A Coupled InVEST-PLUS Model for the Spatiotemporal Evolution of Ecosystem Carbon Storage and Multi-Scenario Prediction Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting as an idea, and the author(s) have presented the idea in detail. However, there are a few points for authors to address before publication.

Line 376, are you sure it "2000(km2 )", in my view it should be "2000(km²)".

Line 576, are you sure its "Carbon Storage per Unit Area t/kM²" or its "Carbon Storage per Unit Area（t/km² ）" or "Carbon Storage per Unit Area（t/Km² ）"

Background topics and related approaches are mainly illustrated in the Introduction. However, a better comparison with the author's approach should be made in the discussion or after the discussion section. One of the limitations is the lack of discussion of the state of the art. The related work needs to present in better detail each one of the works addressed describing its aims (research questions specified) and the results collected. Please explain which authors’ work face the gaps in the literature.

One more important concern is the lack of discussion on the application of the current technique. Moreover, no compression what’s so ever has been made with the state of the art?

Finally, one more round of editing for the English language and style required. The grammar needs polishing and gives proper attention to the punctuation.

One more round of editing for the English language and style is required. The grammar needs polishing and gives proper attention to the punctuation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your critical comments and valuable suggestions regarding our manuscript entitled “Coupled InVEST-PLUS Model for Spatiotemporal Evolution of Ecosystem Carbon Storage and Multi-Scenario Prediction Analysis”.

We are grateful for your interest in our work and for the insights you have provided, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. Following your guidance, we have addressed the comments raised and have made the necessary revisions. We are now re-submitting our manuscript for your consideration and would be pleased to provide detailed responses to each of the comments and suggestions you have made.

We appreciate your efforts in helping to enhance the quality of our paper. Should there be any questions or further clarifications needed, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Dongqi Sun

Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100101, China

[email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted manuscript entitled: "Coupled InVEST-PLUS Model for Spatiotemporal Evolution of Ecosystem Carbon Storage and Multi-Scenario Prediction Analysis" is an own research work, where the authors use statistical analysis and modeling to investigate changes in land use in connection with carbon sequestration and subsequently they predict the future state in 2050.

The focus of the article could be classified into the categories of Environmental policy and land use, and its content fully fits into the publication policy of the journal Land.

In general, I can state that this is a relatively interesting and successful work, which bears some signs of a less successful presentation of relatively interesting results. On the other hand, the results achieved are quite interesting, and I was personally pleased with the section dedicated to the effect of night lighting on vegetation and carbon sequestration, which is not a very frequent topic.

Nevertheless, I have several rather fundamental reminders about the presentation of the research.

- The Abstract section, which is unnecessarily wide and somewhat flat, needs to be simplified and, on the contrary, I lack a clear presentation of the results achieved in numbers, percentages and units of measurement, where possible. It should be remembered that the Abstract should be a brief summary and the reader can orientate himself in the flood of publications according to it.

- In the framework of clarity and presentation, I would also appreciate the clearly stated goal of the research and the research questions to achieve it in the Introduction section, and this is how the research should subsequently be presented in the Conclusion section.

- In the Study area section and later in the thesis, they are used as figure maps. Here, it is always necessary to indicate in the source where they were taken from, and if they were created by a computer, it is advisable to indicate the software or program.

- Some banal conclusions can be found in the discussion - such as, for example, that the built-up area binds less carbon than vegetation and basically damages the environment... Yes, this is generally known and is part of the curriculum of primary schools... On the contrary, I lack a comparison here with other published works on this topic - which would also expand the literary sources.

- In the conclusion section, I lack a specific evaluation of the research goal and research questions and a clear qualification of the achieved results in numbers and units of measurement.

- I also recommend the authors to correct the English and check the professional terminology. E.g. the terms carbon storage and carbon sequestration are used interchangeably in the same connotations.

It can be stated that the article deals with a relatively current topic, which is also current in the territory of the EU, such as the EU policy called LULUCF, and thus significantly exceeds the research area of the Chinese region where the research took place.

Once the above notes are resolved, the paper can be successfully published.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your critical comments and valuable suggestions regarding our manuscript entitled “Coupled InVEST-PLUS Model for Spatiotemporal Evolution of Ecosystem Carbon Storage and Multi-Scenario Prediction Analysis”.

We are grateful for your interest in our work and for the insights you have provided, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. Following your guidance, we have addressed the comments raised and have made the necessary revisions. We are now re-submitting our manuscript for your consideration and would be pleased to provide detailed responses to each of the comments and suggestions you have made.

We appreciate your efforts in helping to enhance the quality of our paper. Should there be any questions or further clarifications needed, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Dongqi Sun

Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100101, China

[email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have performed sufficient revision of the manuscript and have addressed all comments as appropriate.

Based on the above, this article can be recommended for publication in the MDPI Land journal.

Minor editing of English language required.