Changes in the Vegetation NPP of Mainland China under the Combined Actions of Climatic-Socioeconomic Factors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments on the paper submitted
This manuscript reports the analysis of the vegetation NPP change process in mainland China from a new perspective of partition and clarifies its response mechanism. This appears more relevant to support the decision-making for the precise protection and restoration of ecosystems, therefore their stability and sustainability. In the climate change context, the approach based on the combined impact of climatic, socioeconomic, and environmental Factors is also important. This subject appears appropriate in my opinion for the Forests journal. The dataset is long, but this manuscript needs a minor revision before it can be published.
1) Introduction
a. In my opinion, the authors must remove lines 35-39 to after line 71
b. The authors must remove lines 72-99 to the section “2.3. Methods”
c. The authors must explain how did they select the climatic, social and geographical factors
2) Materials and methods
a. Please, complete the vegetation distribution maps and the pedo-climatic variables evolution (notably temperature and precipitation) during the concerned period
b. I suggest to authors to introduce the following section or subsection :
2.3.5. Uncertainty estimation approaches
3) Results
a. Scientifically, I would know more about the uncertainties, which should be evaluated for all calculated or estimated values. This already help to better appreciate the results validity. What the authors think?
Overall, the manuscript needs a minor revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have read and evaluated the manuscript titled "Changes in the Vegetation NPP of Mainland China Under the Combined Actions of Climatic-Socioeconomic Factors" submitted in the Forests Journal. This study presents the influence of Climatic and socio-economic factors on the variation of the NPP and the correlation between them in different Land-Use classes based on different landscape pattern indices. I think the subject of the manuscript is fascinating and relevant, and the article can be published after minor revision. Overall, the study is acceptable but the Abstract can be improved by highlighting the importance of the methodology employed and by presenting what criteria were used for the choice of different factors.
The introduction session can be ameliorated by resenting the criteria of the study area choice also I think that the aims of the study (second paragraph in the introduction) should be cited after highlighting the study of art and the previous study.
The methodology and the result session are well written but the interpretation part can be improved.
Additionally, I have a few additional comments listed below:
Page1, lines 17-20: When you resent the results, you cite the third point "(3)" and then you jump to the fifth point "(5)" without specifying the fourth one "(4)".
Page 2, line 80: What is the abbreviation of "GDP"
Legends of all figures should be clearer (unreadable), you can grow their size.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
In general, the quality of English is acceptable but a moderate revision is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is devoted to an important topic - the dynamics of vegetation cover and its study using remote sensing data. The territorial coverage is very significant - the entire territory of China. The authors study the entire vegetation cover, not just forests. Thus, the topic of the article is broader than the standard topic of the Forests magazine. In general, the research has many analogues in its topics and methods used. But it can be considered a useful addition to existing work. The authors use reliable, well-proven methods and efficient software. The data sources are also quite reliable. All this allows you to trust the results obtained. I list these changes below. They concern the details of the methodology, description of the study area and presentation of the results:
1) Line 102. Here you mean the crossing of the Wusuli River and the border of Heilongjiang Province? Then this is exactly how it should be written. If you mean two rivers - Wusuli and Heilongjiang, then you need to write “Heilongjiang river”. And if we are talking about two rivers, then instead of intersection it is better to write junction.
2) Line 103. You need to indicate in brackets the second option for the name of the Wusuli river. In many publications it is referred to as Ussuri. Including in publications by Chinese authors.
3) Line 103-104. What is a dark sand site? What kind of place is it? Is this some kind of island or cape or reef or bank? As I understand it, this point is located in the Spratly archipelago (Nansha). I found a description of the extreme southern point of China as follows: “The southern point (4º15′ N) is Cape Zengmuansha at the southern tip of the Nansha Archipelago. " And this is further north than the geographic latitude you indicated. I also found a variant of the extreme southern point of James Shoal reef (bank) with a latitude of 03°58′26″N. This is also further north than yours.
4) Line 106. It’s better to say “there are five types of territories based on relief.” An important clarification here is that these are types of territories, not specific territories.
5) Line 117. When talking about soil types, indicate by what classification these types are distinguished. Is this WRB or chinese national soil classification?
6) Line 128. What accumulated temperatur is meant? Is this the sum of active temperatures? If yes, what is the threshold? More than 0, 5 or 10 degrees Celsius?
7) Lines 128 and 144. Kriging is written with a small letter. This is a common noun, not a proper one.
8) Indicate which specific kriging method you used (there are several kriging methods in ArcGIS).
9) Line 219. Do I understand correctly that number of units in your case is the number of pixels? If so, this clarification must be made in parentheses.
10) Lines 219 and 220. You gave an explanation of the meaning of the letters sigma, but forgot to insert the letters sigma into the sentence.
11) In Table 5, the first column is named Factor. But it would be more correct to call this column Region. And the factor is the general name for eight columns (from the third to the tenth).
12) Line 227: Typo - A space was inserted inside the word ArcGIS.
13) Line 249. For the Xiaoxing'an Mountains, another broad name (Lesser Khingan) must be given in parentheses.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
