Driving Factors and Decoupling Effects of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture in Southwest China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPoints of Improvement
The article repeats information about the effects of global warming multiple times. For example, lines 30-31 and 31-32 discuss the same phenomena (melting glaciers, sea level rise, and heat waves). Consolidating these statements would make the article more concise.
Some sentences are long and complex, which can hinder understanding. Breaking them into shorter, clearer sentences would improve readability. For instance, the sentence in lines 45-47 could be simplified to: "Failure to control non-CO2 GHG emissions will offset the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, it is crucial to understand these emissions from agriculture and their driving factors to promote low-carbon agricultural development in China."
Ensure that citations are consistent and correctly formatted. The citations [2,3], [4], and [6] should be uniformly presented and ensure that all sources are properly cited.
The discussion on the STIRPAT and Tapio models could be more detailed. Providing a brief explanation of how these models work and their significance in the context of the study would enhance the article's depth.
Ensure grammatical accuracy and proper syntax throughout the article. For example, the phrase "This paper employs the STRIPAT model to analyze the influence mechanism of demographic, economic, and technological factors" (lines 113-114) should use "STIRPAT" instead of "STRIPAT."
The introduction of the study area (lines 125-140) can be improved by emphasizing its importance and relevance to the study. Highlight why Southwest China is a significant focus for agricultural GHG emissions research.
Ensure that each section has a clear and descriptive header. For example, "Spatio-temporal Distribution Results" can be expanded to "Results and Discussion: Spatio-temporal Distribution of Non-CO2 GHG Emissions in Southwest China". Break down long paragraphs into smaller, more digestible sections to enhance readability. This will help in conveying the points more effectively.
Ensure that all figures and tables are well-labeled and referenced correctly within the text. For instance, Figure 2 and Figure 3 should be clearly mentioned with context in the narrative. Maintain consistency in the units and time frames used in the data presentation. For example, ensure that emission values are consistently presented in the same units (e.g., Mt CO2-eq).
Provide a more detailed analysis of the temporal distribution of emissions. Discuss the reasons behind the fluctuations in emissions during different phases. Elaborate on the spatial distribution characteristics, including the factors contributing to high or low emissions in specific provinces.
Explain the methods used for data collection and analysis in more detail. For instance, describe how Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and ridge regression analysis were conducted. Provide justification for using specific models, such as the Tapio decoupling model. Explain why this model was chosen and how it benefits the study.
Discuss the implications of the driving factors in more depth. Explain how each factor (e.g., urbanization rate, agricultural employees, disposable income) influences non-CO2 GHG emissions. Expand on the decoupling analysis, explaining the significance of each decoupling state and its impact on agricultural economic development. Compare the findings with other similar studies to provide a broader context. Discuss how the results align or differ from other regions or previous studies. Highlight the policy implications of the findings. Suggest potential measures or strategies to reduce non-CO2 GHG emissions in agriculture. Ensure that all technical terms are accurately defined and used consistently. For instance, define terms like "emission intensity" and "decoupling elasticity coefficient" clearly. Clearly explain the statistical significance of the results. Discuss the p-values and their implications for the reliability of the findings. Provide a concise summary of the main findings and their implications. Suggest areas for future research, such as investigating the impact of emerging agricultural technologies or exploring more granular data at a sub-provincial level.
By addressing these points, the article will present a more comprehensive and scientifically rigorous analysis of non-CO2 GHG emissions in Southwest China's agricultural sector.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors presented a detailed analysis on the amount of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in Southwest China over a 26-year period that ended in 2021. This analysis was carried out utilizing the carbon emission coefficient technique. They also looked at the size of the drivers' impact and their relationship to economic development using the Stochastic Impact of Regression on Population, Affluence, and Technology model and the Tapio model. They produced significant discoveries, which were detailed in the document. The manuscript is interesting, but I have some comments and questions from the authors, so a re-evaluation is essential.
1- Please use the passive verbs throughout the text.
2- The paper's contributions, applications, and, most importantly, NOVELTIES should be explicitly stated in the final paragraph of the "Introduction" section to demonstrate the rationale for this study. The shortcomings of prior works should be noted. It is not clear to the average reader.
3- The "Introduction" should contain a more in-depth review of the research background. In addition, there have been numerous recent publications in this topic that can assist the authors in enriching their literature review.
4- Please define each abbreviation in its first usage.
5- Please cite all equations taken from previously published works to the appropriate references.
6- How did the authors ensure the results' accuracy and reliability? Please explain.
7- It is advised that more information be provided concerning Figure 5.
8- The Conclusions section is excessively long. Please shorten it and highlight the important findings of this work.
9- Although the English writing is acceptable, it contains a few faults. To eliminate grammatical and typographical issues, it is essential that you double-check the entire manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAlthough the English writing is acceptable, it contains a few faults. To eliminate grammatical and typographical issues, it is essential that you double-check the entire manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript investigates the driving factors and decoupling effects of non-COâ‚‚ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture in Southwest China. The paper is well-written, the methods are robust, and the results are clearly presented. I recommend publishing this work after the authors address the following comments:
1.The novelty of this study should be explicitly stated in the abstract.
2.In line 28, the term “GHG” should be spelled out in full when it first appears. Please ensure consistency throughout the entire paper.
3.The sentence in line 31 is repeated; please remove the duplication.
4.In line 43, the “17%” statistic should include the specific year from which this data is derived.
5.In line 70, the term “solid foundation” needs further explanation. Please clarify what is meant by this and provide more detail.
6.In line 125, there should generally be a paragraph between level one headings and level two headings, such as between "2. Study Area and Methodology" and "2.1 Study Area." Please check for this issue throughout the paper.
7.In line 163, when mentioning “x=265,” please indicate that this value is from the IPCC AR5, noting that earlier reports, like AR4, listed it as 298.
8.Lines 255-258 require citations to support the statements made.
Reviewer
13-08-2024
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept after minor revisions
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revision meets the reviewer's requirements, so the revised manuscript can be accepted for publication.
