The Effects of Agricultural Technology Progress on Agricultural Carbon Emission and Carbon Sink in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This reviewer finds the paper fundamentally flawed.

On lines 367 to 379 the Authors explain how the net production of crops is considered as a carbon sink. This is, in principle correct, but far from the whole truth. The crops would constitute a carbon sink if the carbon stock in the crops would be preserved. There is no indication of such preservation. Instead, crops are generally used as fodder for humans and animals, along with other uses, where the carbon rapidly is released back into the atmosphere. The view of this reviewer is that this flaw nullifies the content of the paper.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you!

Very topical and interesting paper!

Before publishing however it needs revisions.

Some comments of mine:

- Line 8 as well as several other places in the paper: check; I recommend to use "estimate" or "evaluate".

- Lines 23-28. What is the reference year? Compared to which year?

- Lines 45-88. Very (too) long sentence. I recommend to slit it.

- Line 87. Solow residual model. Where is the Reference?

- Lines 132-140. Equations 1-2. And Eqs 1-3 in lines 167-168. I recommend to put Eqs more close when you mentioned them in text.

- Line 276. a little bit. Scientific writing. >> slightly

- Lines 311-314. Values. Do they based on some sources?

- Line 375. aACS is also given in Table 1. Did you give it in Table 1?

- Line 377. Based on which source or data?

- Line 382. agricultural technology progress (TEC). Abbreviation? Maybe ATP?

- Line 390. China Statistical Yearbook. Is it also in Reference List?

- Table 2. Kilowatt >> kilowatt

- Fig. 2. Legend; what does each color mean?

- Lines 429-435. Is it a right location? I recommend to put before Fig. 2.

- Fig. 3: Title of Fig. 3. I recommend to add "in China".

- Fig. 3: Why blue and red colors in Fig. 3?

- Lines 438-442. Is it a right location? I recommend to put before Fig. 3.

- Line 448. However, The annually... >> the

- Table 4. Significance levels used; 10%, 5% and 1%. Normal used sig. levels are 5%, 1% and 0.1%

- Fig. 4: Title of Fig. 4. I recommend to add "in China".

- Fig. 5. Title of Fig. 5. I recommend to add "in China".

- Fig. 5: Why blue and red colors in Fig. 5?

- Line 522. the span of... >> The span of...

- Lines 547, 556, 571, 575. regression >> regressions

- Table 6. R2 of models are very low. I recommend to remove these reg. models out of the paper.

- Conclusions. Quite long. Including also the items of Discussion chapter.

- Where is Discussion chapter in the paper?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The expansion of agricultural scale as a form of growth would certainly result in a rise in agricultural carbon emissions; however, the effects of agricultural technological advancement on agricultural carbon emissions and carbon sinks are not well understood. This study begins by defining agricultural technological advancement. This article's topic is updated and intriguing. I thus recommend it to be published after minor revision.

Comments:

1. The background information is presented adequately in the introduction.

2. Every single one of the references that were used is pertinent to the study that was conducted.

3. The study model that was used for this article is an effective one.

4. Both the econometric techniques and the variables themselves are well discussed.

5. The findings are laid forth in an understandable manner.

6. The findings provide evidence that the conclusions are reasonable.

Minor issues:

1. Extensive editing of English language and style required.

2. There is room for improvement in the policy implications based on the findings of this paper.

3. There is a need for more elaboration on the limitations of this study as well as the possible future routes that research on this topic may take.

4. References can be expanded.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This reviewer has read and understood the response by the reviewers.

If biological fertilizers substituting artificial fertilizers are to be included, substitution factors should be discussed.

A carbon sink refers to the increment of solid carbon stock. Crops consumed by livestock and humans does not constitute a carbon sink since the accumulated stock will be released within a couple of years. The best one could do is to compute the sequestration effect of the mentioned time delay. There could be substitutions if humans and livestock alternatively would consume fossile-based artificial food, which however is not the case.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx