Aboveground Biomass Dynamics of a Coastal Wetland Ecosystem Driven by Land Use/Land Cover Transformation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Aboveground Biomass Dynamics of Coastal Wetland Ecosystem Driven by Land use/Land Cover Transformation” introduces a different view on the topic concerning LLULC conversion under anthropogenic or natural driving processes with aim to evaluate the aboveground biomass of coastal wetland.

The structure of the manuscript is well organized. The conclusions generally correspond to the presented results but can be improved.

The authors have presented a good review on the topic and adequate information  resources in section 1. Introduction.

Section 2. Materials and Methods needs improvement.  The authors did not introduce the methods of this manuscript clearly enough. Calculation did not provide specific methods and formulas. The topic is very important so the missing information about the methodology (main steps and consequence of the tasks , including those based on remote sensing techniques ) that the authors applied to reach the described results is really important to be included!!!

The Table 2. “The driving process is represented by the initial and final states of the Yellow River Delta LULC. Abbreviations for driving processes are in brackets” should be better described/ more clarified in the manuscript.

The authors presented a good interpretation of the results in the “Results and discussion” sector

I would like to draw authors’ attention to the following comments:

Row 46 : a technical mistake in the word “ 4reach” – I suppose it is “reach”.

In lines 170- 173 the authors wrote that “these different driving processes have different ecological results [38,39]. Could you please explain more about the ecological results with a view to the current study?

Section 3.2.1 “Validation of the AGB Calculation”  should be explained in details.

Row 347 “affected by a variety of factors. The carrier of vegetation is soil. Smuoil moisture content “– maybe it is a technical mistake – soil moisture content? If not the authors should explain?!

The text between  rows 246-254 should be justified.

Suggestion 1: The authors mentioned that “exploring the ecological changes brought about by LULC conversion has an important reference for improving the value of ecosystem services”. So it is important to relate the analysis on Aboveground Biomass Dynamics of Coastal Wetland Ecosystem based on LULC transformations with the influence of these changes on ecosystem services  that Yellow River Delta  provide- some (short) analysis will be appreciated.

Conclusion: The manuscript is relevant for publication after major revision.

Good luck!

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English text translation could be better. For example in rows 187-191 , the underlined  in the text “Water body and cultivated land  were the two main LULC types between 2000 and 2015, and the area of both has been  decreasing. The tidal flat has been decreasing in size, losing 400 km2 between 2000 and  2010 and 98 km2 between 2010 and 2015. The area of slat span has been increasing by 52.8% between 2000 and 2010 and a relatively small 4.8% between 2010 and 2015.” Please, pay attention to the underlined words that need to be changed or explained additionally.

In row 210 “The main type of LULC loss is mariculture, salt span and water body”, please pay attention to the translation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The manuscript used Boreal Ecosystem Productivity Simulator (BEPS) model to simulate the AGB of the Yellow River Delta during 2000-2015 and analyzed the spatiotemporal dynamics of AGB simulation results and their relationship with the human-nature driving process. The topic is interesting and valuable for the other readers.

Before it can be published, there are some concerns should be addressed.

1.     In section 2.3.1, the authors explained how the leaves were divided into ‘positive leaves’ and ‘negative leaves’, but the reasons for this categorization were not stated, please add them in the article.

2.      In Section 3.1.1, the authors stated that the area values of all LULC types were concentrated in three ranges, but then the three ranges were not explained clearly.

3.      In lines 193 to 198, the years mentioned should be 2000, 2010 and 2015, the area values of LULC types are in 2010.

4.     In line 26 and 204, “between 2000 and 2015” -> “ from 2000 to 2015”.

5.     In Figure 2 and Figure 3, please check the spelling of the words. “mash”.

6.     Please check the capitalization of words and the use of punctuation in the second paragraph of section 3.3.1 and Figure 6. For example, in lines 272, 274, 275, and 277. The caption of Figure 6 is too long. It should be described in Method section.

7.      In Section 3.3.3, the authors mentioned 12 natural-driven processes, but according to Table 4, it should be 11 natural-driven processes. Please make a revision.

8.     In line 347, please check the spelling of the words. “Smuoil moisture content” -> “Soil moisture content”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article titled “Aboveground Biomass Dynamics of Coastal Wetland Ecosystem Driven by Land Use/Land Cover Transformation” discusses accurately estimating aboveground biomass produced in the Yellow River Delta in China using a Boreal Ecosystem Productivity Simulator model and its effect on its dynamics over time through land use change analysis. The article presents a great contribution regarding the use of alternatives to model and predict the behavior of the aerial biomass produced. In my opinion, it is necessary to improve relevant aspects that will help the article to be publishable. The aspects to be taken into account for improvement are described below.

In general, the article is quite understandable up to the methodology part, although there is still more work to be done. The aspects to take into account in the methodological part are the following:

     - It is not mentioned clearly what computer tool or software was used to model. There is also no mention of the computer tools for mapping and statistical analyzes carried out.

     - In order to improve understanding and have more detail of the work, it is recommended to include a diagram of the procedures carried out.

     -There is no mention of the analyzes or the statistical criteria taken into account, either for the validation of the model or for evaluating the dynamics of land use change.

     - It is recommended to include field validation aspects. It is of the utmost importance in works related to aerial biomass if it is not possible to technically justify the validation and to increase the reliability of the model and its application in other ecosystems.

     - Check the links; some do not open.

In the part of results and discussions, it is difficult to keep up with him and understand him. Also, it doesn't feel like a discussion is being included as such. It is necessary to consider the following points:

- Due to the amount of information and to improve its understanding, it is recommended to separate the results of discussions.

- The discussion part is necessary to consider appointments; there are few. Incorporate quotes that can support the statements made; it is also necessary to compare with other similar studies.

-  In the statistical graphs, consider the level of significance of the models and the correlations. Take into account that this analysis and the others carried out must also be described in the methodology.

- Use the most common units of measurement (e.g., Mg. A Kg.).

 

-  In conclusion, mention the importance and contribution of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for addings and corrections you made to the article. I think the improvements are obvious!

Good luck!

Reviewer 3 Report

I congratulate the authors. Each of the observations made was addressed correctly. I consider that the article is ready to be published.