| 27 Apr 2026
Present and future responses of near-surface wind speed to different land-use and land-cover types in China
Abstract. Near-surface wind speed (NSWS) is highly sensitive to land-use and land-cover change (LULCC). However, previous studies have mainly focused on overall LULCC effects, leaving the attribution of wind variations to individual land transitions and management poorly constrained. Here, we utilize simulations from the latest land-use model intercomparison project (LUMIP) in CMIP6 to disentangle and quantify the responses of NSWS to different LULCC types over China from 1970 to 2014. We find that the primary-to-grazing transition is the dominant factor to LULCC-Induced NSWS variability, followed by fertilizer use, with urbanization contributes the least among the examined types. Future projections further suggest that land-use pathways can substantially perturb wind patterns, with low-emission pathways under minimally regulated land use producing more pronounced alterations than high-emission pathways under sustainable land use. These results highlighting the importance of resolving LULCC in attributing and projecting NSWS changes, with implications for climate modeling, wind-energy assessment, and land-use policy.
This manuscript investigates the present and future responses of near-surface wind speed (NSWS) to different land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) types over China using experiments from the Land-Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). The topic is timely and relevant, as LULCC has long been considered an important but not sufficiently resolved driver of terrestrial wind speed changes. A major strength of this study is that it goes beyond treating LULCC as an aggregated factor and attempts to distinguish the roles of individual land-use states, transitions, and management practices. This provides a more detailed and physically informative view of how different LULCC pathways may influence NSWS. I appreciate the effort to evaluate model performance before conducting the attribution analysis. The results are interesting and the manuscript is well written. Overall, I find the manuscript suitable for publication after some revisions. My comments below:
Major comments:
1. It would be helpful to briefly clarify how the penalty parameter is selected and whether any cross-validation or sensitivity test was conducted. This would make the calibration procedure easier to reproduce.
2. The manuscript suggests that fertilization may influence NSWS through vegetation growth, surface albedo, evapotranspiration, boundary-layer stability, and local circulation. This interpretation is reasonable, but the direction of the net effect is not straightforward. A short discussion clarifying why fertilization is associated with increased NSWS over much of China in the results would make this part more convincing.
3. The distinction between SSP126-SSP370Lu and SSP370-SSP126Lu is important for the conclusions, but the current wording may be difficult for readers who are not familiar with LUMIP. I suggest adding one or two clearer sentences explaining what is fixed and what is changed in each comparison.
Minor comments:
1. “with urbanization contributes the least” suggested be revised to “with urbanization contributing the least”. Similar language issues appear in several places and can be addressed through careful editing.
2. In Table 1, the caption “Used experiment of CMIP6” could be revised to “CMIP6 and LUMIP experiments used in this study”.
3. Several abbreviations are used without being defined at their first occurrence. Please provide the full names when these abbreviations first appear in the manuscript.
4. Some inconsistencies in capitalization are present in the tables and headings. Please revise them for consistency.