Spatial Distribution of Optimal Plant Cover and Its Influencing Factors for Populus simonii Carr. on the Bashang Plateau, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors try to determine the optimal spatial distribution of Populus simonii Carr., which is a widely planted species used for revegetation on the Bashang Plateau. The topic in interesting and the relevant. 

 

The introduction should further highlight what is the motivation of the paper.

 

The originality of the paper needs to be clarified. What is the contribution and why the contribution is important?

 

The literature review section is also not focused enough, especially the Populus simonii forest; optimal plant cover; leaf area index etc.

 

"The ecological parameters for P. simonii are summarized in Table 2, with values derived from published studies". how comes to those parameters?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Reviewer 2 Report

appreciate the interesting topic, quality methodology, and plenty of results. I have a few comments about the article:

The study's title, goals, and results are not entirely in line with the thematic issues. It is not entirely clear whether this is a mapping of the actual state or verification of selected models. I recommend formulating the main idea and adjusting the title and conclusions accordingly.

Introduction

·         The strong regional character from the used sources is evident. Please limit or move to M + M. Add additional data from other regions.

·         Define scientific hypotheses

·         Define goals leading to the confirmation or refutation of hypotheses

Materials and Methods

·         Replace "cm" with SI units; "M" or "mm"

Results

·         Soil conditions are dominant for species spectrum and vegetation condition. Is it really your main result in subchapter "3.4.”?

 

Discussion

·         Based on your measurements, the heterogeneity of conditions is evident

·         Better define the main "Driving Factors"; in my opinion, it will be the availability of water in space and time

·         I would welcome a discussion on the suitability of Populus simonii monoculture planting

Conclusions

·         Draw the conclusion according to the created hypotheses and goals.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents interesting studies on analyzing the spatial distribution of unique plants and their influence on minimizing land degradation in the Bashang Plateau, China. The article demonstrates high scientific soundness, and the proposed methodology is entirely convincing. The studies performed are well and understandably described. The text is reasonably prepared, and the conclusions credibly summarize the overall merit. However, while reading the paper, I came across some unclearness needing improvements before further processing the submitted material.

- Figure 1 is incorrectly designed from the cartographic point of view. First of all, a scale bar cannot be expressed as fractions. Only round, decimal values are acceptable. Also, 60-120-240-360 etc., values are incorrect - here, I propose to replace them with 50-100-150-200-300 and so on. Secondly, the legend presented on the right side is misleading; high values are marked as blue, whereas low values are red! Please reverse the colours! Some lines look the same, although they represent different values - e.g. 350 and 450. Please make them more distinguishable.

- Table 2: I admit I don't understand the unit [m3 m-3]. Please make some explanation/extension to that—the same touches other units like [m2 m-2]. 

- Figure 4 is barely visible. I am aware that it could have been caused while generating a PDF file, but please check it and improve it in case it is mandatory.

- Table 4/Line 252: again - please explain the unit [m2 m-2]. 

- Conclusions: I suggest writing additional sentences explaining whether the authors' motivation has been fulfilled and their aim has been achieved. This section should contain a compelling tagline. Also, some explanations - the factual conclusions - should be desirable. 

I'm encouraging the authors to make necessary improvements and submit the text again for the final check. Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I found the topic of the study very interesting and in line with the scope of the journal. To improve the overall quality of the manuscript, I have some suggestion/comments as below:

The quality of the figures 1, 2, 3, 4 may be improved, at least in my pdf they are getting a bit distorted.

Section 2.2. Biome-BGC Model Description is very dense and requires an expert knowledge of the subject. It would be advisable to use a diagram or graph to clarify this.

Need a better explanation in table 3 and table 4. It is hard to understand it and you should comment on the Assessment index between the modified Biome-BGC model and MODIS data for NPP and AET in the study área and Simulated NPP, AET and maximum LAI values for P. simonii forest in three zones of the Bashang Plateau.

References: bibliographic citations should be reviewed (format of the year, ...)

English needs to be revised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the author has done a lot of revision work, there are still many problems and I cannot recommend it for publication at the present version.

 

1. The introduction should further highlight the scientific problems, motivations, and possible innovations of the paper.Please read doi: 10.3390/su11051446;DOI: 10.1038/s42949-022-00055-z

 

2.  I suggest the results should be better discussed and justified, such as whether they are consistent with previous studies or analyzing the reasons for the empirical results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your responses to my questions and remarks. I appreciate them and consider all your explanations as clear and understandable. I can also see that you improved the cartographic part according to my suggestions. Hence, I don't see any other objections, and I recommend publishing your paper after necessary editorial improvements.

I wish you good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx