The Future Probability of Winter Wheat and Maize Yield Failure in Hungary Based on Long-Term Temporal Patterns
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study examined the yield losses of the two major field crops grown 16 in Hungary that occurred during the last 100 years.
It is written in very good English and generally very well organized, including useful findings.
Below you can find some minor suggestions.
Abstract: Please organize as follows: Context, Methods, Conclusions, and Implications.
L 24-25 please become more precise the yield increase due to genetic gain or the improvement of cropping management help in increasing food production despite increased fluctuation?
L 107. Inbreeding?? Do you think that farmers plant corn inbreed lines? At this stage, you should discuss the yield plateau. That is the reduction of genetic gain thanks to breeding. GMO crops promoted yield advantage and stability. You can discuss.
Author Response
We appreciate the Reviewer’s effort and are grateful for the critical notes and suggestions. The notes helped us to see the gaps and to make the relevant changes to improve our manuscript. Our detailed responses are attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate the Reviewer’s effort and are grateful for the critical notes and suggestions. The notes helped us to see the gaps and to make the relevant changes to improve our manuscript. Our detailed responses are attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study investigated the yield losses of the two major field crops grown in Hungary that occurred during the last 100 years. The goals of our study were to determine how often yield losses at 15% and 30% degrees occur, what their probability is, and whether the probability changed in recent decades. The topic is novelty, and the data is are pretty. I think the MS can be accepted for publication with Sustainability after major revision.
1. Title, I think the research area should be added to the title.
2. Line 26-27, The keywords should be single word, rather than phrases.
3. Introduction, there are many paragraphs in this section, and many paragraphs write about what others have done and do not make it clear what the overview does for the district.
4. There are a lot of figures in the article and the author should have merged some of them to reduce the total number of figures.
5. If conditions permit, I think adding meteorological data might better explain yield variations.
6. Please check the units in the figures and tables throughout the text, including upper and lower labels, brackets, etc.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo
Author Response
We appreciate the Reviewer’s effort and are grateful for the critical notes and suggestions. The notes helped us to see the gaps and to make the relevant changes to improve our manuscript. Our detailed responses are attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have had the opportunity to review your manuscript titled "Long-term temporal patterns in winter wheat and maize yield failure," which provides insightful analysis into the impacts of climate change on agricultural yield failures over the past century. Your work significantly contributes to our understanding of this critical issue, employing robust methodology and offering valuable implications for agricultural practices and policies. Attached some comments and suggestions aimed at further enhancing the clarity, depth, and impact of your manuscript.
Your manuscript is a commendable addition to the field, and I believe these suggestions can enhance its contribution even further. I look forward to seeing the continued impact of your work on our understanding and approach to mitigating climate change's effects on agriculture.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor revisions are required.
Author Response
We appreciate the Reviewer’s effort and are grateful for the critical notes and suggestions. The notes helped us to see the gaps and to make the relevant changes to improve our manuscript. Our detailed responses are attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been sufficiently improved.
Author Response
Thank you for your opinion that we could improve our manuscript sufficiently based on the comments of the reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
The article investigates the vulnerability of agriculture in Hungary to climate change by examining historical yield data for major field crops, specifically winter wheat and maize, over the last century. The paper effectively uses the Wald-Wolfowitz Runs Test to analyze yield failures and assesses how often losses occur at 15% and 30%. The study's strengths lie in its comprehensive analysis of long-term data and its methodological rigor in quantifying yield variability under changing climatic conditions. The manuscript provides a valuable insight into the impacts of climate change on agricultural yields, which is a critical issue. However, the study could enhance its relevance by integrating more recent advances in climate impact modeling to further solidify its findings. The methodological approach is sound, the paper benefited greatly from the new approach the authors used. Specific comments. Figure 3 and related discussion (Lines 234-240): It would be helpful to clarify whether the yield losses include economic analysis or only physical yield changes, as this could influence the interpretation of the results. Table 1 (Line 376): The table presents yield loss probabilities effectively, but it could be improved by adding confidence intervals to provide a clearer picture of the statistical significance of the findingsAuthor Response
We appreciate the Reviewer’s opinion and suggestions. The notes helped us to see the small gaps and to make the relevant changes to improve our manuscript.
Please find our detailed responses attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
