Increased Exposure of China’s Cropland to Droughts under 1.5 °C and 2 °C Global Warming

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The manuscript is not well written and organized, and it contains a number of repetitive contents or similar expressions.
2. The part of "Introduction" is not well organized, and the objective of the study is abrupt and not very clear for the readers and reviewers.
3. No new results or insights in this area were provided

 

4. Add proper reasoning and possible mechanisms lie behind your findings.

5. Revise conclusion and be specific. Avoid general statements

6. : Improve overall writeup. The connectivity among sentences is poor.

7.Add some latest references

 

Fahad S, Saud S, Yajun C, Chao W, Depeng W (Eds.),  (2021f) Abiotic stress in plants. IntechOpen United Kingdom 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91549

Fahad S, Hasanuzzaman M, Alam M, Ullah H, Saeed M, Ali Khan I, Adnan M. (Eds.) (2020) Environment, Climate, Plant and Vegetation Growth. Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49732-3

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments on the manuscript “Increased Exposure of China’s Cropland to Droughts Under 1.5°C and 2°C Global Warming” by Lijuan Miao, Jing Zhang, Giri Raj Kattel and Ran Liu

 

Major comments/concerns:

 

1. Why did you choose scPDSI over other drought metrics? I think that this is not quite clear in the manuscript. Even though we understand the advantanges of scPDSI over SPI, the authors should explain the same for SPEI (which also includes PET).

2. I would not use “e.g.,” other than inside parenthesis. Otherwise, I prefer using “For example”

3. The authors must revise all acronyms in the manuscript, because most of them are not properly defined before using them. Some acronyms are well known (e.g., RME) but others (most of them) are not, at least for a general audience (e.g., CMIP5, CMIP6, PDSI, SPEI, SPI, SSP...).

4. The authors need to revise carefully some strong statements that lack of the proper references.

 

Minor comments/concerns

 

L9. Delete “The” and “together”

L30. Change to something like “A 1.09 C increase in global surface temperature was observed in 2011-2020, as compared to 1850-1900”

L50-55. It could be convenient to add some references of these recent droughts in China.

L65. Delete “The” and use “A” instead. “A drought index” OR “Drought indices”

L66. “...on defining drought parameters and quantifying...”

L68. Even though those indices are well-known in the drought community, they are not widely known. It is therefore mandatory to define those acronyms: PDSI, SPEI, SPI...

L84-85. Delete “the” of “the people”

L85. Change “e.g.,” by “for example”

L88-89. Delete “the” before cropland. It is not necessary to say “the cropland” in this case.

L89-91. Such a major statement should be backed by references. I mean, “The cropland affected by drought...”

L116. Delete “very”

L131. You have mentioned CMIP6 several times before defining the acronyms. You should define both CMIP5 and CMIP6 much before than in L131.

Eq. 1. I would suggest changing “Xcorrect” by “Xcorrected”

L211. You should define “RMS” I know it is “root-mean-square” but maybe not all readers will.

Figure 2. It is not only “variations” of temperature and precip. but mostly “projections”. I would also describe quite a bit more this Figure.

Figure 3. As in Fig. 2, I would suggest further describing this figure. For example, what is the home message from this figure? What the authors want to highlight? Although the main text explains the meaning of this and other figures, each figure’s caption should be self-explanatory.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.v

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear all,

please explain shortcuts (e.g. CMIP6). Especially young researchers or students from different/other disciplines that might read your paper, might not be familiar with those terms.

Please provide a table of all parameters (just names of parameters and a few data examples) you used for your work.

It might be a good to change the position of figures 2 and 3 to the top of the page.

And a last comment... concerning the numbers of your headlines... Don't wirte "." right at the end of the number. For example... you have written 2.2. There should be 2.2 (and no point at the end :-))

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted as its stands