Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

the investigated topic is very interesting. The importance of predicting yields of major crops under climate change is clearly one of the main issues of sustainable agriculture as well as modern food management.

However, my suggestions are as follows:

1. A brief explanation of what RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios are should be included in the text (e.g., in the Introduction or Data).

2.In my opinion, the working hypothesis should be more strongly formulated.

3. The subsection "3.1.1. Bias correction" should be moved to section 2. "Materials and methods".

4. Axis descriptions on figures are illegible (Fig. 2, 3). Figures 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 should be in higher resolution or more readable.

5. What is missing from the "Discussion" is a confrontation of the results obtained with the current state of knowledge on the subject. 

6. The "Conclusions" are too elaborate, some of the content should be transferred to the "Discussion". Conclusions should be precise.

7. The way references are cited in the text does not comply with the requirements of the journal.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your review. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. The point-by-point responses are as following:

1. A brief explanation of what RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios are should be included in the text (e.g., in the Introduction or Data).

We have added a brief explanation of RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios in the Data part (Page 3, line 117-120).

2.In my opinion, the working hypothesis should be more strongly formulated.

The working hypothesis has been added in the subsection "2.2 Simulation of maize yield using DSSAT"(Page 3, line 126-132).

3. The subsection "3.1.1. Bias correction" should be moved to section 2. "Materials and methods".

The subsection "3.1.1. Bias correction" has been moved to section 2. "Materials and methods" (Page 5, line 166-185).

4. Axis descriptions on figures are illegible (Fig. 2, 3). Figures 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 should be in higher resolution or more readable.

Figures 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 with higher resolution have been replaced in the article. For Figure 2 and 3, we have examined the axis descriptions which are clear when the figures are amplified. So we do not replace Figure 2 and 3.

5. What is missing from the "Discussion" is a confrontation of the results obtained with the current state of knowledge on the subject.

We have added the confrontation of the results in the "Discussion" part (Page 14, line 569-572, 580-581, 590-592).

6. The "Conclusions" are too elaborate, some of the content should be transferred to the "Discussion". Conclusions should be precise.

We have checked the "Conclusions" which are indispensable for all the content. We have summarized the results of the whole work in the article, including impacts of climate change on maize yield, the effects of sowing date adjustment and varieties adjustment in the future. We insist that the "Conclusions" should not be transferred to the "Discussion”.

7. The way references are cited in the text does not comply with the requirements of the journal.

The references are revised to comply with the requirements of the journal.

 

Kind regards,

All authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

The article on the “evaluation of future maize yield changes and adaptation strategies in China” is an interesting article which significantly contribute to knowledge. The research work applied crop modelling approach on a certain crop type in the study region. A more description required in the methodology on certain maize crop type, also this study only applied DSSAT version 4.6 of the crop model; how consistent these results in compared with another crop model. Although this article explored the limitations of the climate modelling data bias correction, I would suggest including the uncertainties of the crop modelling parameters and uncertainties in climate data bias correction.

I would like to accept this article after the suggested changes.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your review. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. The point-by-point responses are as following:

1. I would suggest including the uncertainties of the crop modelling parameters and uncertainties in climate data bias correction.

The uncertainties of the crop modelling parameters have been added in “2.3 Bias correction”(Page 5, line 186-197).The uncertainties of climate data are also in “2.3 Bias correction”(Page 5, line 167-185).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx