The Optimal Zoning of Non-Grain-Producing Cultivated Land Consolidation Potential: A Case Study of the Dujiangyan Irrigation District
, Qiao Peng 2,3, Xiaohong Luo 2,4, Heng Lu 2,5, Pengman He 2, Yanling Li 6, Linjia Wu 7 and Di Li 8Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper analyzed the NGPCL consolidation potential, identified the theoretical and real NGPCL consolidation potential, and constructed a zoning scheme for NGPCL consolidation, which provides detailed information and decision-making zoning for NGPCL consolidation. However, a few amendments still need to be made before the paper is publishable. Please see the comments below:
1. The international context of the research is weak, the literature review should be refined to fit your research into a broader research background.
2. The significance of NGPCL consolidation, the novelty and the scientific contribution of your research, and the rationality of choosing Dujiangyan city as the study area need to be addressed.
3. The involvement of the will of society in the realistic evaluation index system for NGPCL consolidation is interesting and is relatively valuable in current research. However, more elaboration is necessary on the theoretical relationship between the will of society and the NGPCL consolidation. Moreover, the indices should be explained on how they were measured and how they could reflect the will of society.
4. The conclusion should be expanded to incorporate more valuable findings.
5. Is there any difference between “arable land” and “cultivated land”? if not, please make it consistent throughout the text.
6. Ai or AA ? in Line 308-311.
7. An Informed Consent Statement is necessary for papers reporting research involving humans to report either ethics approval or an ethics exemption.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease refer to the attached Comments.docx for details.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Please see the above document for details.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
COMMENTS- sustainability-3127723
Presently, there is an extreme need to maintain soil health with improving productivity for food and nutritional security of the world population. It's good to see that the research area is towards the evaluation of soil fertility in different non-grain cultivated land uses. The manuscript has the ambitious goals of providing an important way to use cultivable land for conserving soil quality by consolidation of agricultural land in grain as well as non-grain cultivation. It's good to see that the authors are working on “Non-grain cultivated land consolidation” for future improvements in land management policies, which can contribute to sustainable agriculture.
.1. Research Title: Title of the manuscript is informative and appropriate, but requires minor editing.
“Research on non-grain cultivated land consolidation potential decision-making zoning: A Case Study”.
2. Abstract: However, the abstract part is written correctly, but also requires many corrections and English language up-gradation for conveying the right message to readers as per experimental results. Rewrite this section as per enclosed PDF-
3. Introduction: Required minor editing as well as incorporation problems, researches them, objectives and expected outcomes with supportive studies. This section requires redraft-
4. Materials and Methods: It is sufficient and scientifically presented
5. Tables: The tables appropriately present the results.
6. Figures: Figures are nicely presented.
7. Statistical Analysis: Experimental statistical design and graphical presentation is appropriate
9. Results: The results of the experiment were properly presented with help of tables and figures. This portion also required minor modification for proper explanation of the experimental results. The tabular and graphical presentation also supports the results for easy to understand by readers.
10. Discussion: Experimental discussion was poorly written, this part of manuscript-required justification with supportive studies about the importance of adopting methods of consolidation ratio.
11. Conclusion: It is adequately presented, requiring writing with minor modification.
12. Reference: Required minor corrections and advice to follow the journal format for citations and references.
13. English language: Required major correction, manuscript has many incorrect sentences or phrases. Use experiment outcomes or experiment results in place of words our and we in manuscript
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Moderate editing required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments and questions have been properly addressed by the authors. The paper is recommended to publish.
Author Response
Comments 1: My comments and questions have been properly addressed by the authors. The paper is recommended to publish.
Response 1: Thank you for your affirmation of the revision of our manuscript, and thank you again for your careful suggestions. This will be of great help to us in perfecting the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see below attachment for detailed comments
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Please see the attachment for detailed comments
Author Response
|
Comment 1: Redundancy of the Introduction. The Introduction should allow readers to quickly grasp the key points, such as the knowledge gap, using concise sentences. The fifth and sixth paragraphs, which are crucial, contain too much information, making it difficult to digest. Please rephrase and merge these paragraphs to make them more concise and logical. Response 1: Thank you for your advice. These two paragraphs are very important, but they were long and redundant in the original manuscript; therefore, we divided them into two paragraphs each, explaining the research status and the problems and gaps in the research field. According to your suggestion, we have deleted the unimportant information in these two paragraphs and revise long and complex sentences. Comment 2: Exemplary Demonstration. As suggested in the first-round review, it would be beneficial to showcase the processing details by providing an exemplary demonstration at the patch scale. Specifically, the authors could illustrate their workflow using a single cropland patch as an example. Response 2: Thank you for your advice. We actually created such a diagram when writing the first draft of the manuscript to demonstrate our workflow. However, we have been struggling with whether or not to add this image to the paper. With reference to your suggestion, we have added this image between sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. Comment 3: Consistency in Tense. Please ensure uniformity in the use of tenses throughout the manuscript. The manuscript currently switches between present and past tenses. Response 3: Thank you for your advice. The tense throughout the paper has been modified for consistency. Comment 4: Proofreading. Carefully proofread the manuscript before submission, as some typos still exist, such as redundant punctuation in Lines 23, 606, and 615. Response 4: Thank you for your advice. In review mode, some content is obscured by the lines of comments, making it difficult to clearly read. We have double-checked the full text format to revise any errors. Comment 5: Clarification: Line 28: Clarify the meaning of “study boundary” Response 5.1: Thank you for noting this issue. Here, our expression should be "in the southern part of the study area". We have changed this text in line 28. Line 56: Correct “isdue” to “is due.” Response 5.2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made corresponding modifications. Line 78: Clarify what is meant by “large-scale farmers”Lines 83-87: The sentence structure is illogical and too lengthy. Consider splitting it into shorter, more concise sentences. Response 5.3: Thank you for your advice. By "large-scale farmers," we mean families who own large farms and parcels for agricultural production in rural areas. These farmers grow at a larger scale than the average farmer. The expression "large-scale farmers" was not sufficiently clear. Therefore, we changed it to "large farming households". Moreover, the corresponding sentence was too long because there were many indicators listed; therefore, we simplified the indicators that do not need to be expressed and reduced the length of the sentence. Line 91: Replace “Another” with “Other” Response 5.4: Thank you for your advice. We have replaced the word. Lines 108-113: This sentence is overly long and difficult to read. Simplify it. Response 5.5: Thank you for your advice. This sentence was indeed too long, and we adjusted it. In addition, the sentences in the fifth and sixth paragraphs were simplified. Comment 6: Logical Flow: Line 149-152: The connection between the knowledge gap and the selection of Dujiangyan is unclear. Rephrase for better logic. Response 6.1: Thank you for your advice. In view of the knowledge gap, we briefly listed the research gaps in the above research. The reasons that Dujiangyan was selected as the research area are explained it in detail in 2.1. Therefore, we have deleted "Dujiangyan" from the paragraph you indicated, and the specific reasons for the selection of this case study were explained in the next chapter. Line 153: The terms “methods” and “approaches” are redundant. Response 6.2: Thank you for your advice. We have modified the corresponding content. Table 1: Ensure consistent sizing of all pictures. The bottom three pictures differ in size from the upper three. Response 6.3: Thank you for your advice. We have modified the size of the corresponding image. Comment 7: Clarifications and Corrections: Line 321: Clarify that PA is the ratio of Ai to A. Response 7.1: Thank you for your advice. We explained this content in the last revision of the manuscript. In the description of formula (3), we state "pA represents the ratio of the area of a single cultivated patch (A) to that of a single NGPCL type (Ai), where i represents ‘Value’ in the NGPCL classification.” Equation (4): Define the meanings of Pa and Pb, an issue raised in the first-round review. Response 7.1: Thank you for your advice. We have explained the corresponding symbols. Line 359: Correct the repetition issue with “theoretical and theoretical” Response 7.3: Thank you for noting this issue. These terms should be "theoretical and realistic", and this issue was fixed. Equation (5): The absolute symbol around “1” is unnecessary; remove it. Response 7.4: Thank you for pointing out this issue. We are trying to say is that the difference is in the range of ±1. If the absolute value is not used, the relationship may not be clearly shown. Comment 8: Figure Improvements: Figure 3: Clarify the meaning of “Lageed Value 1/2/3” on the y-axis. Response 8.1: Thank you for pointing out this lack of clarity with the legend. The product of the horizontal and vertical coordinates in the figure is the local Moran index of the regulation potential. We have provided this information in the article. Figure 4: Address the inconsistency in the legends (Potential grade) between subplots (b) and (c). If they represent the same data, why are the colors different? Additionally, ensure that the caption for subplot (c) does not cover the map. All figures in current-version manuscript are quite muzzy. Response 8.2: Thank you for your advice. In fact, (b) and (c) are two different images. (b) represents the theoretical remediation potential, and (c) is the matching result of (a) and (b). We chose this format to clearly illustrate the results. To enhance clarity, we increased the gaps between (c) and (a) and (b) and changed the text to avoid overlapping the images. Moreover, we have updated the full-text images to prevent them from being compressed.
|
