Effectiveness of Grassland Protection and Pastoral Area Development under the Grassland Ecological Conservation Subsidy and Reward Policy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor,

The manuscript "Effectiveness of Grassland Protection and Pastoral Area Development under the Grassland Ecological Conservation Subsidy and Reward Policy" submitted in Agriculture Journal. It's a nice and terrific research with the collaboration of Chinese researchers about effectiveness of grassland protection and pastoral area. The topic is so nice, but there are some minor problems in this MS that I can't accept. Finally, I present some suggestions for improving the quality of this MS as following:

1. In the abstract, please speak briefly about the methodology and the quantitative results. It’s very effective in increasing the readers and citations of the article.

2. It is recommended to describe the relationship between agriculture and the title in the introduction. It is very important and needs more attention.

3. More detailed should be mentioned in the methodology. Also, it is recommended to provide more complete information related to the studied indicators.

4. Please discuss in one paragraph about climatic changes in the study areas. Was the increase in vegetation only related to executive policies?

5. In Figure 2, the studied indicator decreased with a higher acceleration at the beginning, but after 2014, it has been almost constant. What is the reason?

6. In Figure 3, what test is used to analyze the time series? Mann-Kendall trend test or another?

7. One of the significant concerns is that the authors should carefully develop a discussion section to talk about the significance, shortages or advantages of the methods you proposed, the reliability and meaning of your results (compared to other related studies) etc.

8. The conclusion is too long. It is recommended to be brief in one paragraph.

9. Please be sure that all the references cited in the manuscript are also included in the reference list and vice versa with matching spellings and dates.

10. Finally, I checked plagiarism detection of this research and the similarity is 7% and there is not any problem, please checked attached file.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Re: Manuscript Agriculture-1833165

Thank you for taking the time and effort reviewing our manuscript, and we believe these suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. The following is our point-by-point responses to your comments. We have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all changes highlighted using the track changes tool in MS Word.

We hope that our revised manuscript is now acceptable for publication in Agriculture.

Sincerely,

Li Liu

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: In the abstract, please speak briefly about the methodology and the quantitative results. It’s very effective in increasing the readers and citations of the article.

Response 1: Thank you for your advice. The method and quantitative results were added to the abstract. Quantitative research data collection methods were used, and quantitative results include policy effectiveness, major issues, and policy recommendations (line 17-23) .

Point 2: It is recommended to describe the relationship between agriculture and the title in the introduction. It is very important and needs more attention.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the description of the relationship between the effectiveness of the GECSRP policy and agriculture in the introduction (line 66-70).

Point 3: More detailed should be mentioned in the methodology. Also, it is recommended to provide more complete information related to the studied indicators.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added more detailed indicators information in line 118-123.

Point 4: Please discuss in one paragraph about climatic changes in the study areas. Was the increase in vegetation only related to executive policies?

Response 4: The increase in vegetation cannot be separated from climatic causes, and an explanation for this has been included in line151-158. Because of the difficulty in collecting rainfall data in pastoral areas nationwide, the annual precipitation indicators from 2006 to 2020 at six representative meteorological stations in major grassland areas nationwide (Xining, Qinghai; Nagqu, Tibet; Kashgar, Xinjiang; and Xilinhot, Zhurri and Ewenk, Inner Mongolia) were selected and their correlations were calculated, and the results showed no significant correlation between year and precipitation, while grassland hay production and vegetation cover all showed a low fluctuation of highly significant increase over time, thus separating the effects of human efforts and natural factors on grassland vegetation cover, and in turn, introducing a positive effect of policies on grassland vegetation (Figure S1).

Point 5: In Figure 2, the studied indicator decreased with a higher acceleration at the beginning, but after 2014, it has been almost constant. What is the reason?

Response 5: The phenomenon is explained in 4.2.1 in the main question later (line331-346). In the early stage of policy implementation, the overload rate of livestock itself was at a high level, and the interests of herders were not lost by using policy subsidies to reduce the overload rate, coupled with the strong supervision at the early stage of the policy, the overload rate decreased rapidly; after 2013, that is, the middle of the first round of policy implementation, the overload rate showed a stable decreasing trend, which is due to the "imbalance of compensation and loss ", the policy's incentive mechanism is weak, and the subsidy standard is low, which is not enough to compensate for the losses caused by herding households' livestock reduction. Therefore, this study suggests that we should scientifically account for the loss of livestock reduction and reasonably raise the subsidy and reward standards, so as to achieve a balance of compensation and reward.

Point 6: In Figure 3, what test is used to analyze the time series? Mann-Kendall trend test or another?

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We only explored the variation trend of different years, and did not conduct time series prediction and test. In addition, we performed ANOVA and correlation analysis for each five-year period. We are aware that there may be problems with the expression of the time series in the manuscript and we have rewritten this sentence (line 180,195).

Point 7: One of the significant concerns is that the authors should carefully develop a discussion section to talk about the significance, shortages or advantages of the methods you proposed, the reliability and meaning of your results (compared to other related studies) etc.

Response 7: Thanks for pointing that out. We have revised the discussion and conclusion section. We discuss the significance and shortages of the study in line 499-513.

Point 8: The conclusion is too long. It is recommended to be brief in one paragraph.

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. We have rewritten the conclusion section.

Point 9: Please be sure that all the references cited in the manuscript are also included in the reference list and vice versa with matching spellings and dates.

Response 9: Thank you for your advice. We have checked the references.

Point 10: Finally, I checked plagiarism detection of this research and the similarity is 7% and there is not any problem, please checked attached file.  

Response 10: Thank you again for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is devoted to assessing the effectiveness of the GECSRP policy in pastoral animal husbandry in the People's Republic of China. The effectiveness of the GECSRP policy was assessed on the basis of a set of criteria: productivity of pastures and livestock products, use of pasture resources, rodent control of pastures, ecological protection of pastures, domestic and economic indicators of pastures, and social criteria. The positive and negative aspects of the GECSRP policy are shown. The article is of interest as an experience of optimizing the use of pastures in a particular country. At the same time, there are a number of corrections, questions and suggestions for improvement to the work.

1. In the first paragraph of the Introduction, it is necessary to give a general description of the world's pasture problems with appropriate references. Common problems include the first three sentences in the Introduction.

2. After describing the world problems, it is necessary to briefly characterize the role of pastures in the Chinese economy and ensuring the country's food security. The total pasture area in China, including degraded, should be reported before and after the reform, i.e. show the effectiveness of the GECSRP policy.

3. In the Materials and Methods, it is necessary to characterize the essence of the GECSRP policy, what it is, maybe in the form of a table. For now, only the consequences of the policy are described in the Reference and further on, and what it consists of is not clear.

4. In the Introduction section, there are too many references [16-31] to one statement. Usually, the number of references to one statement does not exceed 4-5.

5. Why in fig. 1b, the data are presented from 2011, and not from 2006, as in Fig. 1a and others?

6. Try on fig. 4 present the y-axis as a logarithmic scale. In this case, it will not be necessary to make breaks in the axis and the data will look more holistic.

7. The Conclusions section is very large. It should be presented in a more concise form.

8. As shown in the article, the effectiveness of the GECSRP policy is determined by the amount of government funding. All this is quite a subjective factor. Any scientific study should be reproducible. In this case, we are dealing with the effectiveness of a policy with a certain funding. If it is higher, the effect will be greater and vice versa. The main question for this paper is whether the effect of GECSRP policies can be transferred (or using in the future) to other countries and regions more developed or less developed economically?

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Re: Manuscript Agriculture-1833165

Thank you for taking the time and effort reviewing our manuscript, and we believe these suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. The following is our point-by-point responses to your comments. We have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all changes highlighted using the track changes tool in MS Word.

We hope that our revised manuscript is now acceptable for publication in Agriculture.

Sincerely,

Li Liu

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: In the first paragraph of the Introduction, it is necessary to give a general description of the world's pasture problems with appropriate references. Common problems include the first three sentences in the Introduction.

Response 1: Thank you for your advice. We have added the description of the world's pasture problems in line34-38.

Point 2: After describing the world problems, it is necessary to briefly characterize the role of pastures in the Chinese economy and ensuring the country's food security. The total pasture area in China, including degraded, should be reported before and after the reform, i.e. show the effectiveness of the GECSRP policy.

Response 2: Thank you for your advice. This is indeed a necessary data. We have briefly characterized the role of pastures in the Chinese economy and ensuring the country's food security. In addition, the area data of forbidden grazing and grass-livestock balance after the implementation of the GECSRP policy were also added to show the effectiveness of the GECSRP policy (line 40, line 62-66).

Point 3: In the Materials and Methods, it is necessary to characterize the essence of the GECSRP policy, what it is, maybe in the form of a table. For now, only the consequences of the policy are described in the Reference and further on, and what it consists of is not clear.

Response 3: Thanks for pointing that out. We have added the description of the essence of the GECSRP policy in the materials and methods (line 109-111).

Point 4: In the Introduction section, there are too many references [16-31] to one statement. Usually, the number of references to one statement does not exceed 4-5.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made corrections according to this comment.

Point 5: Why in fig. 1b, the data are presented from 2011, and not from 2006, as in Fig. 1a and others?

Response 5: This is something we regret very much. Since the official vegetation cover data from 2006-2010 were not released, the changes for these five years are not shown. However, the current data can similarly reflect the impact on vegetation cover after the implementation of the GECSRP.

Point 6: Try on fig. 4 present the y-axis as a logarithmic scale. In this case, it will not be necessary to make breaks in the axis and the data will look more holistic.

Response 6: Thank you for your advice. However, when we put the y-axis on a logarithmic scale, the variation trend across years is not as clear as it is now. So, we removed the break in the axis to make the data look more holistic (Figure 4).

Point 7: The Conclusions section is very large. It should be presented in a more concise form.

Response 7: Thank you for your advice. We have rewritten the conclusion section.

Point 8: As shown in the article, the effectiveness of the GECSRP policy is determined by the amount of government funding. All this is quite a subjective factor. Any scientific study should be reproducible. In this case, we are dealing with the effectiveness of a policy with a certain funding. If it is higher, the effect will be greater and vice versa. The main question for this paper is whether the effect of GECSRP policies can be transferred (or using in the future) to other countries and regions more developed or less developed economically?

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a discussion about the issue (line 485-498). The theoretical basis of China's GECSRP is ecological compensation, which aims to achieve grassland protection and restoration by reducing grassland livestock carrying capacity, and in the process, giving about 3-4 times more to no-grazing areas with more livestock reduction than the areas that require grazing to be allowed but need a balance of grass and livestock. The increase in the standard of compensation and award to reach a balance with the loss of livestock reduction by herders, we think may play a better effect, even without the current overload level of about ten percent still. In fact, many practices of grassland ecological compensation have been done in countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia to protect grasslands through direct financial compensation, technical compensation/support, grassland insurance and other paths. It can be seen that grassland ecological compensation should be a system that can be replicated in grassland countries around the world, but different national systems, levels of economic development, grassland conservation priorities, and obstacles encountered are different and require the introduction of their own targeted policies or mechanisms.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer has no more significant comments and the article can be published in this form.