Capacity of Forests and Grasslands to Achieve Carbon Neutrality in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.         Line 402;  Chen C, Park T , Wang X , et al.  China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management[J]. Nature Sustainability, 2019, 2(2):122-129.   

Zhang Z, Zhang Y X. Research on Carbon Peak and Carbon Sink Capacity of Major Carbon Emitting Countries in the 455. World[J]. Forest Resource Management, 2023, 02:1-9.

Yue Y, Ni J, Ciais P, et al. Lateral transport of soil carbon and land-atmosphere CO2 flux induced by water erosion in 450  China[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016, 113(24):6617-6622. ETC.

‘’This references are wrong style, references year should be after autors’’

2.         Line 202; fruit forests, which accounted for 69.73% of the orchard area

         ‘’ This statement does not match the graphic chart! What is the another portion?

3.         Line 311;313;343 (Powlson et al., 2022); (Bhattacharyya et al., 2022); (Zhang et al., 2014) arent in References list.

4.         Line 409; Fang Jingyun, Cuo Zhaodi, Hu Huifeng, et al., 2014. Forest biomass carbon sinks in East Asia, with special reference to the relative contributions of forest expansionand forest growth.[J]. Global Change Biology, 20(6): 2019–2030.

‘’ This references style not correct form’’

Author Response

1. Line 402: Chen C, Park T , Wang X , et al. China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management[J]. Nature Sustainability, 2019, 2(2):122-129. Zhang Z, Zhang Y X. Research on Carbon Peak and Carbon Sink Capacity of Major Carbon Emitting Countries in the 455. World[J]. Forest Resource Management, 2023, 02:1-9. Yue Y, Ni J, Ciais P, et al. Lateral transport of soil carbon and land-atmosphere CO2 flux induced by water erosion in 450 China[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016, 113(24):6617-6622. ETC. This references are wrong style, references year should be after autors’’ Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have modified the references style.
2. Line 202; fruit forests, which accounted for 69.73% of the orchard area. This statement does not match the graphic chart! What is the another portion? Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have changed the sentence as “The area occupied by orchards was 1.50 ×105 km2, which accounted for only 5.17% of the total area” (page 5, line 208-209)
3. Line 311;313;343 (Powlson et al., 2022); (Bhattacharyya et al., 2022); (Zhang et al., 2014) arent in References list. Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added these citations in the reference list.
4. Line 409; Fang Jingyun, Cuo Zhaodi, Hu Huifeng, et al., 2014. Forest biomass carbon sinks in East Asia, with special reference to the relative contributions of forest expansionand forest growth.[J]. Global Change Biology, 20(6): 2019–2030. ‘’ This references style not correct form’’ Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have modified the reference. In addition, we have revised the citation format of the references in the main text and checked the all the references style.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is a considerable improvement in the article. There are some language problems still left in the manuscript. I have pointed out only some, the authors would be required to address this problem by examining the entire draft.

It seems that the authors academic background is not ecological, as they have not provided any information on China’s forest profile. Forests are characterized ecologically in several ways, which are relevant to the overall understanding. Furthermore, they have not analysed whether the carbon sink rate in forest of China is low or high in comparison to other countries having similar forest types. I find it difficult to understand the terms like “vertical emission” and “lateral emission”. Are they standard term, accepted widely?

How effective is “soil carbon reinforcement” in carbon mitigation and what is its potential? It warrants an elaborate analysis. The comparison with other countries is still missing. For example, how good is that the carbon sequestration by forests of China is 13% of China’s annual fossil fuel carbon emission, compared to other regions? This needs to be discussed.

Objective of the study is now apparent, and is simpler.  

In brief, the authors should be asked to address above points, which they have ignored.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing required at some places.

Author Response

1. It seems that the authors academic background is not ecological, as they have not provided any information on China’s forest profile. Forests are characterized ecologically in several ways, which are relevant to the overall understanding. Furthermore, they have not analysed whether the carbon sink rate in forest of China is low or high in comparison to other countries having similar forest types. I find it difficult to understand the terms like “vertical emission” and “lateral emission”. Are they standard term, accepted widely? Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have compared carbon sink rate in forest of China to other countries in page 10, Line 308-312. The forest carbon sink rates in the present study were similar to that in America (0.94 t C / (hm2 ‧ y) [6] but lower than global forest ecosystem average net productivity (2.6 t C / (hm2 ‧ y) [30]. This difference probably resulted from different estimation methods. In addition, we have changed “lateral transport” to “horizontal transport”, and deleted “lateral emission”. The “horizontal transport” and “vertical emission” in the manuscript are widely used terms. 2. How effective is “soil carbon reinforcement” in carbon mitigation and what is its potential? It warrants an elaborate analysis. The comparison with other countries is still missing. For example, how good is that the carbon sequestration by forests of China is 13% of China’s annual fossil fuel carbon emission, compared to other regions? This needs to be discussed. Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added the potential of soil carbon reinforcement in page 10, Line 330-331. From a climate change point of view, soil carbon reinforcement has potential to reduce carbon losses and keep soils in a good and stable condition. As forest and grassland measures to prevent lateral horizontal soil organic carbon transport and vertical carbon emissions remain misunderstood and unquantified, we did not compare soil carbon reinforcement with other countries. In addition, we have discussed “the carbon sequestration by forests of China is 13% of China’s annual fossil fuel carbon emission” in page 12, line 381-386. Sequestration and avoided carbon emissions by forests and grasslands are additional opportunities, not alternative to fossil emissions reductions. They can help to achieve carbon neutrality, but they won’t solve climate change. Therefore, they shouldn’t be dismissed or exaggerated, especially the role of forests and grasslands in reducing erosion-induced emission cannot be ignored in the carbon cycle and China´s forest policies

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article shows China's government policies to achieve carbon neutrality and mitigate climate change. The manuscript is much improved compared to the first version.

General concept comments

Article: Carbon losses from various types of landscapes in China, including absorption, were estimated. References to literary sources do not meet the publisher’s requirements; please submit them in the format [1, 2, 3...]. The manuscript contains significantly more technical comments than the original data.

 Specific comments

1. Lines 108-110. How was the erosion rate calculated and what time interval was taken? What type of erosion are we talking about?

2. Lines 198-271. As in the previous version of the article, this section looks unsaid and shows only a small part of the results obtained. The authors need to expand the interpretation of the data as the number of graphs allows for this.

3. Lines 387-389. Author Contributions. See the log requirements, it needs to be corrected.

4. Lines 394-461. For an example of a list of references, see this article https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/15/6/984.

5. Prepare the manuscript in accordance with the requirements of the publisher and the journal https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forests/instructions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Article: Carbon losses from various types of landscapes in China, including absorption, were estimated. References to literary sources do not meet the publisher’s requirements; please submit them in the format [1, 2, 3...]. The manuscript contains significantly more technical comments than the original data.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the citation format of the references in the main text and checked the all the references style.

Specific comments

2. Lines 108-110. How was the erosion rate calculated and what time interval was taken? What type of erosion are we talking about?

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the sentence as: The soil water erosion rates in 2021 and the reference year were obtained from 10×10m data layers derived from national annual dynamic monitoring of soil and water losses, which were calculated using Chinese Soil Loss Equation (CSLE) on the base of remote sensing images, field investigation and indoor artificial interpretation in 2021 and 2020, respectively (page 3, line 138-142).

3. Lines 198-271. As in the previous version of the article, this section looks unsaid and shows only a small part of the results obtained. The authors need to expand the interpretation of the data as the number of graphs allows for this.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have partly revised the results.

4. Lines 387-389. Author Contributions. See the log requirements, it needs to be corrected.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the Author Contributions.

5. Lines 394-461. For an example of a list of references, see this article https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/15/6/984.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the citation format of the references in the main text and modified the references style.

6. Prepare the manuscript in accordance with the requirements of the publisher and the journal https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forests/instructions.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the manuscript in accordance with the requirements of the publisher and the journal.

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

Comments to the authors (Forests_Ms-2902778)

The present study is about “Pathways and Capacity of Forests and Grasslands to Achieve Carbon Neutrality in China”.

 

The manuscript is written well but lack in citation to support the arguments, hence, each sentence needed to support with an appropriate citation.

 

I have listed some of the these in the specific comments below, although the list is not exhaustive.

 

Specific comments:

 

Introduction

The citation is needed in between the sentences. Many paragraphs are missing citation, Why?

Method-

The methodology section should provide a clear and comprehensive explanation of the study design and data analysis methods. This section should be crystal clear, pl also check each equation carefully.

L-105- Table 1 should be out side of the bracket.

 

Discussion-

The statements should be supported with the correct citation. The discussion part should be elaborated.

 

Conclusion- This part should be come from the findings of the study. It must be concise and clear. It needs re-written.

 

 

In light of these concerns, I strongly encourage you to revise the manuscript to address the issues mentioned above.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is okay!

Author Response

Introduction

1. The citation is needed in between the sentences. Many paragraphs are missing citation, Why?

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have carefully checked the whole manuscript and added the missing citation.

Method

2. The methodology section should provide a clear and comprehensive explanation of the study design and data analysis methods. This section should be crystal clear, pl also check each equation carefully.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have partly rewritten the Method. We have provided explanation of the study design (page 3, line 115-124) and data analysis methods (page 5, line 226-232). And we have also checked equations carefully.

3. L-105- Table 1 should be out side of the bracket.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have written the sentence (page 3, line 131).

Discussion-

4. The statements should be supported with the correct citation. The discussion part should be elaborated.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have partly written the whole discussion and cited more reference (page 11-14, line 320-439).

5. Conclusion- This part should be come from the findings of the study. It must be concise and clear. It needs re-written.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have partly written the conclusion (page 14-15, line 440-456).

6. In light of these concerns, I strongly encourage you to revise the manuscript to address the issues mentioned above.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have made major revision of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It would have been more realistic if the maps had satellite images.

2. Climatic characteristics and temperature changes in the regions could be associated with carbon change.

3. Line 73: Van Osstel at ,, 2007 isnt references list.

4. Line 76-78: The sentences arent clear. It should rewrite

5. Line 300: Yue at al. isnt in References list.

6. Line 310: Yu et al. isnt in there

7. lİne 354: Paun et al isnt in the references list

8. Line 369: Pan Y.d. isnt on there.

9. The references list was not included same writing style.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English of the article is clear and understandable. 

Author Response

1. It would have been more realistic if the maps had satellite images.

Response: As the data source for spatial distributions of water erosion, as well as forests and grasslands cover type in China, are confidential files. So we represented provincial scale maps rather than satellite images.

2. Climatic characteristics and temperature changes in the regions could be associated with carbon change.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have discussed the role of climate in carbon sink rate In the Discussion (page 12, line 351-360): both maximum forest soil and biomass carbon sink rates occurred in Fujian corresponding to its high temperature and more precipitation. The minimum values, observed in Tibet, may have result from the cold and dry climate. This suggests a role of climate in shaping the carbon sink……

3. Line 73: Van Osstel at ,, 2007 isnt references list.

Response: We are so sorry for our incorrect writing, we have changed the reference as “Van Oost et al., 2007” (page 2, line 81).

4. Line 76-78: The sentences arent clear. It should rewrite

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have rewritten the sentence (page 2, line 83-86).

5. Line 300: Yue at al. isnt in References list.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added the reference (page 16, line 520-521).

6. Line 310: Yu et al. isnt in there

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added the reference (page 16, line 522-523).

7. lİne 354: Paun et al isnt in the references list

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have deleted the wrong citation.

8. Line 369: Pan Y.d. isnt on there.

Response: We are so sorry for our incorrect writing, we have changed “Pan et al., 2003” as “Pan et al., 2011” (page 2, line 60).

9. The references list was not included same writing style.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the reference in the same writing style.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Pathways and Capacity of forests and Grasslands to achieve Carbon Neutrality in China

This study is about quantification of carbon sink values of vegetation and soil and of reduced soi carbon emissions due to conservation practices at the scale of China. It considers both forests and grasslands which have roughly equal land areas in China.

 The authors show that China’s forests and grasslands absorb atmospheric CO₂ and reduce CO₂ emissions equivalent to about 13% of China’s annual fossil CO₂ emission. The language is fairly good, but not mistake free. The use of term ‘pathways’ in the title is not adequately justified, as it is neither referred in the text nor made apparent in any other form. The major problem is that authors have only given a vague idea of sources of data which are divisible into national surveys, field surveys by the authors and “literature database”. There is a need to explain the extent of use of own data collection. Is it the main or peripheral component? What does the survey amount to and how data were collected (study design)?

The authors must give an idea of forests of China in terms of dominant species, and physiognomic types (such as deciduous, broadleaved evergreen and coniferous). The terms Arbor forests and nursery forests are not common, so need to be explained (Table. 1). What for ‘a’ stands (ea, 394.18 Mt C/a).

“Soil carbon reinforcement” is the reduced lateral transport of soil organic C via soil conservation (line 168)- please elaborate on this, indicating the practices and scales. Is it the reason for using the term pathways in the title of the paper?

The results could be discussed with those of the other countries having similar data.

Are the policies which support this approach of climate change mitigation strong enough?

True the top 0-20 cm soil is the richest in C (line 266), but deeper soils too can have sizeable carbon mass.

The article could be made ecologically relevant by considering nature of forests and grasslands, rather than limiting the study to one point, the carbon neutrality at country level. If that is to be the focus (carbon neutrality), than comparison with other efforts could be useful. One will be interested to know how significant is 13% of total emission? The role of forest and grasslands cover in reducing carbon emission is an interesting point, warranting more discussion.

In brief, I suggest the article needs to be revised (major revision) substantially for publication.      

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English editing required.

Author Response

1. The authors show that China’s forests and grasslands absorb atmospheric CO₂ and reduce CO₂ emissions equivalent to about 13% of China’s annual fossil CO₂ The language is fairly good, but not mistake free. The use of term ‘pathways’ in the title is not adequately justified, as it is neither referred in the text nor made apparent in any other form. The major problem is that authors have only given a vague idea of sources of data which are divisible into national surveys, field surveys by the authors and “literature database”. There is a need to explain the extent of use of own data collection. Is it the main or peripheral component? What does the survey amount to and how data were collected (study design)?

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the title as “Capacity of Forests and Grasslands to Achieve Carbon Neutrality in China”. In addition, we have partly rewritten the Method. We have described the sources of data which are from national surveys, field surveys and published literature and reports (page 3, line 131-150). We explained the extent of use of own data collection (page 3, line 141-145): our own data is peripheral component of soil carbon density to handle with the missing values. The field campaign was carried out in 2021 using the method by Tang et al. (2018). All the measurements involved 113 field plots across three provinces (35 sites in Fujian, 33 sites in Shanxi and 45 sites in shannxi) that have typical forest and grassland cover types.

2. The authors must give an idea of forests of China in terms of dominant species, and physiognomic types (such as deciduous, broadleaved evergreen and coniferous). The terms Arbor forests and nursery forests are not common, so need to be explained (Table. 1). What for ‘a’ stands (ea, 394.18 Mt C/a).

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the “C/a” as “C/y”, it means C per year (page 4, line 170). As data availability, we used forest and grassland classification derived from national annual dynamic monitoring of soil and water loss according to its land-cover classification, rather than dominant species (page 4, line 164). The classification of forest and grassland cover types in this study was in consistent with the China’s current land use classification.

3. “Soil carbon reinforcement” is the reduced lateral transport of soil organic C via soil conservation (line 168)- please elaborate on this, indicating the practices and scales. Is it the reason for using the term pathways in the title of the paper?

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have deleted the term “pathways”. In addition, we have revised the sentence as “soil carbon reinforcement is the reduced lateral transport of organic carbon via soil conservation by forests and grasslands on the eroded landscape (page 5, line 206-208)”.

4. The results could be discussed with those of the other countries having similar data.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have discussed the results with those of the other countries (page 14, line 428-438). Forests and grasslands sequestered carbon in biota and soil and reduced the risks of erosion-induced emission, which is about 13% of annual fossil CO₂ emissions in China. The proportion is similar to the contribution of forest carbon sink to annual carbon emissions in other temperate countries (mostly less than 15%). For example, 9.4% of Korea and 10.36 of America.

5. Are the policies which support this approach of climate change mitigation strong enough?

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have discussed China are regional hot spots of erosion and therefore conservation polices should be focused (page 14, line 419-420). In addition, the role of forest and grasslands cover in reducing erosion-induced emission cannot be ignored in the carbon cycle but is still largely neglected in China´s forest policies (page 14, line 433-435).

6. True the top 0-20 cm soil is the richest in C (line 266), but deeper soils too can have sizeable carbon mass.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revise the sentence (page 12, line 348-349). Most annual carbon sinks in forest soils are concentrated near the soil surface (0-20 cm) rather than at depth (Deng et al., 2014). Therefore, the calculated forests and grasslands soil carbon sink rates in this study were based on changes in organic carbon in the topsoil (0-20 cm).

7. The article could be made ecologically relevant by considering nature of forests and grasslands, rather than limiting the study to one point, the carbon neutrality at country level. If that is to be the focus (carbon neutrality), than comparison with other efforts could be useful. One will be interested to know how significant is 13% of total emission? The role of forest and grasslands cover in reducing carbon emission is an interesting point, warranting more discussion.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have partly written the Discussion. We have discussed the “13% of total emission” with those of the other countries (page 14, line 428-438). In addition, we have added the discussion of “forest and grasslands cover in reducing carbon emission” (page 14, line 410-420).

8. In brief, I suggest the article needs to be revised (major revision) substantially for publication.      

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have made a major revision of the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the work have carried out important research on carbon validation in China. The role of forests and meadows in sequestering atmospheric carbon and its conservation in the ecosystem is shown. Thus, plant production and soil are carbon sinks, sequestering approximately 394 million tons of carbon per year. The article clearly shows China's government policies to achieve carbon neutrality and mitigate the effects of climate change.

 General concept comments

Article: At the beginning of the article, the problem of carbon accounting for vertical and horizontal flows is substantiated. Estimates of carbon loss and absorption are given for various types of landscapes. The general purpose of the article is clear, but its specification is lacking. It must be cited in a separate paragraph.

References to literary sources do not meet the requirements of the publisher. It is required to enclose literary sources in square brackets [...] and in digital [1] format.

 Specific comments

1. Lines 112-113 and 122-125. Combine sentences because they are close in meaning and refer to the same quoted author.

2. Lines 175-176. What type of erosion are we talking about? If on the plain, then wind. If there are slope elements in the relief, both water and wind erosion may be present. Each of these erosions will have a different effect on the loss of carbon from the soil.

3. It is important to show clear and visible numbers in all the figures presented in the article - highlight them in bold and possibly enlarge the font. When reading them, a strong blurring of legends and scales was recorded, which were not properly perceived, even when the scale was increased to 200%. It is necessary to correct the legends and scales.

4. Lines 186-242. Section 3. Results seemed unsaid to me and is divided into small subsections that show only a small part of the results obtained. The authors need to expand their interpretation of the data and provide detailed arguments.

5. Prepare the manuscript in accordance with the requirements of the publisher and the journal https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forests/instructions.

Author Response

Comments on the Quality of English Language. Minor English editing required.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have carefully edited the English Language

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the work have carried out important research on carbon validation in China. The role of forests and meadows in sequestering atmospheric carbon and its conservation in the ecosystem is shown. Thus, plant production and soil are carbon sinks, sequestering approximately 394 million tons of carbon per year. The article clearly shows China's government policies to achieve carbon neutrality and mitigate the effects of climate change.

 General concept comments

Article: At the beginning of the article, the problem of carbon accounting for vertical and horizontal flows is substantiated. Estimates of carbon loss and absorption are given for various types of landscapes. The general purpose of the article is clear, but its specification is lacking. It must be cited in a separate paragraph.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have described the carbon absorption and loss in results and abstract in detail.

References to literary sources do not meet the requirements of the publisher. It is required to enclose literary sources in square brackets [...] and in digital [1] format.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have enclose literary sources in square brackets [...] and in digital format (page 15-16, line 463-534).

 Specific comments

1. Lines 112-113 and 122-125. Combine sentences because they are close in meaning and refer to the same quoted author.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have combined the sentences (page 3, line 138-141).

2. Lines 175-176. What type of erosion are we talking about? If on the plain, then wind. If there are slope elements in the relief, both water and wind erosion may be present. Each of these erosions will have a different effect on the loss of carbon from the soil.

Response: It is the erosion on the plains and mountains in China. Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have discussed “due to the limitation of data availability, the impacts of forests and grasslands on mitigating wind erosion to reduce carbon losses have not been estimated” (page 14, line 422-427).

3. It is important to show clear and visible numbers in all the figures presented in the article - highlight them in bold and possibly enlarge the font. When reading them, a strong blurring of legends and scales was recorded, which were not properly perceived, even when the scale was increased to 200%. It is necessary to correct the legends and scales.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have modified all the numbers and scales of the images.

4. Lines 186-242. Section 3. Results seemed unsaid to me and is divided into small subsections that show only a small part of the results obtained. The authors need to expand their interpretation of the data and provide detailed arguments.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have partly rewritten the results (page 6-11, line 235-319).

5. Prepare the manuscript in accordance with the requirements of the publisher and the journal https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forests/instructions.

Response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have prepare the manuscript in accordance with the requirements of the publisher and the journal.