A Quantitative Analysis of Factors Influencing Organic Matter Concentration in the Topsoil of Black Soil in Northeast China Based on Spatial Heterogeneous Patterns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, the paper needs revision on some important points. I made all the suggestions in the file that is attached. Dear authors, the paper needs revision on some important points. I made all the suggestions in the file that is attached. The topic is interesting and I think it should improve the discussion of factors that are related to the dynamics of organic matter in the soil (in a general context) using as a basis the scientific literature, as well as to relate with the factors that have a larger influence on SOM in your ​​study area.

Best Regards,

Reviewer 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks so much for your encouragement and constructive comments, which helped us a lot. We have fully revised this manuscript according to your comments and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this research paper, a quantitative analysis of factors influencing organic matter in the topsoil of Chinese black soil zones based on the Geographical Detector model is implemented.

The structure is well, and easily – understandable. Although the methodology is already known and no extra innovation brings, I recommend this paper for publishing in ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information after addressing the following points:

1. Although you addressed nine variables as influencing factors to SOM, you did not include any information about different types of agricultural management practices. It is well known that management practices are important when dealing with SOC. So, you should include this information or any scenarios if direct data is missing.
2. Can you explain how Table 1 (Stratification of influencing factors) was produced? Did you rely on your experience or bibliography? Can you put some references to strengthen your choices?

Author Response

Thanks so much for your encouragement and constructive comments, which helped us a lot. We have fully revised this manuscript according to your comments and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General remarks

The study quantified 9 natural and anthropogenic factors that are likely to influence the amount of organic matter in the topsoil of the northeast Chinese black soil zones, using geographical detector method (GDM) for analysis of heterogenous spatial patterns. This topic is not entirely new, but it seems that there are currently no studies for the area discussed in the manuscript applying GDM.

The manuscript is written clearly and concisely and the figures and tables are generally well prepared. Nevertheless, I find a few points that need improvement or clarification.

Specific remarks

1. I suggest to modify the title of the manuscript and add location information such as "NE Chinese" or similar.

P2.L17 “ecological environment,” - “ecological environment, and” ?

P2.L28 Wang et al. 2013 – I do not see how this citation is relevant there.

P3.L1 “geographic weighted regression” - “geographically weighted regression”

P4.L7-8  What part in Fig. 1 belongs to the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region?

P4.L10 One “%” may be removed.

P5.L10 “as Figure 2” - “as in Figure 2”

P5.L10-11 “Grid without agricultural land were removed.” - “Grid units without agricultural land were removed.” ?

P9.L12 “the number of strata divided by one influencing factor” - “the number of strata separated in an influencing factor” ?

P9.22-P10.11 Please standardize the notation of symbols with regard to spaces, italics, etc.

P10.L5-6 “the influences of one factors on SOM are weakened” - “the influence of one factor on SOM is weakened” ?

P10.L26 the highest

P11.L6 “also” may be removed

P12.L5-6 “The interaction s of POP with MAT, MAP and SE were all nonlinearly enhanced.” – untrue for MAT

P14.L13,15 vegetable – vegetation ?

P14.L28 “it should be cautious caution” ?

P16.L12 “MAP is positively related to SOM content due to the shortage of water” – What do you mean?

P17.L7 “positively impacted” - “positively affected / influenced”

Figure 1

- I suggest to show the map scale in kilometres.

Figure 3

- I suggest to show the map scale in kilometres.

- I suggest to enlarge maps (a)-(c) to match other maps, especially since they show important factors.

- The (a)-(e) map legends should be in the same order, i.e., descending or ascending.

 - (g) “intensity erosion” - “intense erosion”

- (j) “Irrigated land” is missing.

Figure 4

- The top circles in each column are not related to interactions and should be shown e.g. in a different colour. These circles show the q-values from Tab. 2.

- The minor division marks between labels should be removed.

- Excessive (not used) parts of axes should be removed.

- Although Fig. 4 partially duplicates the information showed in Tabs. 2 and 3, it facilitates the interpretation of the results.

Table 1

“intensity erosion” - “intense erosion”

MAT – “14.19” – “4.19”

Technical remarks

1. References require thorough editing. There are many mistakes, e.g. incomplete information, errors in authors’ names, etc.
2. Check the manuscript for typos, e.g., P2.L15, P3.L9, P3.L15, P4.L6 ‘E

Author Response

Thanks so much for your encouragement and constructive comments, which helped us a lot. We have fully revised this manuscript according to your comments and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

please find my comments on your manuscript.

Kind regards

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks so much for your encouragement and constructive comments, which helped us a lot. We have fully revised this manuscript according to your comments and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in current form

Author Response

Thanks so much for your encouragement and constructive comments, which greatly improved the quality of this paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I'm happy with most of the changes that you have incorporated into the manuscript.

However, there are still some issues that must be improved before publishing this paper.

Comments:

1) The article is still not formatted according to the journal style.

2) There are different fonts used throughout the document (for example, lines 438-440) as well as in the figures.

3) Typos just an example: line 91: missing full dot after Figure 1. There are more typos throughout the manuscript.

4) English proofreading: The article still requires language verification and proofreading. Just a few examples of mistakes: line 101: 'SOM data for 2017 was...' should be 'SOM data for 2017 were...'; line 129: 'data does' should be 'data do'. Therefore, I suggest that the entire manuscript undergo professional proofreading.

Kind regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Thanks so much for your encouragement and constructive comments, which greatly improved the quality of this paper. We've changed the format of the article to journal style according to your comments and proofread the whole manuscript. All parts of the changes have been all highlighted in red color. Thanks again for this. Please feel free to contact us if additional revisions are required.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx