Quantifying the Impacts of Grain Plantation Decline on Domestic Grain Supply in China During the Past Two Decades

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper describes the characteristics of crop planting area from 2003 to 2023, preliminarily quantifies each crop's impact on China's food supply, shows the changing trends of sown area and per capita food with the M-K method, and examines the impacts of yield, population, and NGP on food supply using LMDI decomposition.

However, the rationale for using the M-K method to identify the decline nodes of provincial - level food sown area in China is unclear due to insufficient theoretical support in the literature review and methods section. The introductions to the M-K and LMDI methods are brief and lack specific formulas.

Regarding the identified non - grain - oriented provinces, the analysis of the impact of non - grain - oriented phenomena on food production is relatively simple. It only explores the changes in per capita food output in these provinces. Why not select typical provinces to compare the spatial differences in non - grain - oriented phenomena and their varying impacts on food production potential?

The paper only selects crop yield, population, and non - grain orientation to explore the main factors affecting different non - grain provinces at different stages. The basis for choosing these factors is unclear. Other natural, social, economic, and policy factors are not considered. Additionally, the paper only states the differences in contributions of each factor to the trend changes but fails to summarize the mechanisms of these factors in different non - grain provinces over time.

The data from China's National Bureau of Statistics are authoritative and credible, but the specific data processing steps need clarification, such as handling missing and abnormal values.

The policy suggestions on a new research framework, observing population movement's impact on food demand, and optimizing farming models in non - grain production areas are somewhat vague. More specific implementation measures, like how to improve farming models, should be provided.

The paper doesn't specify its limitations. It's suggested to add a discussion of limitations, such as only considering sown area, yield, and population, while ignoring other factors like climate change.

The lack of comparison with similar studies makes it hard to see the differences in research scope, methods, and conclusions. The discussion also insufficiently explores the marginal contributions and innovation of this paper.

The language is generally clear but some sentences are overly long and complex, reducing readability. Simplifying these sentences would help.

The paper's structure is logical but could have smoother transitions between sections, like adding transitional sentences between results and discussion.

The references provide a solid theoretical foundation, but including more recent studies would better reflect the field's latest developments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your meticulous comments and professional advices. These are quite valuable for improving this paper, as well as our following researches. In the revised manuscript, we have made modifications based on the suggestions and request, and polished language. We hope that our work has been improved and meet with your and the journal’s academic and linguistic criteria. Details are shown as follows:

 

 

1. The paper describes the characteristics of crop planting area from 2003 to 2023, preliminarily quantifies each crop's impact on China's food supply, shows the changing trends of sown area and per capita food with the M-K method, and examines the impacts of yield, population, and NGP on food supply using LMDI decomposition. However, the rationale for using the M-K method to identify the decline nodes of provincial - level food sown area in China is unclear due to insufficient theoretical support in the literature review and methods section. The introductions to the M-K and LMDI methods are brief and lack specific formulas.

 

Thanks for your comments and advices.

The M-K (Mann-Kendall) method is primarily used for analyzing long-term time series data in fields such as hydrology, environmental science, and meteorology. Land-use transition is also a gradual process, sharing similar data characteristics with the aforementioned fields. Some scholars (Reference 66) have applied this method for global vegetation analysis. Given this precedent, we adopted the M-K approach in our study (Lines 201–209).

From the results, M-K method effectively reduces the impact of normal fluctuations on judgment while also detecting abrupt large-scale changes. Its outcomes align closely with direct observational data: Taking Guizhou—the province with the most complex variations—as an example, the figure above illustrates changes in its grain cultivation area, M-K test accurately identifies mutation points and trends, which correspond well with the original data patterns.

Additionally, we apologize for any confusion caused by the lack of detailed explanations regarding the M-K and LMDI calculations. Supplementary has been provided in Lines 212–228 and Lines 236–243, respectively. We hope this revision will better help readers understanding the methods.

 

2. Regarding the identified non - grain - oriented provinces, the analysis of the impact of non - grain - oriented phenomena on food production is relatively simple. It only explores the changes in per capita food output in these provinces. Why not select typical provinces to compare the spatial differences in non - grain - oriented phenomena and their varying impacts on food production potential?

 

According to the official documents from the Chinese government, the primary objective of addressing “NGP” (grain-cropland conversion to non-grain non-grain cropland) is to maintain or enhance national and regional grain self-sufficiency levels. Therefore, we consider per capita grain availability to be the most direct and widely used indicator reflecting this goal. Since Beijing specifies grain self-sufficiency requirements at provincial level, making provincial-scale analysis of per capita grain supply particularly relevant. However, provincial statistics cannot provide spatial information, which limits spatial heterogeneity analysis.

In fact, in our previous research (Reference 46), we proposed a preliminary framework to identify non-grain converted cropland based on historical cultivation patterns and assess the feasibility of reverting such land to grain production by analyzing its land-use transition pathways. This study provided strategic recommendations while highlighting the spatial heterogeneity of NGP. Currently, we are advancing this work using recently released high-resolution, long-term remote sensing products to deepen the spatial analysis.

 

 

3. The paper only selects crop yield, population, and non - grain orientation to explore the main factors affecting different non - grain provinces at different stages. The basis for choosing these factors is unclear. Other natural, social, economic, and policy factors are not considered. Additionally, the paper only states the differences in contributions of each factor to the trend changes but fails to summarize the mechanisms of these factors in different non - grain provinces over time.

 

The core issue of our study is to quantify the impact of grain cultivation area decrease on food supply. Mathematically, crop yield, population, and sown-area are the direct factors affecting regional grain supply, which justifies our selection of these three variables (Lines 86–103). Natural conditions, socioeconomic factors, and policies serve as the underlying drivers influencing grain cultivation (as well as population mobility and crop yield). That is, these factors indirectly affect food supply by altering grain cultivation patterns—a dimension that falls beyond the scope of our core research question.

However, related studies are currently underway. As the results demonstrate, the 12 provinces experiencing grains’ retreat exhibit distinct characteristics and are categorized into 4r groups based on the varying contributions of area reduction and population dynamics to grain supply changes. We posit that this classification may reflect differences in the underlying mechanisms driving cultivation area changes across province types. Since this issue has already been extensively debated by scholars at various scales with divergent methodologies, we prefer focusing on the differences between our findings and existing conclusions.

 

 

4. The data from China's National Bureau of Statistics are authoritative and credible, but the specific data processing steps need clarification, such as handling missing and abnormal values.

 

Thanks for your comments. Since official data have already been verified before they are released, preprocessing is not needed in this research. We have addressed this point with additional explanations in the revised manuscript (Line 95~ Line 97) .

 

5. The policy suggestions on a new research framework, observing population movement's impact on food demand, and optimizing farming models in non - grain production areas are somewhat vague. More specific implementation measures, like how to improve farming models, should be provided.

 

We do appreciate your suggestions. Based on you and other experts’ comments , we have revised the Discussion section accordingly, the relevant content on this recommendation has been primarily supplemented in Section 4.1 (Lines 439–448) and Section 4.2 (Lines 495–508).

 

6. The paper doesn't specify its limitations. It's suggested to add a discussion of limitations, such as only considering sown area, yield, and population, while ignoring other factors like climate change.

 

Thank you for your suggestion. As mentioned earlier (Question 3), climate, as a natural factor, indirectly affects grain supply by influencing variables such as population, cultivated area, and yield per unit area. Therefore, it was not included in the research design.

However, we have noted potential impacts from regional yield disparities and dietary structure changes on the results. Relevant discussions have been supplemented in Section 4.3.

 

7. The lack of comparison with similar studies makes it hard to see the differences in research scope, methods, and conclusions. The discussion also insufficiently explores the marginal contributions and innovation of this paper.

 

We do appreciate your suggestions.  Since we have revised the Discussion section accordingly, the relevant content on this recommendation has been primarily supplemented in Section 4.1 (Lines 510– Line 542)

 

8. The language is generally clear but some sentences are overly long and complex, reducing readability. Simplifying these sentences would help. The paper's structure is logical but could have smoother transitions between sections, like adding transitional sentences between results and discussion. The references provide a solid theoretical foundation, but including more recent studies would better reflect the field's latest developments.

 

Thanks for your advice. We have made language refinements throughout the manuscript, with particular emphasis on the Introduction and Discussion sections. Additionally, we have incorporated recent relevant studies into these sections. We hope these revisions meet the journal’s standards and provide an improved reading experience for you and readers.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Quantifying the impacts of grain plantation decline on food supply in China in the past two decades” presents a pertinent and well-structured analysis of the relationship between the decline in cereal acreage and food security in China. The paper makes a valuable contribution to the literature on land use and agricultural planning, through a rigorous quantitative approach and a detailed regional analysis.

1. Introduction
The introduction provides a solid context for China’s current food security challenges, clearly explaining the contradiction between increasing yields and decreasing acreage.
Comments:

It would be useful if the research questions were formulated more explicitly, possibly distinctly, for better visibility.
The relevance of the topic is appreciated, but it would be recommended to briefly explain how this contradiction is addressed by current policies.

2. Technical content
The methodology is sound, combining trend analysis (Mann-Kendall) with the LMDI decomposition method, which gives the study analytical rigor.
Comments:

It would be good to justify more clearly why the period 2003–2023 was chosen as the reference.
The concept of NGP (non-grain production) should be more naturally integrated into the logic of the spatial analysis presented later.

3. Results
The results are presented in detail and include relevant regional comparisons between cultivated area (Ag) and per capita cereal availability (Ga).
Comments:

The tables and figures contain useful information, but some could be simplified or grouped for a clearer reading.
The differentiation between temporary and structural decreases in cultivated areas should be specified more clearly.

4. Discussion and conclusions
The discussion is applied and supported by data, providing useful interpretations for public policies. The identification of spatial imbalances between supply and demand is one of the notable contributions.
Comments:

Explicit formulation of public policy proposals based on the evidence presented is recommended.
Future research directions could be expanded, especially on the topic of population mobility and its impact on food demand.

Major observation regarding the format of the manuscript
The pagination and layout are very poor and seriously affect the readability of the manuscript. Many figures are inserted in unclear positions, breaking the coherence of the text.
Some passages seem to be pasted into tables or figures without spacing, which creates confusion.
An editorial review is absolutely necessary to correctly place the text and graphics, in accordance with the aesthetic and structural requirements of the Land journal.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language and style
The manuscript is written in generally correct and academic English, but there are occasional ambiguities of expression or improper terms (e.g. “devotions” instead of “contributions”). A final proofreading by a native speaker or a professional language editor is recommended.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your meticulous comments and professional advices. These are quite valuable for improving this paper, as well as our following researches. In the revised manuscript, we have made modifications based on the suggestions and request, and polished language. We hope that our work has been improved and meet with your and the journal’s academic and linguistic criteria. Details are shown as follows:

 

The manuscript entitled “Quantifying the impacts of grain plantation decline on food supply in China in the past two decades” presents a pertinent and well-structured analysis of the relationship between the decline in cereal acreage and food security in China. The paper makes a valuable contribution to the literature on land use and agricultural planning, through a rigorous quantitative approach and a detailed regional analysis.

 

1. Introduction
   The introduction provides a solid context for China’s current food security challenges, clearly explaining the contradiction between increasing yields and decreasing acreage.

Comments:

It would be useful if the research questions were formulated more explicitly, possibly distinctly, for better visibility.
The relevance of the topic is appreciated, but it would be recommended to briefly explain how this contradiction is addressed by current policies.

 

Thanks for your advice. We have revised the Introduction section. The description of grain-cropland conversion to non-grain production has been enhanced in the first and second paragraphs, while the third and fourth paragraphs now provide more detailed context regarding the research questions. Policy-related content is primarily addressed in Lines 56–66, Lines 80–85, and Lines 92–98. To improve clarity, we have added more details in the third and fourth paragraphs to highlight the paradoxical coexistence between grain plantation decrease and increasing grain supply in China. We hope these modifications will offer readers a more comprehensive understanding.

 

2. Technical content
   The methodology is sound, combining trend analysis (Mann-Kendall) with the LMDI decomposition method, which gives the study analytical rigor.
   Comments:

It would be good to justify more clearly why the period 2003–2023 was chosen as the reference.
The concept of NGP (non-grain production) should be more naturally integrated into the logic of the spatial analysis presented later.

 

Thank you for your suggestion, and we sincerely apologize for our oversight. The rationale for selecting the study period has been supplemented in Section 2.2.1 (Lines 189–193).

Additionally, given that the decline in grain cultivation is a globally widespread phenomenon, while the term “non grain production” is a policy-specific concept introduced by the Chinese government to address food security concerns, we have clarified this context in Lines 137–138, and in subsequent sections, we will avoid emphasizing this term and instead use more neutral expressions such as “grain plantation decline”

 

 

3. Results
   The results are presented in detail and include relevant regional comparisons between cultivated area (Ag) and per capita cereal availability (Ga).
   Comments:

The tables and figures contain useful information, but some could be simplified or grouped for a clearer reading.
The differentiation between temporary and structural decreases in cultivated areas should be specified more clearly.

 

Thanks for your kind advice. We have added graphical illustrations of the technical framework. Additionally, based on the LMDI results, we integrated schematic diagrams of the M-K test results for Ag and Ga, we hope the revisions could help improve your reading.

In the Technical section, we supplemented descriptions of temporary and structural declines (Lines 162–168). Interestingly, while the national scale exhibited a temporary decline, nearly all provincial-scale analyses showed persistent declines (i.e., no recovery during the study period). Consequently, this distinction was not emphasized in the results section.

 

4. Discussion and conclusions
   The discussion is applied and supported by data, providing useful interpretations for public policies. The identification of spatial imbalances between supply and demand is one of the notable contributions.
   Comments:

Explicit formulation of public policy proposals based on the evidence presented is recommended.
Future research directions could be expanded, especially on the topic of population mobility and its impact on food demand.

 

We sincerely appreciate your suggestions. Based on your and other experts’ feedback, we have substantially revised the Discussion section. The modifications related to policy recommendations are primarily presented in Lines 439–473, while the revisions concerning population mobility and food demand are detailed in Lines 495–508.

 

5. Major observation regarding the format of the manuscript
   The pagination and layout are very poor and seriously affect the readability of the manuscript. Many figures are inserted in unclear positions, breaking the coherence of the text.
   Some passages seem to be pasted into tables or figures without spacing, which creates confusion.
   An editorial review is absolutely necessary to correctly place the text and graphics, in accordance with the aesthetic and structural requirements of the Land journal.

 

We sincerely appreciate your suggestions. Following the revisions, we have adjusted the manuscript in accordance with the LAND journal’s requirements. We hope these modifications meet the journal’s standards and enhance the reader’s experience. Additionally, both PDF and Word versions have been uploaded for your convenience.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction presents the growth of the production of the main cereals for China and the problems of replacing them with other crops preferred by farmers in some regions. Several other previous studies on these problems are cited. It is not clear from the text what goals, scope and methods the previous studies were carried out with. For these reasons, the relevance of the study is not well defended, as well as later in the methodology - the new or different approach of the present study.
The goal is not clearly presented. It should be revised and better linked to the three separate issues that are consistently investigated in the article.
I support the authors' approach to study changes in areas and production of cereals in dynamics and at the same time in a regional context.
The methodology includes the research object and methods. I recommend presenting the research procedure in a diagram or table, in which the connections between the individual parts are presented. In this regard, it is also necessary to supplement 2.2.2. and 2.2.3. by indicating in which parts of the study they are used and why.
The presentation of the results needs a complete overhaul. Figure 1 now consists of 6 separate graphs, and only Figure 1a is explained in the text.
Do the authors need to present the graphs of the results of the Mann-Kendall method of annual grain per capita availability for all the studied regions (Figure 3 and Figure 4)? Is it not possible to present only a few, which are typical of the regions where the sown areas are increasing and those where they are decreasing? If the authors leave all the graphs, it will be necessary to expand the analysis of the differences.
The discussion should be more focused on the goal. Differences between grain production by region and needs by region exist in most countries and are due not only to demographic characteristics and processes. Lower production in a region does not necessarily lead to lower supply.
The inclusion of the ecological imperative is useful, but it is not related to the previous analysis and sounds like an end in itself.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your meticulous comments and professional advices. These are quite valuable for improving this paper, as well as our following researches. In the revised manuscript, we have made modifications based on the suggestions and request, and polished language. We hope that our work has been improved and meet with your and the journal’s academic and linguistic criteria. Details are shown as follows:

 

1. The introduction presents the growth of the production of the main cereals for China and the problems of replacing them with other crops preferred by farmers in some regions. Several other previous studies on these problems are cited. It is not clear from the text what goals, scope and methods the previous studies were carried out with. For these reasons, the relevance of the study is not well defended, as well as later in the methodology - the new or different approach of the present study. The goal is not clearly presented. It should be revised and better linked to the three separate issues that are consistently investigated in the article.
   I support the authors' approach to study changes in areas and production of cereals in dynamics and at the same time in a regional context.

 

 

We appreciate your critical comments and suggestions. In response to your feedback, we have made the following revisions:

• Introduction section (Paragraphs 3 & 4): Added explanations regarding the decline in China’s grain cultivation, central government policies, and changes in food supply conditions.
• Introduction section (Paragraph 5): Included a summary of technical content for clarity.
• Methods Section: Expanded the discussion on methodological choices.
• Discussion (Section 4.3): Incorporated comparisons with existing studies.

We hope these revisions provide a more comprehensive and detailed presentation of our research content, conclusions, and reflections on the findings.

 

2. The methodology includes the research object and methods. I recommend presenting the research procedure in a diagram or table, in which the connections between the individual parts are presented. In this regard, it is also necessary to supplement 2.2.2. and 2.2.3. by indicating in which parts of the study they are used and why.

 

Thanks for your advice. In the revision, we have added a technical flowchart (Figure 2). Additionally, in Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, we have included detailed explanations of the mathematical principles of the M-K method and LMDI method, their applications in relevant fields, and computational procedures (Lines 201–221; Lines 236–243).

 

3. The presentation of the results needs a complete overhaul. Figure 1 now consists of 6 separate graphs, and only Figure 1a is explained in the text. Do the authors need to present the graphs of the results of the Mann-Kendall method of annual grain per capita availability for all the studied regions (Figure 3 and Figure 4)? Is it not possible to present only a few, which are typical of the regions where the sown areas are increasing and those where they are decreasing? If the authors leave all the graphs, it will be necessary to expand the analysis of the differences.

 

We appreciate your feedback and sincerely apologize for our oversight. In response to the issues regarding Figure 3, we have supplemented relevant content and will present the results on land area and grain supply in two separate paragraphs to enhance clarity.

Secondly, since this study focuses exclusively on regions experiencing grain cultivation area contraction, we have included the M-K test results for all such provinces. We regret any confusion caused by our initial presentation and have added clarifying explanations in Section 2 (Figure 2, Lines 161-168) of the revised version.

As the results demonstrate, these 12 provinces undergoing crop substitution exhibit distinct characteristics when grouped according to their varying contributions to grain supply changes. This classification suggests potential differences in the driving mechanisms behind cultivated area changes across different types of NGP regions - an important focus of our ongoing research. However, given the substantial existing literature examining the driving forces behind grain cultivation area reduction, we primarily emphasize comparative analysis of results obtained through different methodologies or at varying scales. This is precisely the work we are currently undertaking.

 

 

4. The discussion should be more focused on the goal. Differences between grain production by region and needs by region exist in most countries and are due not only to demographic characteristics and processes. Lower production in a region does not necessarily lead to lower supply. The inclusion of the ecological imperative is useful, but it is not related to the previous analysis and sounds like an end in itself.

 

Our core research question is to “quantify the impact of grain plantation decline on domestic food supply.” Mathematically, crop yield, population, and grain sown-area are the direct factors affecting regional food supply, which explains our selection of these three variables (Lines 86–103). Natural conditions, socioeconomic factors, and policies serve as the underlying drivers influencing grain cultivation area (population migration and crop yield). In other words, these factors indirectly affect grain supply by altering cultivation area, population flows, or yield—a dimension beyond the scope of our core research question. 

As highlighted in Question 4, while existing literature extensively discusses how natural, socioeconomic, and policy factors drive changes in cultivation area (or population, yield), comparative studies on the mechanisms behind different “area-supply variation mode” scenarios remain scarce. Before conducting such research, it is essential to: (1) Precisely identify non-grain conversion areas, and (2) Classify these regions based on cultivation area and food supply trends, which are the key contributions of this study.

We acknowledge that this paper does not explicitly examine the role of ecological factors in cultivation area shrinkage or supply fluctuations. However, “northward expansion and southward contraction”of farmland in China has objectively intensified the conflict between arable land expansion and ecological conservation in the north. We apologize for any confusion caused by unclear phrasing; revisions have been made in the Discussion section (Section 4.1, Lines 420–438).

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract is not clear – aims of the paper; material and methods & implications of the paper are not properly described;

Introductions presents the main research questions. However, it shows some previous studies developed mainly in China it fails to presents: the overall international context for the grain production; the existing literature at the international level; domestic & international policies developed such as to meet the overall food security issues.

Data and methodologies – well presents the methods used in the study.  It is not clear however why only factors like rain-sown area, crop yield, total output of rice, maize, and wheat, and population were used in the model. What about imports and exports of grains? Data statistical descriptive is missing.

Results and discussion – results are clear and respond to the aims of the paper. Discussions fails to underline the main policy implications.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your meticulous comments and professional advices. These are quite valuable for improving this paper, as well as our following researches. In the revised manuscript, we have made modifications based on your suggestions and request, and polished language as well. We hope that our work has been improved and meet with your and the journal’s academic and linguistic criteria. Details are shown as follows:

 

1. Abstract is not clear – aims of the paper; material and methods & implications of the paper are not properly described.

 

Thank you for your feedback. Following the revisions made throughout the manuscript, we have also re-edited the abstract accordingly. We hope these modifications have addressed the aforementioned issues.

 

2. Introductions presents the main research questions. However, it shows some previous studies developed mainly in China it fails to presents: the overall international context for the grain production; the existing literature at the international level; domestic & international policies developed such as to meet the overall food security issues.

 

Thanks very much for your advices. Based on the suggestions from you and other experts, we have revised the introduction section. Additional content on the global and Chinese macro-level contexts of grain production, along with relevant policy measures, has been incorporated in the first and second paragraphs (Lines 49–65 and Lines 69–85, respectively). Since the study focuses on China, we have also supplemented the discussion with China-specific research (Lines 92–103). We hope these modifications will help readers understanding of our study.

 

3. Data and methodologies – well presents the methods used in the study.  It is not clear however why only factors like rain-sown area, crop yield, total output of rice, maize, and wheat, and population were used in the model. What about imports and exports of grains? Data statistical descriptive is missing.

 

Thanks for your comments.

We argue that the time-series data of sown areas across regions are not comparable, thus do not meet the requirements for statistical testing. Prior to the revision, we verified the term “rain-sown area” mentioned in the issue and confirmed that it should be “grain-sown area.” Accordingly, we made the corrections below: Many scholars believe that the food security goals could be greatly helped through domestic circulation or international trade. However, challenges such as domestic administrative barriers and unforeseen international events are always un negligible. Therefore, the Chinese central government mandates that domestic grain production must ensure “absolute self-sufficiency in staple grains and basic self-sufficiency in grains” under all circumstances. Additionally, based on historical grain production patterns, varying requirements have been set for different provinces. Consequently, our study primarily examines the extent to which China’s domestic grain-sown area influences this goal. The term “food supply” may not have precisely conveyed this intent, so we have adjusted it in both the paper’s title and maindody.

From a mathematical perspective, sown area, population, and crop yield are the direct factors affecting per capita grain supply, which is why they are discussed in this paper. Other factors—such as natural conditions, socioeconomic factors, and technological advancements—are drivers of changes in area (population migration, yield improvement) rather than direct influences on grain supply, and thus are not addressed here. However, the contributions of population, area, and crop yield to grain availability changes in non-grain-producing regions suggest potential differences in underlying mechanisms, which is the focus of our ongoing research.

 

4. Results and discussion – results are clear and respond to the aims of the paper. Discussions fails to underline the main policy implications.
   
   

Thanks for your comments and advice. We have revised the Discussion section, particularly Section 4.1, to propose the following key perspectives:

1. Creating flexible space while ensuring regional food self-sufficiency,
2. Emphasizing yield potential and cropping intensity, and
3. Leveraging integrated farming systems to achieve a balanced approach.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has undergone major revisions in light of the feedback, yet a few details remain to be fine - tuned.   Firstly, the clarity of the maps in Figure 1 (Study area) and Figure 4 (Provinces with grain plantation decrease) needs to be enhanced. Also, verify whether these maps are standard.   Secondly, a small number of sentences are quite complex. Simplifying them could enhance readability.

Author Response

Thanks for your carefulness and kindly advices.

In this revision, we deleted Figure1 in accordance with the academic editor’s suggestions, and re-edited Figure 4 (Figure 3 in the latest revision) according to the specifications on the official-designated website (http://bzdt.ch.mnr.gov.cn/index.html), higher dpi was also setted for the image. Additionally, we have further refined the presentation to make it more reader-friendly. We sincerely appreciate your review work again.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Still didn't mention:

• What type of paper is it  - Type of the Paper (Article, Review, Communication, etc.)
• Contribution of the authors

Author Response

Sorry for our negligence.

We have supplemented the above content in the designated sections. Thank you again for your review work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been completely revised. The authors have reflected the notes and comments made to the necessary extent.
The introduction has added explanations about the decline in grain cultivation in China, the policies of the central government and the changes in food supply conditions.
The discussion of methodological choices has been expanded in the Methodology. A figure has been added for the methodology and sequence of the study
The last part includes comparisons with existing studies.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback.

In this revision, we have further refined the language to enhance readability. We sincerely appreciate your efforts on reviewing our manuscript.