An Assessment of the Impact of Climate Change on Maize Production in Northern Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors has significantly addressed the comments raised after reviewing the paper. Now i recommend the paper for further proceeding. 

Author Response

Comments 1: The Authors has significantly addressed the comments raised after reviewing the paper. Now I recommend the paper for further proceeding

Response 1: The authors thank you for taking the time to read this manuscript. 

We appreciate all the comments that helped us improve the presentation of this work for the scientific community. Considering the suggestions of other reviewers, the manuscript was revised to ensure that acronyms were used consistently after being defined and that the definitions of the indices were not repeated. Three relevant citations were added to complement the discussion, and the conclusions were presented in a clearer and more direct way.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is super relevant and it is looking good. There are some small points to correct in the structure, but they are minor.

1 - Try to define the acronyms in the beginning of the manuscript and then call by the acronym further. There are some parts in the results and the discussion that you are still explaining what they are.

2 - You have a table showing the indices you are using and a few paragraphs below, in the results section, you define all of them. I would either remove them and just leave the table, or define right after the table. Removal is my preference here.

3 - There is one section you mention supplemental material, but we don't have a supplemental material for this paper. At least, I didn't receive them. So remove the mentions if you don't have them.

4 - The discussion is great, but I'd like to see something that integrate other research, specially in the realm of agriculture/climate change/irrigation that relates to yours. I didn't see much of it, but it would be great, specially if you can find such research in South America (Argentina/Brazil) and the US.

5 - The conclusion section need to be shorter, way shorter. You have 40 lines in your conclusion and that is too much. Try to summarize the good points, potential directions and caveats of your research in the maximum of 10-15 lines. There are too much objectives, methodology, results and discussion built in and, I, personally, do not like that. Conclusions should be direct.

Thank you! It was great to read your manuscript.

Author Response

Comments 1: Try to define the acronyms in the beginning of the manuscript and then call by the acronym further. There are some parts in the results and the discussion that you are still explaining what they are.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have carefully reviewed the document. On lines 93, 138, 182, 268, 339, 522 and 542 the term 'climate change' was replaced with its corresponding acronym, as defined on line 32. In Figures 1, 2,3, B.1 nad B.2, the captions were changed to use the acronym 'CL', which is defined as Comarca Lagunera in line 99. On line 269, the acronyms PP, Tmin and Tmax were used, as they were defined before on line 136.  On line 372, the acronym CSA was used to replace the concept of Climate-Smart Agriculture, previously defined on line 43-44. On line 433, the term 'Expert Team on Climate Change Detection and Indices' was replaced with its corresponding acronym, defined on lines 81-82. Furthermore, in the results and discussion sections, the ETCCDI indices were referred to by their ID to avoid repeating their definitions, which are provided in Table 2.

Comments 2: You have a table showing the indices you are using and a few paragraphs below, in the results section, you define all of them. I would either remove them and just leave the table, or define right after the table. Removal is my preference here.

Response 2: Agree. As you rightly mention, the indices are defined in Table 2; therefore, we have removed their definitions from the results section. In this section, we focus on explaining statistically significant trends. Furthermore, we carefully reviewed other sections such as discussion and conclusions to refer to the indices by their ID and avoid unnecessary repetitions of their definition.

Comments 3: There is one section you mention supplemental material, but we don't have a supplemental material for this paper. At least, I didn't receive them. So remove the mentions if you don't have them.

Response 3: Thank you. Supplementary material is not included in the submitted version. After carefully reviewing the manuscript, we found no references to it. The assistant editor, Mr. Kittichai Chansom, also kindly confirmed that there was no mention of such material.

Comments 4: The discussion is great, but I'd like to see something that integrate other research, specially in the realm of agriculture/climate change/irrigation that relates to yours. I didn't see much of it, but it would be great, specially if you can find such research in South America (Argentina/Brazil) and the US.

Response 4: Agree. Information was added to the Discussion section (lines 432-440, 499-501), regarding studies conducted in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and the United States, showing the relationship between climate change and agriculture using the ETCCDI indices. The authors confirmed that there is little published literature on this topic in Latin America and noted that the vast majority of references are mainly found in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Therefore, adding references to studies conducted in Latin America and the United States is appropriate for this study.

Comments 5: The conclusion section need to be shorter, way shorter. You have 40 lines in your conclusion and that is too much. Try to summarize the good points, potential directions and caveats of your research in the maximum of 10-15 lines. There are too much objectives, methodology, results and discussion built in and, I, personally, do not like that. Conclusions should be direct.

Response 5: Agree. We modified the Conclusions section to make it more direct. We highlighted in 15 lines the most important findings that helped us achieve our objective of examining the differential impacts of climate extremes on maize yields in rainfed and irrigated systems.

Additional clarifications

We appreciate all the comments that helped us improve the presentation of this work for the scientific community. Considering your suggestions, the manuscript was revised to ensure that acronyms were used consistently after being defined and that the definitions of the indices were not repeated. Relevant citations were added to complement the discussion, and the conclusions were modified to be presented in a clearer and more direct way.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All figures are unclear, with text that is too small.
Equations are not numbered.
Figures 4 and 5 are difficult to interpret; please include more detailed information in the figure captions.
Lines 201-202 and Table 3: Statistical tests should be used to determine whether the changes are significant. Insignificant changes are not meaningful in statistical analysis.
There are too many figures and words used to demonstrate changes in climate factors. Could you please reduce some of them? It would be better to select critical factors and present them alongside a table.
Figure 16 is unclear, especially because the text is too small. Additionally, the differences between pixels in the same region are too large; please verify this. The interpolation method also seems unnatural.
Figure 17 is also unclear. Moreover, the study's scale is too coarse. A pixel-based approach with a resolution of 1 km or finer is recommended to better capture the relationships.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English needs further refinement.

Author Response

Comments 1: All figures are unclear, with text that is too small.

Response 1: The figures have been reworked to make them clearer and easier to understand.

Comments 2:  Equations are not numbered

Response 2: The equations have already been numbered

Comments 3: Figures 4 and 5 are difficult to interpret; please include more detailed information in the figure captions.

Response 3: The captions for Figures 4 and 5 (now Figures 3 and 4) were changed to highlight that the amount of missing data from the databases of the weather stations chosen for this study meet the criteria to be considered reliable. In addition, the importance of the information presented in the figures was justified in lines 266-270.

Comments 4: Lines 201-202 and Table 3: Statistical tests should be used to determine whether the changes are significant. Insignificant changes are not meaningful in statistical analysis.

Response 4: The Mann-Kendall (MK) test was used to detect trends in climate extreme índices because it is recommended by the World Meteorological Organization [Moura Cardoso do Vale et al., 2020; Aditya et al., 2021). The increasing or decreasing trend was tested based on normalized test statistics (Z) value. When Z is positive, trend is said to be increasing and when Z is negative, it is said to be decreasing (Bhuyan et al., 2018). The Sen slope estimator was used to estimate the slope of the trend. The trend’s slope gives the annual rate and direction of change. This method does not require data to conform to normal distribution, and can better estimate the trend changes of extreme temperature and precipitation (Hong and Ying, 2019).

The level to accept a change as statistically significant was established at p < 0.05.

In Table 3, the symbol * was used to indicate which indices showed significant trends (p<0.05), and the text was revised to describe the significant trends and omit those that were not.

Comments 5: There are too many figures and words used to demonstrate changes in climate factors. Could you please reduce some of them? It would be better to select critical factors and present them alongside a table.

Response 5: Figure 3 was removed because its content is included in Table 1. Figures 6-15 (now figures 5-12) were condensed and their quality was improved for better understanding. In addition, we rewrote the Results text, emphasizing only the results with statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Comments 6: Figure 16 is unclear, especially because the text is too small. Additionally, the differences between pixels in the same region are too large; please verify this. The interpolation method also seems unnatural.

Response 6:  The results in Figure 16 were obtained using the interpolation method described by Guijardo, which was also used in a previous study on climate change index analysis in Mexico (Pita-Diaz and Ortega). However, in the conclusion, the authors recommend that for more specific studies the indices analyzed can be increased to a finer scale. The purpose of the figure is to show that temperature-based indices exhibit increasing values mainly in the center of the study region, which may help subsequent studies understand the distribution of extreme climate events intensity.  

Comments 7: Figure 17 is also unclear. Moreover, the study's scale is too coarse. A pixel-based approach with a resolution of 1 km or finer is recommended to better capture the relationships

Response 7: Figure 17 was removed and replaced with equations to simplify and make clearer the relationships between climate variables and maize yield.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study cover and discusses important aspect i.e. effect of climate change on maiz production. But at he same time it requires some improvement. I have highlighted some comments for authors if he agrees with these comments then can incorporate in study.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English is good but needs some grammatical correction. 

Author Response

Comments 1: ABSTRACT: The abstract effectively outlines the research theme and extent of climate change's influence on maize cultivation in Northern Mexico, concentrating on extreme temperatures and precipitation. Nonetheless, it would improve with greater specificity, especially in quantifying the main findings and elucidating the connection between climatic factors and maize yield. Furthermore, adding wider implications or suggestions would improve its abstraction and overall effect. Tackling these factors can enhance the clarity and significance of the study's policy implications

Response 1: In lines 20-25 of the Abstract, the main findings and the connection between climatic factors and maize yield are more clearly described. It is shown that temperature is the climatic variable most influencing climate change in the region, with increases in both maximum and minimum values, which are accentuating drought conditions. Furthermore, precipitation is the primary variable influencing the yield of rainfed maize, while maximum temperature affects the yield of irrigated maize. In addition, it was highlighted that irrigation is functioning as an adaptation strategy; however, this strategy may be unsustainable in the long term in the region.

Comments 2: 

INTRODUCTION: The introductory part of this manuscript indicates the difficulties arising out of climate change and its impact on agriculture. This will benefit from increased specificity, as the author successfully presents a strong background of research and clearly explains the extent of the problem, particularly about the challenges posed by climate change on agriculture and its impact on maize production. Nevertheless, the purpose of the study, which is outlined at the end of the introduction, can be linked more directly to the broader topics discussed earlier. Extending this connection will help the reader understand the thrust of the study and its significance in dealing with the issues mentioned in the introduction. Furthermore, adding a more detailed literature review can enhance the introduction by providing insights from previous research that supports the relevance of the study.

Response 2: The introduction was expanded through a more detailed literature review to more clearly describe the challenges posed by climate change to agriculture and its impact on maize production. Emphasis was placed on the various effects of increased temperatures and decreased rainfall on both the quantity and quality of fodder maize. The primary goal was to show that the effects are specific to the characteristics of each region, highlighting the importance of studying, documenting, and publishing research on the impact of climate change on agriculture in each region.

Comments 3: 

Materials and Methods: The Materials and Methods section is effectively managed and appropriate methods are used to assess the impact of climate change on maize production. However, this can be enhanced by providing more explicit reasons for the chosen methods and providing additional context for specific choices. Explaining the reasoning of methods and explaining statistical tests will improve transparency and clarity.

Response 3: In the text (line 203-203) it was added that Mann-Kendall (MK) nonparametric trend test is recommended by the World Meteorological Organization, and citations are included from previous studies that have used the non-parametric MK test and the slope Sen's estimator to analyze the trend of the climate change indices used in this study.

Comments 4: 

Discussion: The Discussion section thoroughly examines the results in global and regional contexts, yet it could improve through greater clarity, a more critical assessment, a balanced emphasis on the effects of temperature and precipitation, and the addition of future research avenues to bolster its overall impact.

Response 4: 

The discussion was expanded by reinforcing it with a literature review that provided a clearer explanation of how the climate change indices were interpreted in this study, and the effects of temperature and precipitation on fodder maize yield, with a focus both on general aspects and on the specific context of the study region.

Comments 5: 

Conclusion: The results section briefly describes the results of the study, Emphasis is laid on sensitivity of maize production to climatic fluctuations and protective function of irrigation. Nevertheless, it can be improved by integrating a thorough critique of the study's shortcomings, suggesting future comprehensive and practical research opportunities, and providing clear, evidence-supported policy proposals to increase its effectiveness and relevance. The manuscript's small number of references is a concern. It is recommended to expand the list to include more recent studies, strengthening the arguments and demonstrating a thorough literature review.

Response 5: 

The conclusion included proposals for improving the research, such as increasing the number of climate change indices and using finer grid resolution if a more detailed analysis of the distribution of the indices is required. In addition, clearer proposals for strategies to adapt agriculture to CC in the CL region were proposed. One of them is the proposal to schedule irrigation in near real time, using remote sensing techniques. This proposal is part of the project that funded this study.

The number of references was increased from 62 to 100, primarily in the introduction to provide a more solid research foundation, and in the discussion to deepen the understanding and analysis of the results obtained in this study. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is difficult to read and understand.  The many tables and figures are difficult to interpret.  It appears to me that most of the data is inconclusive.  Since most of the data is from irrigated areas, the results do not present much new information.  The fact that crops decline in yield without sufficient water is not new information.

Author Response

Comments 1:

The paper is difficult to read and understand.  The many tables and figures are difficult to interpret.  It appears to me that most of the data is inconclusive.  Since most of the data is from irrigated areas, the results do not present much new information.  The fact that crops decline in yield without sufficient water is not new information.

 

Response 1:

The number of figures was reduced and most were reworked for clarity. The results text was rewritten to emphasize statistically significant results. The discussion text was extended to emphasize that the paper analyzes extremes in the Comarca Lagunera from 1980 to 2020 using a comprehensive set of ETCCDI indices, moving beyond simple averages. An innovation is the application of advanced quality control and data-filling techniques, including Climatol and Sen's Slope Estimator, ensuring reliable results. Uniquely, this study examines the differential impacts of climate extremes on maize yields in rainfed versus irrigated systems. It reveals that rainfall variability primarily drives yield changes in rainfed maize, while temperature extremes are the dominant factor in irrigated maize. This novel approach clarifies how irrigation modifies the effects of extreme weather on crop production. It also fills a gap in our understanding of how these adaptation strategies modulate the impacts of extreme climate events on maize productivity in arid regions.

The discussion text was expanded to better align with the authors' intended focus, highlighting that while irrigation is mitigating the effects of climate change on fodder maize production in CL, temperature extremes are the primary factor influencing it. In the medium to long term, this may pose a risk to the agricultural productivity of the region.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper remains long and difficult to understand.