Fourfold Increase in Climate Contributions to Grassland Soil Organic Carbon Variabilities and Its Policy Implications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,The manuscript needs improvement as suggested below:
1. Title: Not clear, modify it. The word importance/ relative importance in the title and abstract does not make any sense to understand.
2. Abstract: Needs modification. The word importance/relative importance is not clear. Use statistical approach to write your result. The result section is also missing such explaining.
3. Introduction-Add some information to introduce the previous work done in any part of the world on this topic which is relevant to your study. Hypothesis of the study should be clear. Do not write objectives again unnecessarily.
4. Methods-This section is poorly written. Needs modification. Figure resolution is not good, change it. Add detail procedure of soil sampling, statistical analysis for better understanding. Mention the methodology properly.
5. Results-Rewrite it properly. Use statistical approach to this writing. Policy part is weakly written and hence enrich this portion.
6. Conclusion-Concise this portion and give proper conclusion which can signify this portion.
Overall, revisit your manuscript in terms of quality improvement.
Regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Revisit your manuscript for the English language.
Regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article entitled “Shifting Climate Importance in Explaining Grassland Soil Organic Carbon Variabilities and Its Policy Implications”, deals with the influence of climate change on the amount of organic carbon in grasslands, these changes being driven by changes in temperatures, precipitation and by the management policies. This study, which is carried out in Inner Mongolia between 1980-2022, not only takes into account the influence of precipitation and temperatures, the authors also consider the type of soil and the intensity of grazing, which I consider to be correct. The article is well structured and the results and discussion are in accordance with the methodology and objectives set. Finally, the authors conclude that climate change is responsible for the variability of organic carbon in grasslands, and they also propose to institutions the need to establish management mechanisms in accordance with ecosystem services. The article in my opinion can be accepted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments:
This paper does a good job of examining how different factors influence soil organic carbon in grasslands. The study is well-planned, and the findings are supported by the data. It is interesting to see how the role of climate has become more significant over time. The writing is clear, and the research methods are sound. Some minor changes are suggested to improve clarity, but these are not major issues.
Specific Comments:
1. In the abstract, it would be beneficial to mention the types of models and analytical techniques employed.
2. Line 26 - consider adding "Soil Organic Carbon" or "SOC".
3. The Introduction places SOC in a global context and underlines its importance in climate regulation well. However, mentioning the broader implications of understanding SOC dynamics might add another layer of relevance.
4. You introduce your methodology involving machine-learning algorithms and traditional multiple regression models, but an elaboration on why you chose the Hulunber grasslands specifically could be beneficial for context.
5. In the Materials and Methods, it may be good to provide more details about the selection criteria for your study area, particularly why this location is significant for the study of SOC? Additionally, this section could also benefit from further elaboration on the choice of covariates and model variables.
6. You mentioned using local farmers, herders, and administrative staff for site identification. I would suggest adding some form of validation to solidify your methodology.
7. Did you perform any calibration on ERA5 dataset? Furthermore, why did you choose ERA5 over other possible datasets?
8. Consider elaborating on the criteria used to select the best-fit model. Additional criteria could include model simplicity, computational efficiency, external validation etc.
9. Could the fact that grassland productivity indicators like AGB and BGB did not show a strong correlation with SOC be a region-specific phenomenon?
10. In the discussion, you acknowledge the discrepancies in SOC trends reported in other works but do not deeply analyze the reasons behind these differences.
11. While you provide a robust defense for your methodology, the discourse might benefit from considering the limitations of your approaches explicitly. What biases could your methodologies introduce? This is especially crucial when you argue your model outperforms others in recent literature.
12. Given the dynamic nature of climate variables, a more thorough examination of how past conditions may still be impacting current SOC levels could offer a more nuanced understanding of the system.
13. The discussion on relative importance of predictors, especially under conditions of multicollinearity, could be more exhaustive.
14. While the paper indicates a shift in controlling factors over time, it does not discuss potential mechanisms behind this.
15. The conclusion calls for future grassland policy to be "climate-centric." What might a "climate-centric" policy look like in practice?
16. You mention that the legacy effects of climate on SOC variabilities have become stronger since the 1980s. It might be useful to discuss the potential long-term implications of this trend, especially under various climate change scenarios.
17. Your work contrasts the current scenario with conditions 40 years ago, adding a temporal dimension. Could these findings also be compared to other geographical or ecological settings to provide a more comprehensive understanding?
The paper is well-written and uses scientific terms effectively. The structure is clear and logical. However, small improvements can be made. Specifically, punctuation needs a bit of attention, and the use of "the" could be more precise for better clarity.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,The introduction portion and Table 1 still need revision.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your careful review! We have corrected all the errors you identified as detailed below:
L31 You suggested to replace "carbob (C)" to "C (carbon)", but this is the first appearance of the abbreviation "C" in the main text, so we believe the form "carbon (C)" is more apprepriate;
L31 "soil organic carbon": we replaced it with "soil organic C" per your suggestion;
L34 "atmospheric carbon": we replaced it with "atmospheric C" per your suggestion;
Table 1: "g kg-1": we changed "-1" to a supercript per your suggestion;
Table 1: "ab": we confirm this is correct, which means that SOC differences between paired and unpaired comparisons, and between 1980 and 2022 are not significant;
Table 2: "g kg-1": we put "-1" as superscript per your suggestion.
The authors.
