Spatiotemporal Evolution of Wind Erosion and Ecological Service Assessments in Northern Songnen Plain, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reports on the paper entitled on the “Spatiotemporal Evolution of Wind Erosion and Ecological Ser- 2 vice Assessments in Northern Songnen Plain, China” submitted to the ‘Sustainability’. My major concerns regarding the paper are as follows:

1.       In the abstract section, methods should be mentioned clearly. Author mentioned about the method of wind erosion, but ecological services were assessed? I missed it.

2.       The novelty of the paper should be extended more in the introduction section. The research questions should be addressed properly at the end of the introduction section.

3.       The section 2.4.4 should be discussed more extensively. It is little bit confusing.  Check it.

4.       In Table 2, what is the threshold to classify the wind erosion intensity in this section?

5.       Policy implication should be addressed with reference to the findings.

There are also many minor mistakes in the manuscript such as spacing error, grammatical errors.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

 

Dear authors, the similarity is high, 6% alone comes from a single publication...

No proper review can be done without this being addressed...

References also missing in many cases, all over the text.

 

Please address spacing:

“deposit[1]” all over

also before units “2.22mm/a[16].”

 

If a grouped figure, then add subcaptions by letter, after the main one:

“Figure 1. Location and elevation of the study site.”

etc

“Figure 3. Spatial distribution of wind erosion in different seasons in 2010, 2014, and 2018.”

 

Please do not use “we” or similar

 

Please avoid listing:

“The data and sources used in this study are as follows: (1)”

 

No formula, but equation, please add references immediately before presenting them, if data is already known (limited to a minimum...):

“The calculation formula is as follows:”

 

If a line is available then linking the points make no sense, and an equation needs to be present...

“Figure 4. Monthly change of wind erosion in the study site in 2010, 2014, and 2018. (a) 2010; (b) 2014; (c) 2018; and (d) three-year mean values.”

Please do not use red colour.

 

also here, the red...

“Figure 6. Gravity center migration and characteristics of different grades of wind erosion.”

 

Please, also address the italics in parameters inside figures, as again the subcaptions...

and no “P” but precipitation?

 

If this is the discussion, why propose?

“We propose three soil erosion control methods for reference:”

and why the “listing” style?

 

Conclusions need to integrate brief contextualization, and methodology, main findings (also quantitative data in this case), implications, limitations and prospects.

 

Also consider updating references and make them more international too. Wider scope

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents important results of analyses related to wind erosion in a large agricultural area of China, and is very much appreciate. The methodology is strong, the discussion is well developed, and the data are clear and objective, giving evaluable information for the management of the area in the future. It is very critical to know that the wind erosion increased in more than 50 % in 8 years, and that it is changing direction. We consider necessary to let this information reach administrators, managers, farm people and research groups, in order to prepare to a better use and occupation of the area.

Nevertheless, we have some small consideration to make, as see below”:

Line 34 – Wind erosion causes desertization, not desertification. Desertification to happen needs inappropriate use and occupation of the land.

Lines 84-90. The authors present the objectives of the research, and none indicates ecological services analyses, as the title informs.

Line 244 – The phrase let understands that wind erosion takes place in winter snow covered land, and that the authors did not got the data because it was hard to find the information

Line 279 – Wind erosion cannot deteriorate, it is a natural process. It can nevertheless suffer an increase

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper may represent an interesting contribution to the study of the impacts of wind erosion in China.

However, the study must be profoundly revised before it can be further considered for publication.

MAJOR CONCERNS

METHODS

There are many methodological points that must be clarified.

It is not clear which data were collected in 2022 from the 56 plots (line 106) and how they were used. For most analyses, it seems that all soil data were from Soil Map Based Harmonized World Soil Database (line 133). Thus, it seems that soil samples were only used for the analysis described in the section 3.3, but the reader should be informed in the methods section of how these data are used.

In the methods is not clear if the authors used sites from which soil samples were taken or pixels (see lines 203-206). I assume pixels.

It is not clear if Soil Data (lines 132-134) were the same for the three years.

I think that red lines in Figure 4 are regression lines. They are inappropriate, since there is no linear trend, and should be removed.

Statistical test (ANOVA) should be applied for line 278.

Information of Table 2 can be placed directly in the text.

Line 87: What do you mean with 'influence factors'?

Line 105: Cite these previous studies

Line 109: Add explanations for photos

Figure 2: I cannot understand the expression: flow direction of the service flow

Line 132: Explain units for Soil organic matter (SOM), CaCO3 contents and soil particle distribution (sand, silt, and clay)

DISCUSSION

Discussion is not clearly related to results. Discussion is largely a review of the many problems caused by wind erosion, but links with the specific results of the current study remain unclear. This part must be reworked to explicitly comment the results of the study.

MINOR ISSUES

I have vigorously edited the text and made many specific comments, which you can find in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been revised as per the suggestion. But, there are many places, the literatures are missing. I would suggest authors to incorporate the literatures in the introduction and discussion sections:

# https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169887.

# https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2021.105386.

# https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108814.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

 

Dear authors, the similarity is still very high. It is my opinion, and this needs to be addressed.

It is not the reviewers’ role to have to say to the authors that the similarity is present and is significant.

 

Please consider revision in language. A study does not analyze.

“5. Conclusions This study analyzed”

 

Again:

Conclusions need to integrate brief contextualization, and methodology, main findings (also quantitative data in this case), implications, limitations and prospects.

When I mean contextualization, it means that the authors should include one or two lines explaining why it is in study is important when referring to the state of the art.

Please see that, considering the nature of this study, with so many graphics and data, no quantitative data can be found in the conclusions. It should be there as better expressed in the abstract.

 

As I usually say, authors must also consider that the quality of the manuscript is also based in the quality of the references. References should include more international authors, if address to an international index journal.

 

The paper has been improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript has been improved. Yet, there are many points that must be addressed before it can be further considered for publication.

 

MAJOR CONCERNS

1) It seems that the authors have two datasets for soil characteristics:

- Data taken from the Soil Map Based Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD, v1.1) with a 1 km spatial resolution

- Data taken from 56 sampling points-

It is now clear that the data from the 56 sampling points were used for Trend analysis (2.4.2).

But I cannot understand for which analyses the data from the Soil Map Based Harmonized World Soil Database were used. If in all analyses the spatial resolution is 205m x 205 m (see below), how was it possible to use soil data with 1 km2 resolution?

2) It is not clear which are the plots mentioned at line 158

3) More in general, it is not clear the spatial units used for the analyses.

Namely:

3.1 Spatial distribution of wind erosion. I assume you used here a grid of quadrats 205 m x 205 m. Correct? How many quadrats? Please, explain.

3.2.1 Temporal variation characteristics. I assume that the data are the sum of values for the 205 m x 205 m quadrats. Correct? Please explain.

3.2.2 Wind erosion intensity. Asa bove?

3.2.3 Gravity center migration and characteristics. As above?

3.3 Ecological effects. Here, I assuem that you used the 56 sampling points. Correct? Please, explain.

3.4 Climatic effects. I assume you used here a grid of quadrats 205 m x 205 m. Correct? How many quadrats? Please, explain.

3.5 Windbreak and sand-fixation service function. For Figures 10a, b, and c  I assume you used here a grid of quadrats 205 m x 205 m. Correct? But what about figures 10d and e, where arrows are displayed? Please, explain.

I think it is essential that these points are clarified.

 

MINOR COMMENTS

I report here corrections/questions for specific points. In many instances, the English is not clear. Please, check that that I have correctly interpreted authors’ meaning.

Lines 32-33: This sentence “In this process, the external force driven by wind makes topsoil separate, transport, and deposit [1], which often occurs in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas [2] ” does not make sense. Revise.

35: leading to the change of soil texture and the formation of desertization [3]. -> leading to the change of soil texture and hence to desertization [3].

48: important areas for food production -> important areas for food production in China

62: However, wind erosion in the Songnen Plain has not attracted enough attention [20].

81-3: There is a lack of scientific and systematic research on the classification and distribution，the diffusion trend and migration path, the ecological effect and impact factors of wind erosion in the northern Songnen Plain, and the function of wind- break and sand-fixation of ecological services in this area. -> There is a lack of scientific and systematic research on the classification, distribution, diffusion trends, migration paths, and ecological effects of wind erosion in the northern Songnen Plain.

Figure 1. Study area. (a)-(c) landscapes with typical wind erosion; (d) distribution of sampling sites; (e) geographical position of the study.

117: further analyzed -> and then to analyze ?

120: erosion is analyzed -> erosion was analyzed

122: flow are analyzed -> flow were analyzed

204: Compare -> We compared

207: wind erosion.-> wind erosion using the equation:

218: delete strange

235: The calculation equation is as follows _> Equations are as follows:

248: In winter, thick snow prevents wind erosion in the study area.

252: accessed -> assessed

274: Delete “The monthly wind erosion characteristics in different years are analyzed (Figure 4).”

292: range of each grade is -> ranges of each grade are

304-5: From 2010 to 2018, each wind erosion grade's gravity center migration distance is different along longitude (E) and latitude (N) (Figure 6a).  -> Wind erosion grade's gravity center showed different migration from 2010 to 2018 (Figure 6a).

331: delete “which plays a vital 331role in soil desertization [46], which is also proved by our results”

345-9: Delete “The formation and development of wind erosion are affected by many factors, the most important of which are wind speed, precipitation, and temperature [48]. Among them, wind speed is the most critical factor, directly driving the formation of wind erosion and affecting erosion strength. The wind force (Wf), a combination of wind speed and duration, is an essential indicator of wind erosion intensity.”. This part may be used in the Discussion. Start with “Wind erosion in the northern Songnen Plain is positively correlated…

353-5: Delete: “Precipitation can increase the weight and adhesiveness of soil particles, promote soil crusting, and play a vital role in reducing wind erosion [26].”. This part may be used in the Discussion. Start with “In general, precipitation…

375: is far more -> is much larger?

381: are larger than -> are higher than

384: sand-fixation services with the flow velocity and flow volume and develop a differentiated soil erosion control plan -> sand-fixation services with a differentiated soil erosion control plan

386: shall be -> should be

409: Please, clary whether these data ( 2.38 mm/a and 6.39 mm/a) are from your study or from reference #16. Also, replace study site with study area.

411: The comparison of the above results shows that the primary erosion type in the northern Songnen Plain is wind erosion -> Thus, these pieces of information point to the conclusion that the primary erosion type in the northern Songnen Plain is wind erosion

415-6: Please, provide references.

423: increase -> increases

425: an increasing surface of sandy areas -> an increase in the extent of sandy areas

426-8: Where?

434-5: Assessing the service function of the wind erosion ecosystem is a very complex work that needs to consider natural factors, social factors, and other factors comprehensively -> Assessing the ecosystem services against wind erosion is a very complex work that should integrate the role of natural and social factors. Correct?

437: lead to a deviation in the accurate -> may be very imprecise in the assessment

439: wind erosion ecosystem -> problems posed by wind erosion to ecosystems

440: Research shows that when -> When

443: The results show -> Our results showed that

444: in the study site is the demand area -> would be necessary Correct?

445: I cannot understand how 86% is consistent with 10%. Please, explain.

447: Here, there is a high

455: departments plan -> departments to plan

455: (1) Develop multiple wind erosion prevention measures in parallel.

459: but the porosity should be reasonable. Please, explain.

462: (2) Promote multi-party collaboration

468: eco-environment-> environmental

469: (3) Improve regional graded prevention and control.

474: supply of what?

493: delete in parallel

496: Start new paragraph for Author Contributions

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been revised as suggested. Now the paper has gained its quality.  

Author Response

Thank you again for your comments and suggestions. These comments and suggestions have greatly helped us improve the manuscript's quality. We sincerely thank you for your patience and detailed review of our manuscript.

Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Siyu Gu

Reviewer 2 Report

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

 

Dear authors, there is no need to present similarity, at all.

 

The letters must correspond to different subcaptions, after the main caption, this and other cases:

“Figure 3. Spatiotemporal distribution characteristics of wind erosion in three seasons in 2010, 2014, and 2018. Spring: March to May; Summer: June to August; and Autumn: September to November.”

 

The conclusions should integrate MORE quantitative data, considering the study in question...

 

The paper has been improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript has been improved, but the authors did not incorporate in the text the clarifications that they have provided in their responses. I think essential that they improve the text to make clear these points.

127: (HWSD, v1.1) with a 1 km spatial resolution (http://data.casnw.net/portal/). -> (HWSD, v1.1) with a 1 km spatial resolution (http://data.casnw.net/portal/). To obtain a 250 m x 250 m resolution, each original 1 km2 pixel point was divided into 16 parts and the 16 new pixel points were subject to interpolation according to the sampled original soil data values around these pixel points. [Please, check that I have correctly expressed the method]

253: and autumn of 2010, 2014, and 2018. Table -> and autumn of 2010, 2014, and 2018 using the spatial resolution of 250 m x 250 m (thus a total of 618,779 pixels, each with a surface of 6.25 ha, is used). Table

283: three-year mean values. -> three-year mean values. Here, monthly wind erosion is the sum of wind erosion of all 6.25 ha quadrats in one month. For example, the wind erosion amount in March 2010 was obtained by adding the wind erosion amount of all quadrats in the study area from March 1 to March 31, 2010

285: According to the classification and grade standard of soil erosion (SL190-2007) issued by the Ministry of Water Resources of China, wind -> Wind erosion intensity expresses the cumulative wind erosion amount of one quadrat per year. In this study, daily wind erosion amounts from March 1 to November 30 for the 6.25 ha quadrats were summed to get the total wind erosion amount of a year, which was classified according to the classification and grade standard of soil erosion issued by the Ministry of Water Resources of China (SL190-2007). According to this classification, wind

298: Wind erosion grade's gravity center showed different migration from 2010 to 2018 -> Wind erosion grade's gravity centers (longitude and latitude coordinates) were calculated according to each 6.25 ha quadrat's longitude and latitude coordinates using equations 9 and 10. The migration distance of the wind erosion gravity center was then calculated according to the longitude and latitude coordinates of the wind erosion gravity center in different years using equation 11. The amount of wind erosion was then expressed as the sum of the annual wind erosion amount of all quadrats. The wind erosion area was finally calculated as the sum of all quadrats multiplied by the surface of each quadrat (i.e., 6.25 ha). Overall, wind erosion grade's gravity centers showed different migration from 2010 to 2018

320: properties. According -> properties. To this end, we got the longitude and latitude coordinates of 56 sampling points, and according to the change of wind erosion at these sampling points in 2010, 2014, and 2018, we established if they were subject to erosion increase or decrease. According

337: wind erosion. -> wind erosion. There were 18 samples with increased wind erosion and seven with decreased wind erosion in the aeolian sandy soils. In chernozem soils, there were 28 samples with increased wind erosion and three with decreased wind erosion.

355. Figure 7. Constraint relationship between wind force and wind erosion. -> Figure 7. Constraint relationship between wind force and wind erosion. Each dot is a 6.25 ha (250 m x 250 m) quadrat.

356: Figure 8. Constraint relationship between precipitation and wind erosion. -> Figure 8. Constraint relationship between precipitation and wind erosion. Each dot is a 6.25 ha (250 m x 250 m) quadrat.

357: Figure 9. Constraint relationship between temperature and wind erosion. -> Figure 9. Constraint relationship between temperature and wind erosion. Each dot is a 6.25 ha (250 m x 250 m) quadrat.

382. size). -> size). For panels a, b, and c, a spatial resolution of 250 m x 250 m is used. For panels (d) and € a 20 km x 20 km spatial resolution is adopted.

466: but the porosity should be reasonable -> but a certain degree of porosity (20-50%) should be guaranteed

Finally, and most importantly, the use of two datasets for soil characteristics is still puzzling me.

I have now understand that for the analysis described in section 3.3 you used data from the 56 sampling points (please, correct me if I misunderstand). Thus, I cannot understand for which analyses you used the HWSD. For the RWEQ model? In this case, you should make this clear. For example, you cane add at the end of the revised version of line 129 (see above) the following explanation: “… soil data values around these pixel points. Thes values were used for the RWEQ model, whereas the data from the 56 soil samples were used for the analysis presented in 3.3 Ecological effects”. However, I’m not sure that my interpretation is correct.

Language is ameliorated, but please pay attention to typos (e.g., line 51: monsoon make -> monsoons make)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf