Analysis of Dynamic Changes in Vegetation Net Primary Productivity and Its Driving Factors in the Two Regions North and South of the Hu Huanyong Line in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current investigation entitled “NPP dynamics and driving factors of different vegetation in China: bounded by Hu line” investigated the dynamic changes of NPP in different vegetation on both sides of the Hu Line in China from three aspects of climate change, human activities and micro-geomorphic. Overall, the current investigated conducted an in-depth analysis of the formation and reasons for the changing patterns of different ecosystems in the region, providing reference value for ecological protection and sustainable development.

Comment/Suggestions

In the title of the manuscript, it will be better to provide spell the acronym NPP.

Similarly in the abstract section, in line 13, the NPP should be spelled first and then can be used in the manuscript. Line 16. The statement “Meanwhile, this also remains a cutting-edge challenge” need to be revised.

Overall, the abstract need to be revised. More methodological details need to be furnished. Simultaneously, the authors need to provide quantitative data rather than just generalised statements. In Keywords, the author should avoid the words which are already the part of the title of the manuscript.

Line 44-48 need to be revised.  Meaning is not clear. In line 55-57. Revise the statement.  Line 81 there is no need to write again and again to indicate domestic and international. So kindly make the changes accordingly.  Line 87. GDP need to be spelled. Kindly checked the manuscript for the acronyms and make the changes accordingly.  Line 92, the second objective need to be revised. Since it looks like that it is connected to the objective. So kindly revise the objectives.

Overall, the introduction section needs substantial improvement especially related to the background information and research gap. Simultaneously, the objective also need to be revised.

Line 121 Instead of Tab.1. the author should write Table 1.

In table 1. “Soil PH Data Set (2010)” should be revised as “Soil pH Data Set (2010)”. Kindly make the changes for throughout the manuscript. Moreover, Chen et al., 2022a in table should be provided as pe the citation style of the journal. Otherwise, the material and method section is well written.

In result section, line 231. There is no need to write “Using ArcGIS 10.7”. So kindly remove it. Moreover since the data was taken from the secondary source, there is no need tom put it in the  result  section such as in subsection “Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Vegetation NPP”.

The quality of the figure 4 need to be revised. Since it is very hard to read the figures. Moreover, here is one suggestion, why did not authors went for the Time series analysis of the data such as Mann Kandle test or Petite homogeneity test?? Need to be justified.

Line 291-295 seems to be the methodological details and should be the part of Section 2 rathert than result section. Thus I suggest to move the material.

The discussion section needs to be further strengthened by adding the reasoning for the finding of the current investigation. Moreover, the conclusion section needs to be revised and should be limited to the constructive conclusive statement with way forward and limitation of the current investigation.

Overall, the manuscript have novelty but need substantial improvement.

 

Regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments on my article. I have made major revisions to the entire paper based on the opinions of four reviewers including you. These modifications include, but are not limited to, content related to opinions raised by you and other experts. Please see the document for specific modifications (All the parts that have been changed have been highlighted in red). Now, I will respond to your comments one by one. Please understand if there are any shortcomings:

 

1. In the title of the manuscript, it will be better to provide spell the acronym NPP.

Answer: I have modified the title of the article. The full name of NPP is written: "Net Primary Productivity".

 

2. Similarly in the abstract section, in line 13, the NPP should be spelled first and then can be used in the manuscript. Line 16. The statement “Meanwhile, this also remains a cutting-edge challenge” need to be revised.

Answer: I have greatly revised the summary section. In addition to introducing some background as a transition, more quantitative results are also added to highlight the work done in the article. The first appearance of "Net Primary Productivity" in the abstract was written in full, as line 18 of the newly submitted manuscript; in addition, I deleted the sentence "Meanwhile, this also remains a cutting-edge challenge".

 

3. Overall, the abstract need to be revised. More methodological details need to be furnished. Simultaneously, the authors need to provide quantitative data rather than just generalised statements. In Keywords, the author should avoid the words which are already the part of the title of the manuscript.

Answer: Based on your comments, I have made great changes to the abstract, added some methodological details, introduced more quantitative data, and stated it in more detail. See lines 18-39 of the newly submitted manuscript for details; I also partially modified the keywords, deleting the previous "Driving Factors" and "Vegetation Type" and replacing them with "Explanatory Power" and "Trend Analysis".

 

4. Line 44-48 need to be revised. Meaning is not clear. In line 55-57. Revise the statement. Line 81 there is no need to write again and again to indicate domestic and international. So kindly make the changes accordingly.  Line 87. GDP need to be spelled. Kindly checked the manuscript for the acronyms and make the changes accordingly.  Line 92, the second objective need to be revised. Since it looks like that it is connected to the objective. So kindly revise the objectives.

Overall, the introduction section needs substantial improvement especially related to the background information and research gap. Simultaneously, the objective also need to be revised.

Answer: Lines 44-48 of the original text have been modified, corresponding to lines 52-54 of the new file. Lines 55-57 of the original document have been modified, please see lines 61-62 of the new document for details. According to your opinion, line 81 of the original article no longer repeatedly emphasizes the research situation at home and abroad, but pays more attention to some research gaps and less involved aspects of current relevant research. Corresponds to lines 81-87 of the new document; in the new manuscript, the full name of GDP is spelled, see line 87. The last paragraph of the introduction has been rewritten in the form of work done and gaps filled to better reflect the unique work and contribution of the article. See lines 89-102 of the new file for details. Overall, the introduction has been greatly improved.

 

5. Line 121 Instead of Tab.1. the author should write Table 1.

Answer: In the new manuscript, all "Tab. numbers" have been corrected to "Table number." and "Fig." have been corrected to "Figure."

 

6. In table 1. “Soil PH Data Set (2010)” should be revised as “Soil pH Data Set (2010)”. Kindly make the changes for throughout the manuscript. Moreover, Chen et al., 2022a in table should be provided as pe the citation style of the journal. Otherwise, the material and method section is well written.

Answer: In the new manuscript, all references to "Soil pH" have been corrected to "Soil pH", but the abbreviation in the following text remains "SPH". "Chen et al." has been changed to the journal citation form. See table line 151.

 

7. In result section, line 231. There is no need to write “Using ArcGIS 10.7”. So kindly remove it. Moreover since the data was taken from the secondary source, there is no need tom put it in the result section such as in subsection “Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Vegetation NPP”.

Answer: "Using ArcGIS 10.7" has been deleted. Based on your suggestions, the author has also done some thinking and believes that the spatial distribution map of NPP and the module of vegetation type classification should be moved to "Data sources", and the redundant description of the spatial distribution of NPP should be deleted. Specifically, Figures c and d in Figure 3 in the original document were moved to Figure 2 in the new file. Figure 4 in the new file is Figure 3 a and b in the original document. In addition, the order of all subsequent images is delayed by one. For text changes, please see the red portion of lines 128-146 in the new file.

 

8. The quality of the figure 4 need to be revised. Since it is very hard to read the figures. Moreover, here is one suggestion, why did not authors went for the Time series analysis of the data such as Mann Kandle test or Petite homogeneity test?? Need to be justified.

Answer: The quality of images throughout the text has been improved. Thank you very much for your suggestions and methods here. I have also done some understanding of these methods. They are indeed very good suggestions. But the reason why the author chose F test is that F test is a widely used trend test method, and its operability and understanding are easily accepted by most people. In addition, in the early days of writing, the author found that the F test method was used in many literatures on the analysis of dynamic changes in NPP, so the author chose to use this method. Perhaps the methods you mentioned can be considered when conducting related research in the future. Thanks again for your suggestions and methods.

 

9. Line 291-295 seems to be the methodological details and should be the part of Section 2 rathert than result section. Thus I suggest to move the material.

Answer: I have deleted these parts, and the expression of the results of the driver analysis has been rewritten to be more logical and clear. See lines 302-347 and 368-400 for details.

 

10. The discussion section needs to be further strengthened by adding the reasoning for the finding of the current investigation. Moreover, the conclusion section needs to be revised and should be limited to the constructive conclusive statement with way forward and limitation of the current investigation.

Answer: Based on your opinions and referring to some formats of your journal, I changed the original "Discussion" section to "Discussion, Implications and Limitations". Specifically, this part is divided into three parts in an orderly manner: 4.1: Conclusion and Discussion. This part combines the conclusion and discussion, so that targeted discussion can be carried out during the discussion. In addition, the author has enhanced the explanation of the results in the discussion section to ensure that the writing logic is more coherent. For details, see lines 412-476 of the new document; 4.2: Implications and Suggestions, based on the research results and discussions of this article, explain the potential significance of this study and put forward some possible suggestions, see lines 478-508 of the new document; 4.3: Limitations and Prospects, here explains the current status of this article There are some limitations of the study and what should be considered in future research, see lines 510-523 of the new manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very interesting, the results are relevant and providing new knowledge, and the social utility of the research is significant. The research arrangement is fine, the conclusions are well-founded, but the presentation is very weak. The whole manuscript would need a comprehensive linguistic revision. Beyond the weak English, the content also suffers some  inconsistencies (e.g. they always mention 9 vegetation types, but it is sometimes 10 (Figure 1), or 8 (Figure 6), if I understand correctly). The importance of the better presentation is that misuse of language can lead to misunderstandings on the part of the reader, but more importantly, it can also lead to logical errors of the conducted research in the interpretation, discussion and conclusion on the part of the researcher. All in all, the English must be relevantly revised otherwise the content of the manuscript cannot be understood or can be misunderstood.

 

As the reviewer is also not a native English, this cannot be taken by me, although some hints, suggestions (without being exhaustive) and just limited to the Abstract, are provided below. 

line 2, title: "Bounded by Hu Line", it is not correct, the area of interest is not bounded by the Hu line but separated into to halves. Rephrase the title!

line 12: "China’s greening was difficult to cross ...", loose wording. "China's greening efforts have not been effective in crossing ..." 

line 13: "So, what are dynamic patterns of vegetation NPP on two sides of the Hu Line in China." This sentence has no meaning. Is it a question? Is it a statement? Rephrase this sentence!

line 14: "mechanisms between variations" sounds strange for me, I guess not "between" is the correct adverb, but I cannot tell the correct one (as I am not native English speaker as well).

line 16: "Meanwhile, this also remains a cutting-edge challenge." Why "meanwhile"? Yes, it is an essential challenge, but the information provided by the preceding sentences did not imply otherwise. Rephrase it!

line 19: "on both sides of the Hu Line" What do you refer to? Do You refer here to the whole area, or you refer here to those area, which are near the Hu Line?

line 22: "focused on both sides of the Hu line and committed to breaking through the Hu line" Similar question as above: if the governance has focused on both sides of the Hu line, it means that they have focused on the whole country? If it is the case, then why to emphasize it?

line 23: "it was driven by human activities, but the driving effect was still smaller than that of natural factors." This is unclear. What is the point? If it is driven by human activities, then how it can be smaller than the natural factors? Very confusing sentence, rephrase it! Try to use grammatically simple sentences for statements, otherwise you are lost in the details.

line 24: "Active human activities". Nonsense term. Yes, activities are active, it is in the word. Use some different adjective!

line 26: "realized the crossing of the Hu line" strange wording. Rephrase it!

line 27: "interactive driving effects" this is unclear term. The adjective "interactive" refers to processes, which are influencing each other. In contrary, "driving effect" refers to a one-way process in which a factor (driving effect) influences a phenomenon. So I simply cannot understand your term.

line 31: "It is difficult for human activities to ignore natural endowments and change the ecological environment, but they can still exert beneficial effects on the ecosystem through guided positive activities." What is the point? No, it is not "difficult for human activities to ignore the natural endowments", it is done regularly in the last 150 years. And it is "changing the ecological environment", as it is ruined consequently. The statement after that "they can still exert beneficial effects on the ecosystem through guided positive activities" is pointless, no relevant information is shared with the reader. Avoid tautology!

line 33: "offering scientific evidence for high-quality ecological protection and sustainable development". Well, don't flatter yourself and your work! If you state "scientific evidence" then first write a manuscript with scientific rigour. The terms "high-quality ecological protection" and "sustainable development" is rather a gibberish (although it is accepted by international standards).

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you and the other three reviewers for their valuable suggestions on my article. For this reason, I have made major revisions to the entire manuscript based on your and other reviewers' opinions. Overall, I have improved the full text. Generally speaking, I improved the English expression of the whole text and tried to reduce the errors in English expression as much as possible. Then I improved the quality of the pictures and changed some expressions in the text. Please see the attachment for the new manuscript (all revised places are highlighted in red). Now, I will respond to your last comments one by one:

 

1. As the reviewer is also not a native English, this cannot be taken by me, although some hints, suggestions (without being exhaustive) and just limited to the Abstract, are provided below.

Answer: Overall, the author has made major revisions to the abstract, including but not limited to your comments and those of other reviewers. In the new abstract, I have more highlighted the work I have done and the key results achieved, added more quantitative descriptions instead of general statements, and modified the possible research contributions.

 

2. line 2, title: "Bounded by Hu Line", it is not correct, the area of interest is not bounded by the Hu line but separated into to halves. Rephrase the title!

Answer: The author has changed the title. The new title is: Analysis of Dynamic Changes in Vegetation Net Primary Productivity and Its Driving Factors in the Two Regions North and South of the Hu Huanyong Line in China

 

3. line 12: "China’s greening was difficult to cross ...", loose wording. "China's greening efforts have not been effective in crossing Hu line..."

Answer: Based on your comments, the original sentence has been changed to, However, these greening efforts appear to be less effective when crossing the Hu Huanyong Line (Hu Line). See lines 15-16 of the new manuscript for details.

 

4. line 13: "So, what are dynamic patterns of vegetation NPP on two sides of the Hu Line in China." This sentence has no meaning. Is it a question? Is it a statement? Rephrase this sentence!

Answer: Following your comments, I deleted this sentence.

 

5. line 14: "mechanisms between variations" sounds strange for me, I guess not "between" is the correct adverb, but I cannot tell the correct one (as I am not native English speaker as well).

Answer: This sentence has been deleted or modified in the new manuscript.

 

6. line 16: "Meanwhile, this also remains a cutting-edge challenge." Why "meanwhile"? Yes, it is an essential challenge, but the information provided by the preceding sentences did not imply otherwise. Rephrase it!

Answer: Likewise, the abstract has been greatly revised, and I have deleted this sentence from the original manuscript.

 

7. line 19: "on both sides of the Hu Line" What do you refer to? Do You refer here to the whole area, or you refer here to those area, which are near the Hu Line?

Answer: Yes, what this article wants to emphasize is the two entire regions separated by the Hu Huanyong Line. This is reflected in the new title.

 

8. line 22: "focused on both sides of the Hu line and committed to breaking through the Hu line" Similar question as above: if the governance has focused on both sides of the Hu line, it means that they have focused on the whole country? If it is the case, then why to emphasize it?

Answer: The abstract has been greatly revised, and the original sentences have been deleted or modified.

 

9. line 23: "it was driven by human activities, but the driving effect was still smaller than that of natural factors." This is unclear. What is the point? If it is driven by human activities, then how it can be smaller than the natural factors? Very confusing sentence, rephrase it! Try to use grammatically simple sentences for statements, otherwise you are lost in the details.

Answer: In the new manuscript, these contents have been deleted or modified.

 

10. line 24: "Active human activities". Nonsense term. Yes, activities are active, it is in the word. Use some different adjective!

Answer: In the new manuscript, these contents have been deleted or modified.

 

11. line 26: "realized the crossing of the Hu line" strange wording. Rephrase it!

Answer: In the new manuscript, these contents have been deleted or modified.

 

12. line 27: "interactive driving effects" this is unclear term. The adjective "interactive" refers to processes, which are influencing each other. In contrary, "driving effect" refers to a one-way process in which a factor (driving effect) influences a phenomenon. So I simply cannot understand your term.

Answer: Yes, I didn't express myself clearly here. Secondly, the "interaction" in the article refers to the driving force of the joint action of two factors, and refers to the ability to explain the dynamics of NPP when these two factors work together, without emphasizing the interactive effect of these two factors. For details, see the research methods section in the article. There is a module in the geodetector called Interaction detector. This module is designed to reveal the joint driving effect of two factors. This article has modified parts that may cause misunderstanding, such as lines 29-31 in the abstract. This article has changed the expression, such as emphasizing "The combined explanatory power of any two factors".

 

13. line 31: "It is difficult for human activities to ignore natural endowments and change the ecological environment, but they can still exert beneficial effects on the ecosystem through guided positive activities." What is the point? No, it is not "difficult for human activities to ignore the natural endowments", it is done regularly in the last 150 years. And it is "changing the ecological environment", as it is ruined consequently. The statement after that "they can still exert beneficial effects on the ecosystem through guided positive activities" is pointless, no relevant information is shared with the reader. Avoid tautology!

Answer: The abstract part has been greatly changed. In the new manuscript, the author pays more attention to reflecting his work and achievements in the abstract, and adds more quantitative data. Please refer to the new manuscript for details.

 

14. line 33: "offering scientific evidence for high-quality ecological protection and sustainable development". Well, don't flatter yourself and your work! If you state "scientific evidence" then first write a manuscript with scientific rigour. The terms "high-quality ecological protection" and "sustainable development" is rather a gibberish (although it is accepted by international standards).

Answer: Yes, the original manuscript's discussion here may be too exaggerated and unrealistic, so the author has changed this part of the abstract, see lines 39-42.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Structure and Layout：Ensure the abstract has a clear structure, including a concise description of the research objective, methodology, results, and conclusions.In the introduction, provide detailed background information and explain why the Hu Line was chosen as the study boundary.
2. Data and Methods：Describe the data sources and processing methods in detail, ensuring readers can trust the data's reliability and accuracy. Provide information on the models and statistical methods used to allow for replication and validation of the study.
3. Results and Discussion：In the results section, highlight the key trends and findings in the data ；In the discussion section, explain the implications of the results and compare them to other relevant studies. Analyze the contribution of different driving factors, clarifying their role in various regions and time periods.；Offer suggestions for future research and discuss the potential practical implications of this study.
4. References and Citations：Ensure references are comprehensive and correct, avoiding non-peer-reviewed sources；Check that in-text citations are accurate and align with the reference list.
5. Grammar and Expression：Check for grammar and spelling errors to ensure the text flows smoothly；Use clear and concise language, avoiding overly technical jargon or complex terms.
6. Charts and Tables：Check that all charts and tables are clear and legible, with accurate labels and legends；Provide detailed explanations for each chart and table, clarifying their content and significance.
7. Conclusion：Ensure the conclusion aligns with the abstract and clearly summarizes the main findings

Author Response

Answer:

Thank you very much for your and the other three reviewers' suggestions on the article. The author has made significant changes to the original manuscript (limited to textual expression and narrative, the core research methods and research results have not changed), and all changes have been published in The original text is highlighted in red font, and there are many changes. Please understand. Please refer to the document for details. Overall I made the following changes.

1. Modified the title to highlight that my research area is two entire areas separated by the Hu Huanyong Line to avoid misunderstandings.
2. Abstract: It introduces more background information, pays more attention to the details of the methods used and the work done in this article; pays more attention to the embodiment of specific results, and adds more quantitative data. At the same time, it improves the coherence between the overall sentences and reduces errors in English expression as much as possible.
3. Introduction: It further highlights the possible gaps in the current research and emphasizes the significance of my own work in filling these gaps. Increased logical coherence between sentences.
4. Materials and Methods: The author followed the suggestions of his reviewers and included the sections originally included in the results: The spatial distribution of NPP and the division of vegetation types, the two sections were moved to the Materials and Methods section, because these two parts should indeed be located in the preprocessing part of the data.
5. Results: The analysis results of driving factors were completely re-discussed, with more emphasis on the key results achieved, more emphasis on the differences between different vegetations, and more quantitative data for quantitative expression.
6. Discussion: The discussion section is divided into three parts in the new manuscript. One is conclusion and discussion. This section integrates conclusion and discussion to make the expression more targeted. In addition, the discussion section explains the results in more detail and makes the writing logic more coherent. The second is, significance and suggestions. In this section, the author discusses the potential research significance of this article based on the main research results of this article, and puts forward some valuable suggestions. The third is, limitations and prospects. This section highlights in detail the shortcomings and limitations of the current research, as well as the improvements that may be made in future research.

In addition, the quality of all images in the article has been improved, and the annotations of references, tables, and figures have been modified to conform to the journal format. In addition, the author has tried to reduce possible errors in English expressions as much as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript with the title “NPP dynamics and driving factors of different vegetation in China: bounded by Hu line”, presents a study that employed the NPP spatiotemporal variations of 9 vegetation types and their responses to major driving elements along the Hu Line across China based on multi-source data. Findings indicated a general upward trend in vegetation NPP over 38% of regions during 2000-2020 on both sides of the Hu Line. The paper takes into a worthy topic, it is technically correct, and the structure is strong. I have minor comments that I believe would help to improve the manuscript.

General

The introduction section is well written and puts in context the study and the intended research approach made. However, I believe, there is a need to highlight the unique contribution that the paper is making compared to what is already available in the literature.

Methods are well described and are easy to follow.  

The results section is consistent and follows the methods described.

The discussion needs a bit of work, especially, again, in highlighting the principal/unique contribution of the manuscript compared to what is already written. Lines 489-492, need references or have been supported more since it looks like this paragraph is more an assumption of the authors rather than a conclusion of the study. Besides, if this is a conclusion, it should be in the conclusion section.

Particular.

Enhance the quality of some figures (especially those that contain maps).

English grammar and style check is required.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English grammar and style check is required.

Author Response

Answer:

First of all, thank you and the other three reviewers for their suggestions on my article. I also appreciate your approval of parts of my article. The author has made significant changes to the original manuscript (limited to textual expression and narrative, the core research methods and research results have not changed), and all changes have been published in The original text is highlighted in red font, and there are many changes. Please understand. Please refer to the document for details. Overall I made the following changes.

1. Modified the title to highlight that my research area is two entire areas separated by the Hu Huanyong Line to avoid misunderstandings.
2. Abstract: It introduces more background information, pays more attention to the details of the methods used and the work done in this article; pays more attention to the embodiment of specific results, and adds more quantitative data. At the same time, it improves the coherence between the overall sentences and reduces errors in English expression as much as possible.
3. Introduction: It further highlights the possible gaps in the current research and emphasizes the significance of my own work in filling these gaps. Increased logical coherence between sentences.
4. Materials and Methods: The author followed the suggestions of his reviewers and included the sections originally included in the results: The spatial distribution of NPP and the division of vegetation types, the two sections were moved to the Materials and Methods section, because these two parts should indeed be located in the preprocessing part of the data.
5. Results: The analysis results of driving factors were completely re-discussed, with more emphasis on the key results achieved, more emphasis on the differences between different vegetations, and more quantitative data for quantitative expression.
6. Discussion: The discussion section is divided into three parts in the new manuscript. One is conclusion and discussion. This section integrates conclusion and discussion to make the expression more targeted. In addition, the discussion section explains the results in more detail and makes the writing logic more coherent. The second is, significance and suggestions. In this section, the author discusses the potential research significance of this article based on the main research results of this article, and puts forward some valuable suggestions. The third is, limitations and prospects. This section highlights in detail the shortcomings and limitations of the current research, as well as the improvements that may be made in future research.

In addition, the quality of all images in the article has been improved, and the annotations of references, tables, and figures have been modified to conform to the journal format. In addition, the author has tried to reduce possible errors in English expressions as much as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the first round of revision, the authors have made considerable corrections in the manuscript. However, there are still some corrections which authors need to taken care off:

The total words in the abstract should be checked. since as per the guidelines of the journal the abstract should be limited  to 200 words.

In the introduction section rather than providing then smaller paragraphs; some of then paragraphs should be merged.

At the end of the abstract section, I still didnot find the specific objectives of the current investigations. 

In figure 1 c along with elevation (m), above mean sea level should be indicated. 

The quality or the presentation of the figure 6 should be revised. Sinc e it is not readable. 

Figure 7 should be divided into two separate diagram.

A separate conclusion section should be provided.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you again for your comments on my manuscript. Based on your second round of comments, I made some changes to the article. Now I will provide a point-by-point reply to your second round of comments:

1. The total words in the abstract should be checked. since as per the guidelines of the journal the abstract should be limited to 200 words.

Answer: I have refined the summary as much as possible. But at the same time, in order to express comprehensive key information as much as possible. In the end, the abstract will be limited to about 230 words, please understand. See the new manuscript for details.

2. In the introduction section rather than providing then smaller paragraphs; some of then paragraphs should be merged.

Answer: I merged some paragraphs of the Introduction into the new manuscript, and the final version was reduced to 3 paragraphs.

3. At the end of the abstract section, I still didnot find the specific objectives of the current investigations.

Answer: I think you are referring to the introduction rather than the abstract. According to your suggestion, I have added the three main research objectives of the article in the last part of the introduction. Please see lines 83-93 of the new manuscript.

4. In figure 1 c along with elevation (m), above mean sea level should be indicated.

Answer: I changed the legend of Figure 1. (c) to show the elevation categories below and above the horizontal plane.

5. The quality or the presentation of the figure 6 should be revised. Since it is not readable.

Answer: Yes, this image is not conducive to readers obtaining useful information, because the author's original intention was just to convey some intuitive information through the color block size of the stacked bar chart. To solve this problem, I marked the corresponding data labels in different colors on this stacked bar chart, hoping to provide you and the readers with clearer information in this way.

6. Figure 7 should be divided into two separate diagram.

Answer: I split Figure 7 into three figures. They are now Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9. I also split the original Figure 9 into Figures 11, 12, and 13 in the new manuscript. In this case, the number of figures in my article has reached 14.

7. A separate conclusion section should be provided.

Answer: I have provided a separate conclusion section, which can be found on page 24 of the new manuscript.

In addition, I have further checked and corrected the grammar throughout the text. I have also further improved the conciseness of some sentences. Because these changes are very fragmentary, they include but are not limited to the highlighted parts.

 

Yours sincerely

Liu Weimin

Date: May 20, 2024

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As it was found in the original version of the manuscript, it is a very interesting research, the results are relevant and providing new knowledge for the benefit of the society at large; the research arrangement is fine, and the conclusions are well-founded. In the present version, there is an essential improvement in the quality of the paper, congratulations to the authors!

 

However, there are still shortcomings:

(1) English must be improved further! There are still some nonsense sentences due to the limited linguistic skills, such as "assigning null values to 0". I think you cannot avoid to get an overall language review by some native speaker. 

(2) Use international references! For example, equation (1) shows the classical form of Least Squares Regression, which is referred to by [35], which is a specified paper, and it is written in Chinese. Please refer to classical mathematical text books for classical mathematical formulations, e.g. John Fox: Applied Regression Analysis and Generalized Linear Models. Same problem holds for the F-test (equation (2) and the improper reference [36]). In the case of the Geodetector model, I can accept reference [23] (even though it is also in Chinese).

 

Apart from these comments, I can accept the manuscript, and I don't ask for an additional round of review.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recognition and thank you again for your suggestions on my manuscript. Based on your second round of comments, I made some changes to the article. Now I will provide a point-by-point reply to your second round of comments:

(1) English must be improved further! There are still some nonsense sentences due to the limited linguistic skills, such as "assigning null values to 0". I think you cannot avoid to get an overall language review by some native speaker.

Answer: First of all, the sentence you mentioned has been deleted. In addition, I have further checked and corrected the grammar of the whole text in the new manuscript. And improve the simplicity of some sentences, these changes are more fragmentary, the author is not all highlighted in the article.

(2) Use international references! For example, equation (1) shows the classical form of Least Squares Regression, which is referred to by [35], which is a specified paper, and it is written in Chinese. Please refer to classical mathematical text books for classical mathematical formulations, e.g. John Fox: Applied Regression Analysis and Generalized Linear Models. Same problem holds for the F-test (equation (2) and the improper reference [36]). In the case of the Geodetector model, I can accept reference [23] (even though it is also in Chinese).

Answer: Thank you very much for your suggested references, which are now in the 35th reference of the new manuscript. In addition, the reference of the F test has also been changed, see the 37th reference of the new manuscript.

 

Yours sincerely

Liu Weimin

 

Date: May 20, 2024

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the revisions, the text has improved a lot. I recommend polishing the language a bit more before publishing

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend polishing the language a bit more before publishing

Author Response

Thank you very much for your approval of this article. It is my honor. Thank you again for providing the author with a new round of comments. This article has further checked and improved the English grammar in the article, and some sentences have been expressed more concisely as much as possible. Because these changes are more fragmented, not all of them are highlighted. Please understand.

Yours sincerely

Liu Weimin

Date: May 20, 2024

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx