Assessment and Effect of Mining Subsidence on Farmland in Coal–Crop Overlapped Areas: A Case of Shandong Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title of the manuscript: Assessment and effect of mining subsidence on farmland in coal-crop overlapped areas: a case of Shandong Province, China.
Manuscript ID: agriculture-1836506
This study investigated the current situation of farmland damage caused by coal mining subsidence in Shandong Province, a representative agricultural and coal production area in eastern China. This study findings showed that subsidence led to farmland fragmentation, and the terrestrial ecosystem became an aquatic ecosystem, which further intensified the contradiction between more people and less land. Overall, this study addresses a topic of high relevance for research and also for practice. However, I believe some issues need revision and clarification. Addressing the below comments help improving this manuscript:
General comments
1. The English grammar and style should be checked throughout the manuscript.
2. The authors should avoid using pronouns such as “we”, “our” and “us” in the text.
Abstract
3. Lines 15-16 in page 1: “In this study, a representative COA, Shandong Province, was selected as a case.Ë® The authors should reword and reformulate this sentence for more readability.
4. The authors should mention the main aim of the study in the Abstract section.
5. I miss more emphasis on the main significance of this study in Abstract. I suggest highlighting the main significance of the study in 1-2 sentences.
6. The authors should mention a few policy implications after the main recommendation based of results at the end of the Abstract in 1-2 sentences.
7. The authors should avoid repeating keywords already exists in the title (e.g. coal-crop overlapped area). The authors should replace them with new relevant words in the text.
Introduction
8. Lines 55-56 in page 2: “Published extensive studies (e.g., ….) mostly focused on farmland damage, farmland protection, land reclamation and ecological evaluation.Ë® In the underlined part of the sentence, the authors should mention some of the mentioned published extensive studies.
9. Lines 56-58 in page 2: “In terms of farmland damage, the composite characteristics, farmland damage and impact of the overlapped coal and farmland areas within the five eastern provinces and typical municipalities have been explored.Ë® is not reading well and the authors should reformulate this sentence.
10. Lines 56-67 in page 2: The authors should mention these finding is related to which authors (e.g., Song et al. [32] designed an evolution prediction information system).
11. In the Introduction section, there should be a paragraph discussing the global novelty of the study comparing with previous studies. This is very important to first identify the gap in the previous studies, and then highlight how the current study is going to fill it.
Methodology
12. Line 78 in page 2: The “2. Overview of the study areaË® should be a subsection of “3. Materials and MethodsË®.
13. The authors should cite all equations in the main text.
14. In Table 1, I suggest to replace “Light damageË® with “minor damageË®.
Results
15. In the Results section, I believe it would help readers better follow the presentation of results if there was a short introduction paragraph to state how the section is organized.
16. Table 2 is related to the current area of damaged farmland and should be explained with details in the main text.
17. Lines 194-195 in page 6: “According to the mining plans of various mines in the province, use MSPS to predict the impact of coal mining subsidence.Ë® The authors should mention the name of the province in this sentence.
18. The authors should cite Figures 4 and 5 in the main text and add explanations.
19. The findings of Table 3 should be explained with more details.
20. The authors should cite Tables 5 and 6 in the main text with its relevant explanations.
21. Please cite Figures 8 and 9 in the main text and add related explanations.
Discussion
22. The Discussion section is rather short and should be improved.
23. In Discussion section, all figures and their explanations should be moved to the Results section.
24. In this section, inputs need to be supported with sufficient and relevant references. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work. Moreover, the authors should compare/contrast their findings with similar studies (2017-2022).
Conclusion
25. The Conclusion section needs to be enriched significantly. In this section, authors should directly discuss the main implications of findings and avoid presenting those concluding remarks that were already mentioned in the previous sections. More importantly, there should be some highlights on how this study is going to be beneficial to the policy makers in 1-2 paragraphs.
26. The authors should highlight the specific and practical suggestions with respect to their findings at the end of the Conclusion section in one paragraph.
27. The authors should address future research direction at the end of the Conclusions section as well.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. We revised them according to the experts' opinions, and the results are as follows:
Point 1: The English grammar and style should be checked throughout the manuscript.
Response 1:
The full text has been checked for English grammar and style.
Point 2: The authors should avoid using pronouns such as " we", " our" and " us" in the text.
Response 2:
The full text has been checked for language.
Point 3: Lines 15-16 in page 1: "In this study, a representative COA, Shandong Province, was selected as a case." The authors should reword and reformulate this sentence for more readability.
Response 3:
This sentence has been reworded in lines 15-16.
Point 4: The authors should mention the main aim of the study in the Abstract section.
Response 4:
The main aim has been added in lines 16-17.
Point 5: I miss more emphasis on the main significance of this study in Abstract. I suggest highlighting the main significance of the study in 1-2 sentences.
Response 5:
The main significance of this study has been added in lines 14-15.
Point 6: The authors should mention a few policy implications after the main recommendation based of results at the end of the Abstract in 1-2 sentences.
Response 6:
A few policy implications have been mentioned in lines 26-28.
Point 7: The authors should avoid repeating keywords already exists in the title (e.g. coal-crop overlapped area). The authors should replace them with new relevant words in the text.
Response 7:
The text has avoided repeating existing keywords in the title and replaced them with new relevant words.
Point 8: Lines 55-56 in page 2: "Published extensive studies (e.g., ….) mostly focused on farmland damage, farmland protection, land reclamation and ecological evaluation." In the underlined part of the sentence, the authors should mention some of the mentioned published extensive studies.
Response 8:
This sentence has been rephrased in the Introduction section.
Point 9: Lines 56-58 in page 2: "In terms of farmland damage, the composite characteristics, farmland damage and impact of the overlapped coal and farmland areas within the five eastern provinces and typical municipalities have been explored." is not reading well and the authors should reformulate this sentence.
Response 9:
This sentence has been reformulated.
Point 10: Lines 56-67 in page 2: The authors should mention these finding is related to which authors (e.g., Song et al. [32] designed an evolution prediction information system).
Response 10:
This part has been rewritten.
Point 11: In the Introduction section, there should be a paragraph discussing the global novelty of the study comparing with previous studies. This is very important to first identify the gap in the previous studies, and then highlight how the current study is going to fill it.
Response 11:
Thank you for reminding. The relevant paragraph has been added in the Introduction section.
Point 12: Line 78 in page 2: The "2. Overview of the study area" should be a subsection of "3. Materials and Methods".
Response 12:
The "2. Overview of the study area " is changed into "3. Materials and Methods".
The serial numbers of other sections are renumbered.
Point 13: The authors should cite all equations in the main text.
Response 13:
All the equations have been cited.
Point 14: In Table 1, I suggest to replace “Light damageË® with “minor damageË®.
Response 14:
"Light damage Ë® has been replaced with" Minor damage Ë® in the text.
Point 15: In the Results section, I believe it would help readers better follow the presentation of results if there was a short introduction paragraph to state how the section is organized.
Response 15:
A short introduction paragraph has been added in the Results section.
Point 16: Table 2 is related to the current area of damaged farmland and should be explained with details in the main text.
Response 16:
A detailed description of Table 2 has been added to "3.1. Current distribution of damaged farmland ".
Point 17: Lines 194-195 in page 6: “According to the mining plans of various mines in the province, use MSPS to predict the impact of coal mining subsidence.Ë® The authors should mention the name of the province in this sentence.
Response 17:
The name of the province has been added to the sentence.
Point 18: The authors should cite Figures 4 and 5 in the main text and add explanations.
Response 18:
Figures 4 and 5 have been cited and explained in the text.
Point 19: The findings of Table 3 should be explained with more details.
Response 19:
A detailed description of Table 3 has been added to the text.
Point 20: The authors should cite Tables 5 and 6 in the main text with its relevant explanations.
Response 20:
Tables 5 and 6 have been cited and explained in the text.
Point 21: Please cite Figures 8 and 9 in the main text and add related explanations.
Response 21:
Figures 8 and 9 have been cited and explained in the text.
Point 22: The Discussion section is rather short and should be improved.
Response 22:
I have supplemented the Discussion section.
Point 23: In Discussion section, all figures and their explanations should be moved to the Results section.
Response 23:
I have moved the figure and explanations related to changes in farmland landscape patterns to the Results section, and the numbers and names of the Results section have been changed.
The discussion about the negative impact of farmland damage on the ecological environment is largely based on references. So it's not moved to the Results section.
I hope they meet the requirements.
Point 24: In this section, inputs need to be supported with sufficient and relevant references. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work. Moreover, the authors should compare/contrast their findings with similar studies (2017-2022).
Response 24:
The references and content of this section have been revised. I hope they meet the requirements.
Point 25: The Conclusion section needs to be enriched significantly. In this section, authors should directly discuss the main implications of findings and avoid presenting those concluding remarks that were already mentioned in the previous sections. More importantly, there should be some highlights on how this study is going to be beneficial to the policy makers in 1-2 paragraphs.
Response 25:
The Conclusion section has been rewritten. The rewrite includes how this study is going to be beneficial to the policy makers.
Point 26: The authors should highlight the specific and practical suggestions with respect to their findings at the end of the Conclusion section in one paragraph.
Response 26:
The rewritten content has given recommendations related to the findings of this study.
Point 27: The authors should address future research direction at the end of the Conclusions section as well.
Response 27:
Future research direction has been addressed at the end of the Conclusion section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have enjoyed reading the manuscript titled 'Assessment and effect of mining subsidence on farmland in coal-crop overlapped areas: a case of Shandong Province, China'. The objectives of this study are: (1) to analyse the current situation of farmland damage caused by coal mining subsidence in Shandong Province, a representative agricultural and coal production area in eastern China; (2) to use the principle of a probability integral method of mining subsidence to reveal the evolution of farmland damage in multiple areas in Shandong Province; (3) to assess and analyse the impact of farmland damage on grain yield, farmland landscape patterns, ecological security and social stability. The authors have sufficiently given background to the study and study area along with providing clear cut objectives. However, the content dealing with some previous studies in the paragraph before objectives is not well conceived and lacks structural harmony. Authors must focus this aspect along with giving an account of novelty and scholarly contribution of the work in hand. The categorization presented in Table 1 seems arbitrary or lack reference to any scientific study which must be overcomed in the revised version. As given in Object 3, there is no mention of Ecological Security and Social Stability as to what method or what indicators have been employed to reach such conclusion or finding and this is one of the most important aspects of this study and hence need authors' attention. Section 4.3 lacks a lot of discussion or presentation of results as there are 3 tables and few figures while there is verly little explanation and implication of the findings on status-quo or for future. Damage to Ecological Environment is presented in discussion without giving results related to this aspect. Most of this part is based on mere assumptions or previous literature but there is no clue about this study's contribution on this being one of the dedicated objectives of the study. Same is true for Social instability - how this is measured and then implicated with the current findings. If at all such discussion is needed without any route to its measurement, the authors should have avoided to specify in the objectives' list.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. We revised them according to the experts' opinions, and the results are as follows:
Point 1: The content dealing with some previous studies in the paragraph before objectives is not well conceived and lacks structural harmony. Authors must focus this aspect along with giving an account of novelty and scholarly contribution of the work in hand.
Response 1:
The content of the previous studies has been adjusted and a paragraph discussing the global novelty of the study compared with previous studies has been added.
Point 2: The categorization presented in Table 1 seems arbitrary or lack reference to any scientific study which must be overcomed in the revised version.
Response 2:
The data in Table 1 are determined according to the groundwater level of each mine, the subsidence water accumulation, and the influence of subsidence on vegetation.
I apologize for the misunderstanding caused by my inappropriate choice of Table 1's position in the article. This error has been corrected.
Point 3: As given in Object 3, there is no mention of Ecological Security and Social Stability as to what method or what indicators have been employed to reach such conclusion or finding and this is one of the most important aspects of this study and hence need authors' attention.
Response 3:
I'm terribly sorry. I didn't explain myself clearly before. This part is mainly based on references, combined with the field investigation and the research results, to discuss the negative impact of farmland damage on the ecological environment and society in the coal-crop overlapped area.
I've added the analysis method of ecological security and social stability in Object 3.
Point 4: Section 4.3 lacks a lot of discussion or presentation of results as there are 3 tables and few figures while there is verly little explanation and implication of the findings on status-quo or for future.
Response 4:
The explanation of the results of this section has been supplemented.
Point 5: Damage to Ecological Environment is presented in discussion without giving results related to this aspect. Most of this part is based on mere assumptions or previous literature but there is no clue about this study's contribution on this being one of the dedicated objectives of the study. Same is true for Social instability - how this is measured and then implicated with the current findings. If at all such discussion is needed without any route to its measurement, the authors should have avoided to specify in the objectives' list.
Response 5:
I've added relevant data and explanations in the section on ecological environment and social instability to enrich this section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author have addressed my comments carefully and my major remarks from the previous version are addressed sufficiently. However, there are some minor points that need to be addressed.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. We revised them according to the experts' opinions, and the results are as follows:
Point 1: The English grammar and style should be checked throughout the manuscript.
Response 1:
I have hired a professional editing agency to improve the English grammar and style of the manuscript.
Point 2: The authors should add some policy implication to the end of the Abstract section.
Response 2:
Some policy implications have been added to the end of the Abstract section.
Point 3: As I mentioned in the previous revision, the authors should avoid repeating keywords already exists in the title (e.g., coal-crop overlapped area). The authors should replace them with new relevant word in the tex.
Response 3:
The text has avoided repeating existing keywords in the title and replaced them with new relevant words.
Point 4: In the Methodology section, the authors should add source for Figures 1 and 2.
Response 4:
The relevant data information in Figures 1 and 2 comes from Shandong Natural Resources Bureau, Energy Bureau, and mining enterprises.
The data source has been added to the back of the figure name respectively.
Point 5: In Results section, the outcomes of Table 2 should be discussed with more details.
Response 5:
A detailed description of Table 2 has been added to the text.
Point 6: In the Results section, the authors should cite Figure 4 in the main text.
Response 6:
I am sorry for this mistake because I wrote the wrong number of the figure the Results section. This error has been corrected.
Point 7: The authors should move Figure 11 and its explanations from Discussion section to the Results section.
Response 7:
Figure 11 and its explanation have moved from the Discussion section to the Results section, and the numbers and names of the Results section and the Discussion section have been changed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read the paper and I am fully satisfied with the revision. It not only addresses my concerns but also points raised by other reviewers, very well. So, I would recommend it for further processing.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your recognition of our revision work. The revisions you have proposed before are valuable for improving our article and have important guiding significance for our research.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
