Study on the Population Carrying Scale of Arable Land in Southern Xinjiang, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Here is my summary of your submission.

The aim of the paper is to analyze the carrying capacity of arable land in the southern Xinjiang region, addressing the challenges posed by accelerated population growth and urbanization. The main contributions include a comprehensive assessment of land resource utilization, recommendations for agricultural planning, and insights into the ecological implications of over-exploitation.

Broad Comments

Strengths: The paper provides a thorough analysis of the relationship between population growth and land resource management, supported by statistical methods such as ANOVA. The policy recommendations are practical and address critical issues like ecological protection and labor force specialization.

Weaknesses: The discussion on the implications of agricultural practices on ecological sustainability could be expanded. Additionally, the paper would benefit from a clearer connection between the statistical findings and the proposed policy recommendations.

Specific Comments

Line 36-38: The suggestion to rationalize agricultural planning is commendable; however, it would be helpful to provide examples of successful models from other regions.

Line 571-573: The results of the ANOVA analysis indicate significant differences in land quality; consider including a visual representation (e.g., a graph) to enhance clarity.

Table 7: The data presented could be more effectively summarized with a comparative analysis of the original versus new arable land, highlighting key metrics such as salinization and agricultural output.

Thank you in advance for considering my comments and suggestions.

 

Kind regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Comments 1: Lines 36-38: The proposal to rationalize agricultural planning is commendable; However, it is helpful to provide examples of successful patterns from other regions.

Response 1: 36-38 is the summary section, it is best not to include examples, but there are relevant examples in other parts of the article.

Comments 2: Line 571-573: The results of the ANOVA analysis indicate significant differences in land quality; consider including a visual representation (e.g., a graph) to enhance clarity.

Response 2:  The results of ANOVA have been presented in graphs in this article(488-528pages).

Comments 3: Table 7: The data presented could be more effectively summarized with a comparative analysis of the original versus new arable land, highlighting key metrics such as salinization and agricultural output.

Response 3: In the original text, the original cultivated land and new cultivated land have been compared and analyzed(515-525pages).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the article deals with a topic that could potentially find space in this Journal, however, at the moment the proposed manuscript has large limitations which invalidates its publication. Specifically, it appears strongly unbalanced internally, with a purely local cut and lacking in all its sections. In particular, the gaps presented by the various sections suggest that it would be appropriate to rethink it entirely. The introduction should be rethought, at present it appears as a review of the literature and does not present any specific characteristics of a paragraph entitled "introduction" (briefly place the study in a broad context, define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses to test). The methodological part which, in theory, should give an international dimension to the manuscript is presented with extreme simplicity and, in some cases, the names of analysis models are only mentioned without providing any description. The presentation of the results needs to be improved, they must be summarized in a different way, simplified in content and also the link with the objectives of the work as well as with the analysis methodology must be improved. Review the editing of the entire document. Please find below some specific comments and suggestions that I hope will help.

 Please revise the editing of affiliations and contacts.

The abstract is longer than what is required by the journal (max 200 words), I suggest to reduce the part related to the description of results, it could be simplified.

Keywords: rethink keywords

References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. For example at Line 71: Zhu et al. must be Zhu et al. (year) [number reference]. This always applies

Introduction: in my opinion it needs to be completely rethought, since excluding the beginning of the paragraph and the definition of the objective of the work it appears to be a real analysis of literature. In fact, the entire "introduction/presentation" of the topic covered in this paper is missing. At the end of the paragraph there is no indication of the structure given to the paper and, furthermore, the added value of this work is not clearly evident.

2.1. Overview of the study area: a very detailed description of the climate of the study area is presented but little (or nothing) is said about the arable land, please add some descriptions.

2.2. Data sources and 2.3. Research methodology: the different data sources are listed but please provide more explanation about them because for potential non-Chinese reader it will help. The titles of subparagraphs can be eliminated (obviously keeping their content) and, furthermore, the 2 paragraphs (2.2 and 2.3) can become a single one. It seems that there is only one analysis model, at least the authors only present one, ANOVA, that is the test used to verify differences between populations. Please increase the description of the methodology of analysis adding also more references.

Results: it would be appropriate to insert a table in which the results are presented and limit the comments on them by providing just a key to understanding and interpreting them. There are too many subparagraphs, it would be appropriate to reduce the number and harmonize the text. I suggest also tor express economic values ​​in dollars or euros or at least provide an exchange rate. Always use the same unit of measurement (for example, it would be advisable not to alternate ha and mu).

Conclusions: there is no indication of the limits of the work and its possible future developments. Furthermore, I don't understand the political implications, they just seem like a series of suggestions already present in other works, the connection with yours escapes me.

References: Please add more international works.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please revise the English, there are several repetitions and, above all, really long sentences.

Author Response

Comments 1: The abstract is longer than the journal requirements (up to 200 words), and I suggest that reducing the part related to the description of the results can be simplified.

Response 1: The abstract part of the original text has been deleted, mainly the content of the result part（13-35pages）.

Comments 2: rethink keywords.

Response 2:  Keywords have been added based on the original content（36pages）.

Comments 3:  Introduction: in my opinion it needs to be completely rethought, since excluding the beginning of the paragraph and the definition of the objective of the work it appears to be a real analysis of literature. In fact, the entire "introduction/presentation" of the topic covered in this paper is missing. At the end of the paragraph there is no indication of the structure given to the paper and, furthermore, the added value of this work is not clearly evident.

Response 3:The introduction has been revised accordingly.(37-97pages)

Comments 4: 2.1. Overview of the study area: a very detailed description of the climate of the study area is presented but little (or nothing) is said about the arable land, please add some descriptions.

Response 4: The description of cultivated land has been added to the profile of the study area.(100-127pages)

Comments 5: 2.2. Data sources and 2.3. Research methodology: the different data sources are listed but please provide more explanation about them because for potential non-Chinese reader it will help. The titles of subparagraphs can be eliminated (obviously keeping their content) and, furthermore, the 2 paragraphs (2.2 and 2.3) can become a single one. It seems that there is only one analysis model, at least the authors only present one, ANOVA, that is the test used to verify differences between populations. Please increase the description of the methodology of analysis adding also more references.

Response 5: 1. The data source is based on the project content, which cannot be changed for the time being. 2. With reference to other literature, data sources and methods are presented separately, so 2.2 and 2.3 are best presented separately. 3. More explanations have been given to the ANOVA analysis model and references have been added.(130-181pages)

Comments 6: Results: it would be appropriate to insert a table in which the results are presented and limit the comments on them by providing just a key to understanding and interpreting them. There are too many subparagraphs, it would be appropriate to reduce the number and harmonize the text. I suggest also tor express economic values ​​in dollars or euros or at least provide an exchange rate. Always use the same unit of measurement (for example, it would be advisable not to alternate ha and mu).

Response 6: 1. The text with too many small paragraphs has been merged and the logic of the text has been checked.(289-352pages) 2. Since different measurement units are the content of the project, I cannot change them at will to ensure the accuracy of the article.

Comments 7: Conclusions: there is no indication of the limits of the work and its possible future developments. Furthermore, I don't understand the political implications, they just seem like a series of suggestions already present in other works, the connection with yours escapes me.

Response 7: The conclusion is a summary of the above, so no additional content is added.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:  Please revise the English, there are several repetitions and, above all, really long sentences.

Comments 1: Appropriate modifications have been made as required.

5. Additional clarifications

No comments

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Figures 2 and 3 should be made more carefully, enlarged

2. The bibliography should be adapted to the publisher's requirements. The entry is inappropriate. Item 34 is missing.

3. The authors write "Herefore, we suggest: to rationalize the planning of agricultural use, to motivate the surplus labor force to specialize in other trades, to take over the medium and low-end processing and manufacturing industries in the Mainland to establish industrial cities and to protect the ecology". Are these the authors' own proposals? Were they consulted with the public or local government officials?

4. Did the authors take into account analysis in other areas?

Author Response

Comments 1: Figures 2 and 3 should be made more carefully, enlarged.

Response 1: If you need to enlarge the font in the picture, you need to place the two pictures above and below, which feels like it takes up more space. (215-272pages)

Comments 2: The bibliography should be adapted to the publisher's requirements. The entry is inappropriate. Item 34 is missing.

Response 2: The missing parts have been supplemented.

Comments 3: The authors write "Herefore, we suggest: to rationalize the planning of agricultural use, to motivate the surplus labor force to specialize in other trades, to take over the medium and low-end processing and manufacturing industries in the Mainland to establish industrial cities and to protect the ecology". Are these the authors' own proposals? Were they consulted with the public or local government officials?

Response 3: Most of the relevant suggestions or policy statements in this paper come from the content of the project, which has certain normalization and reliability.

Comments 4: Did the authors take into account analysis in other areas?

Response 4: Other parts of the analysis are covered in a small part.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    (No comments)

5. Additional clarifications

No comments

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for the effort you made to try to follow my directions and suggestions. However, although the article has improved somewhat, I believe it is not yet sufficiently ready to be published. Some of the observations made above remain valid and I invite you to give them more consideration.

Below you will find my previous comments with your responses and my new comments.

Comments 1: The abstract is longer than the journal requirements (up to 200 words), and I suggest that reducing the part related to the description of the results can be simplified.

Response 1: The abstract part of the original text has been deleted, mainly the content of the result part（13-35pages）. My new comment: Thank you for what you have done, the content has improved, however the length still seems excessive to me, so try to simplify something further. Also, please, check the spaces which are sometimes missing and sometimes there are too many.

Comments 2: rethink keywords.

Response 2:  Keywords have been added based on the original content（36pages）. My new comment: ok

Comments 3:  Introduction: in my opinion it needs to be completely rethought, since excluding the beginning of the paragraph and the definition of the objective of the work it appears to be a real analysis of literature. In fact, the entire "introduction/presentation" of the topic covered in this paper is missing. At the end of the paragraph there is no indication of the structure given to the paper and, furthermore, the added value of this work is not clearly evident.

Response 3:The introduction has been revised accordingly.(37-97pages) My new comment: You simply added a period at the end to better explain the objective of the work, but the structure of the paper is still missing, and I don't see any other changes, while I told you to rethink it entirely, which seemed more like a literature review. From what we had recommended I expected more changes. Therefore, my previous comments remain valid.

Comments 4: 2.1. Overview of the study area: a very detailed description of the climate of the study area is presented but little (or nothing) is said about the arable land, please add some descriptions.

Response 4: The description of cultivated land has been added to the profile of the study area.(100-127pages) My new comment: ok, thank you.

Comments 5: 2.2. Data sources and 2.3. Research methodology: the different data sources are listed but please provide more explanation about them because for potential non-Chinese reader it will help. The titles of subparagraphs can be eliminated (obviously keeping their content) and, furthermore, the 2 paragraphs (2.2 and 2.3) can become a single one. It seems that there is only one analysis model, at least the authors only present one, ANOVA, that is the test used to verify differences between populations. Please increase the description of the methodology of analysis adding also more references.

Response 5: 1.     The data source is based on the project content, which cannot be changed for the time being. My new comment: Maybe I wasn't clear, I didn't ask you to change the source of data but to explain it better so as to make a potential non-Chinese reader understand what it is about and what type of data was used for this analysis you are presenting. 2.     With reference to other literature, data sources and methods are presented separately, so 2.2 and 2.3 are best presented separately. My new comment: That's fine, if you prefer to keep them separate, go ahead but in general try to reduce the number of subparagraphs. 3.     More explanations have been given to the ANOVA analysis model and references have been added.(130-181pages) My new comment: Thanks, you have explained the ANOVA method better by also adding a couple of references. But you should try to make this part look a little more scientific.

Comments 6: Results: it would be appropriate to insert a table in which the results are presented and limit the comments on them by providing just a key to understanding and interpreting them. There are too many subparagraphs, it would be appropriate to reduce the number and harmonize the text. I suggest also tor express economic values ​​in dollars or euros or at least provide an exchange rate. Always use the same unit of measurement (for example, it would be advisable not to alternate ha and mu).

Response 6: 1.     The text with too many small paragraphs has been merged and the logic of the text has been checked.(289-352pages) My new comment: ok, thank you for the comment related to the merge of subparagraphs but, regarding my first comment on this part, you added tables that summarize the results a bit as I asked and described the results better, however, it seems like little to make the paper a leap in quality. Therefore, try to put even more effort into this part. 2.     Since different measurement units are the content of the project, I cannot change them at will to ensure the accuracy of the article. My new comment: Ok but you could add a small comment explaining how these units of measurement relate to the more well-known ones.

Comments 7: Conclusions: there is no indication of the limits of the work and its possible future developments. Furthermore, I don't understand the political implications, they just seem like a series of suggestions already present in other works, the connection with yours escapes me.

Response 7: The conclusion is a summary of the above, so no additional content is added. My new comment: My considerations remain valid, please can you explain the link between your work and the policy implications you indicate?

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:  Please revise the English, there are several repetitions and, above all, really long sentences.

Comments 1: Appropriate modifications have been made as required. My new comment: ok

Author Response

Comments 1: Thank you for what you have done, the content has improved, however the length still seems excessive to me, so try to simplify something further. Also, please, check the spaces which are sometimes missing and sometimes there are too many.

Response 1: The content of the abstract has been simplified, and the number of words is controlled within 200.(10-23pages)

Comments 2: You simply added a period at the end to better explain the objective of the work, but the structure of the paper is still missing, and I don't see any other changes, while I told you to rethink it entirely, which seemed more like a literature review. From what we had recommended I expected more changes. Therefore, my previous comments remain valid.

Response 2:  The structure of the paper in the introduction has been revised.(107-115pages)

Comments 3:  Maybe I wasn't clear, I didn't ask you to change the source of data but to explain it better so as to make a potential non-Chinese reader understand what it is about and what type of data was used for this analysis you are presenting.

Response 3:  Data sources have been modified and explained appropriately.(119-129pages)

Comments 4: Thanks, you have explained the ANOVA method better by also adding a couple of references. But you should try to make this part look a little more scientific.

Response 4:  Changes have been made accordingly.(130-168pages)

Comments 5: ok, thank you for the comment related to the merge of subparagraphs but, regarding my first comment on this part, you added tables that summarize the results a bit as I asked and described the results better, however, it seems like little to make the paper a leap in quality. Therefore, try to put even more effort into this part.

Response 5:  Sorry, no more changes can be made to this section for the time being.

Comments 6: Ok but you could add a small comment explaining how these units of measurement relate to the more well-known ones.

Response 6:  The measurement units in the paper are all project contents. If I change or add contents at will, the accuracy of the paper may be affected, so it is better not to change.

Comments 7: My considerations still stand, could you explain the connection between your work and the policy implications you point to?

Response 7: The policy suggestions are rational suggestions put forward based on the content of the article and the content of the project, as well as the regional characteristics of southern Xinjiang.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for making this extra effort to respond to my comments. I have seen that, where possible you have followed my suggestions, the introductory and methodological parts have improved. I advise you to reread the entire text because spaces are often missing, both within the text and before or after the tables or figures. Once you have made the last small changes that I asked you for, I think the article can be published.

Abstract: thank you for taking my suggestions into account, the length is fine now, pay attention to the spaces, in the part that you have modified often after the punctuation there is no space.

Keywords: here too please check the spaces.

Introduction: the part you added is fine but pay attention to the punctuation, on line 78 “…current aware data,” it should be “…current aware data.”  On line 80: “…original cultivated land, finally,” should be “…original cultivated land. Finally,” and finally, on line 81 “…we discuss standards.in order to provide..” should be “…we discuss standards, in order to provide..”.

Materials and methods:

Thanks for including more comments on the description of the area, pay attention to line 107, there is a space after the period.

As far as the description of the resources is concerned, it seems to me that you have added only one sentence, it is logical that you used this data for AVOVA, but what data is it, that is, you said what data it is but it is not there no bibliographical references to the yearbook and regulations you speak of, I would ask you to add them, thanks.

Thanks for providing a clearer explanation of the ANOVA method, now I think it's fine.

Results and analysis:

Thanks for the changes you made in the comments on the results, they seem clearer to me now. As for the changes I asked you for and you didn't make, you still provided an explanation as to why you didn't do it.

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract: thank you for taking my suggestions into account, the length is fine now, pay attention to the spaces, in the part that you have modified often after the punctuation there is no space. Keywords: here too please check the spaces.

Response 1: All Spaces in the article have been checked and changed.

Comments 2: Introduction: the part you added is fine but pay attention to the punctuation, on line 78 “…current aware data,” it should be “…current aware data.”  On line 80: “…original cultivated land, finally,” should be “…original cultivated land. Finally,” and finally, on line 81 “…we discuss standards.in order to provide..” should be “…we discuss standards, in order to provide..”.

Response 2:  Changes have been made in the appropriate section of the article as requested.

Comments 3: Materials and methods: Thanks for including more comments on the description of the area, pay attention to line 107, there is a space after the period. As far as the description of the resource is concerned, it seems to me that you only added one sentence, it is logical that you use this data for AVOVA, but what data it is, that is, you said what data it is, but not There are no bibliographic references to the Annals and Regulations as you mentioned, I would like to ask you to add them, thank you. Thanks for the clearer explanation of the ANOVA method, now I think it's good.

Response 3: Added 1.107 lines of spaces. 2. Sorry, the data source is project data (measured data), so there is no bibliography or yearbook.

Comment 4: Results and analysis: Thanks for the changes in your comments on the results, they seem clearer to me now. As for the changes I asked you to make, you didn't make them, but you still provided an explanation as to why you didn't make them.

Response 4: Sorry, due to level and time constraints, we are currently unable to better modify the comments on the results. However, I think this part of the content is more in line with the content of the article, and I have given reasonable suggestions. I hope your journal can understand it.