Figure 2—the legend and caption use DEM—however, this is just a model. Since it is showing elevation, I think “elevation” is a better legend and figure caption.
What is the source of the information in table 1?
On line 211, the authors write that they are analyzing the correlation between PAR and carbon storage variables. How is PAR being measured? Up to this point, it seemed to be a binary—before and after PAR.
For section 2.4, I do not think it is necessary to explain the Pearson correlation coefficient to this level. It is a well-known, established method. I think merely citing a source is sufficient.
Section 3.1 is called “Overall Evolutionary Trends.” I am not sure “evolutionary” is the correct word to use. I would recommend simply using the word “Change” or “Trajectory.”
Section 3.2: I think a broad introductory statement about overall findings would be in order. For instance, that the authors found a net increase in forest coverage, biomass, carbon storage, etc. After this, the authors can get into the specifics, comparing the two years.
Two questions about figure 3. First, is it referenced in the paper? I could not find it when I went back and did a “Find.” Also, since there were sample plots, how were these data interpolated over space? Did I miss something in the methods (I may have).
On line 399, the authors write “The results of this study indicate a significant improvement in the forest ecoystems…” I think a strong case can be made this should be the opening sentence for section 3.2 (see comment above).
Lastly, the conclusion isn’t really a conclusion. It is more an abstract. The conclusion should tie everything together. Again, using the sentence from line 399 above, the conclusion should reiterate the key findings, but it is not necessary to provide the values again. Instead, something along the lines is our results show the effectiveness of PAR in increasing carbon storage… Then discuss the implications thereof, future directions for research, and for PAR, etc.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English writing absolutely needs to be improved before this is publishable. I highly recommend using an English language writing service. As a native English speaker, I know I have certain advantages in this regard and I do not wish to be harsh here. However, this is an English language journal and, therefore, it needs extensive editing.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Your input will greatly assist us in refining the structure of our paper and clarifying the significance of our research. We will diligently address your suggestions to ensure that our paper meets your expectations. The word is our response to your specific comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very interesting article, concerning important and current issues - positive connections between policy of Poverty Alleviation Relocation (PAR) and ecological restoration of natural but partly degraded areas (forest ecosytems prevail in the study area), including carbon restoration effectivenes. This relation betwen social problems solution and restoration of natural environment are worth attention, even more so that quantitative evidence was provided by research pesented by the Authors in this paper. The study aim was to enhance and enrich the research methodology for evaluating the ecologcal restoration effectiveness in relationship with PAR.
The research results were quite easy predictable, but supported by quanitative data statistically confirmed, with using an interesting methodical approach. This article (this presented research) may inspire other scientists to study deeper such issues as the effectivness of environment restoration with simultaneous poverty decrease actions. Additionally, the methodical approach is worth consideration (sequence of methods / actions, Carbon Storage Quantification Model of dominant species in forest ecosystems (China), correlation analysis).
Detailed comments:
Ad ABSTRACT - add something about methodical approach (it is an attribute of the presented study) and formulate more clearly the aim of studies; line 39 - lack of a space.
Ad INTRODUCTION - it is not clearly written: divide it in larger number of paragraphs; now, a reader has difficulties in recognizing what is more or less important, difficulties with following the logic of reasoning...; the aim is difficult to find by a reader in such compact text.
Ad MATERIALS and METHODS - suggestion to add the methodical scheme (Figure) - metodical approach is a considerable value of this paper.
Ad DISCUSSION - the same as above: write it more clearly, divide the text into larger numbers of paragraphs.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is good
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Your input will greatly assist us in refining the structure of our paper and clarifying the significance of our research. We will diligently address your suggestions to ensure that our paper meets your expectations. The word is our response to your specific comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have largely addressed the issues I raised in the initial review. Most importantly, they have sought assistance with English language editing. I know English is not the authors’ native language, so I commend them on this. Nonetheless, I still see a number of lingering issues.
For instance, there is a typo at the beginning of the very second sentence (SThis instead of this). The third sentence can be truncated, for instance, “Over the past two decades, the region has achieved international recognition as a hotspot for ecological restoration research.” The first sentence in the paragraph beginning on line 74 is incomplete. There are likely many other instances where there are typos or the text can be improved. However, given the short turn-around of this review, I cannot painstakingly go through the article to identify these.
In the initial review, I noted that the legend in figure 2 should be changed to “elevation.” The authors made this change, but I have now noted a couple of other glaring issues with this figure that I overlooked the first time. For instance, each map is labeled twice (once with a big letter and once with a parenthetical letter). The font sizes vary throughout the image. There is not a consistent size with the north arrows and the scale bar (size—I understand the actual scale is different on each map), etc.
Under 2.2, the authors say the data used in the study are highly accurate. What is the basis for this statement?
In section 2.2.1, the authors mention existing forest land survey plots. What are these plots from?
In the previous review, I mentioned an issue with the term “evolutionary trends.” The authors must have misunderstood. My issue is with the word “evolutionary” not “changes” or “trends.”
Lastly, the conclusion still really isn’t a conclusion—it doesn’t wrap everything up.
As noted, there are likely other issues, but I have had to do this review quickly.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAuthors acknowledge that English is not their native language and that they sought assistance. The language has been strongly improved, but could still use work.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Below is our response to your specific comments:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
