Benefits of Crop Rotation on Climate Resilience and Its Prospects in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
N/A
Author Response
Thank you very much
Reviewer 2 Report
The article improved a lot since the previous version. However, it still has few citations for many statements, and in some cases, citations are used for statements that exceed the original work. I mark some of them, but all the work should be adjusted in this regard.
In turn, in several parts of the text there is an excess of adjectivation, which is not appropriate for a scientific paper. I highlighted some of them, but the whole text should be revised.
I corrected some, but it uses numbers with significant digits inappropriately throughout the text.
The section headings are too long, I suggest shortening them.
There is one issue that is not discussed and that is that when a crop sequence is implemented, the yields of the most important crops increase, but to make the rotation, less area of the main crop has to be cultivated each year. This compromise is not mentioned or discussed.
In the subsidies section, some lines could be added to discuss regulations that favor crop rotation, which do not have to be related to a monetary subsidy, as it works in many countries.
Specific comments
Abstract:
Line 13. “..severely disturbed the balance of nature..”. I would remove this generic line.
Line 13: In turn, before losing crop area, yields become more variable.
Line 14-15: .. “driven by intensive planting and economic benefits” … I would put the idea back together. Continuous cropping became more popular because of the economic benefits and it results in production systems with higher land use intensity.
Line 17-19: I think there is a confusion, having crop sequences does not mean not having a continuous cropping systems, which changes is what crops are cultivated and in what order in a chronological sequence.
Line 24: I will remove… “in terms of water, soil, and biology”
Line 25: “…where it was traced from” . ????
- Introduction
Line 34-37: There are no citations for these statements. There are many citation options for each of the above items.
Line 38: … “destroying”… I suggest changing to "affecting" or a less strong word.
Line 40: A lot of statements for a citation that is a summary of a congress.
Line 41-45: Without any citation, for each statement mentioned.
Line 47: .. “scholars” ???
Line 49: ….. “and biological condition in planting systems”. Many experts are not cited. Only two papers are cited in the rest of the paragraph.
Line 49-53: How diversified systems are associated with maize yields should be better explained. What mechanisms cause this result, which in fact is what is relevant to this review.
Figure 1: Why don't they express area in hectares?. I would not put this figure, the information can be written without major problems in the text. In turn, more than the area of tests, I would give more information on the number of works, publications, type of sequences evaluated, or something that allows quantifying the importance.
Line 85: “19957.7” .. change to “19,958”
Line 87: “the deadly”… remove this adjective
Line 94-97: These sentences are not clear, and should be adjusted. It is not clear how a sequence of crops that accumulates more water will decrease exposure to flooding. I think there are two issues mixed up.
Line 99-100: I do not understand how cool temperatures can be a problem for evaporation, when a priori climate change increases the temperature.
Line 104: “… weather can be increased”. Cites???
Line 105: .. “absorb water”, I prefer “retain water”.
Line 108-109: Use entire numbers. I don't understand what is 0-280mm, the soil depth?
Line 117: “44.4% compared to before planting”… it is not clear to me against what it compares to
Line 128: delete “the” United States
Line 137: Change “Legume” to “legume”
Line 140-144: Without references. While this is correct, two scales are handled in a confused manner. There are effects that are possible to change on site and there are others that to be effective must operate at least at the watershed level.
Line 159-165: It has no references for the statements and is written in a very confusing way.
Line 165-175: Without considering the nitrogen that can be fixed biologically, which mechanism explains the increase in macronutrient levels in the discussed systems?
Line 210-215: Without references. It could be added in this section, some explanation for some of the enzymes mentioned, its association with better soil quality, at least the functional mechanism that explains that having more of that enzyme is beneficial.
Line 219-223: I believe that this example is not valid. Although the relationship between climate change and rust is documented, these are diseases that are not generated on site, and therefore not manageable with crop sequences.
Line 264-267: This argument should be stated at the beginning of the review, it is one of the strongest arguments to support crop rotations.
Line 277: … “for chemical weed control and weed control” change to “for chemical weed control”
Line 278: Reference to support relation between herbicide and soil health
Line 313: change “ton” to “Mg”
Line 458-459: I do not understand how less evaporation can be explained if precipitation and temperature increase. Nor how sunlight decreases if there is less cloud cover.
Line 469: .. “Chinese milk clouds”…????
Author Response
Thank you very much
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors addressed all the recommendations and in my opinion, the article is ready to be published in the journal.
Author Response
Thank you very much.
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
Dear Authors
Find attached my comments on your paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Selected key-words are not properly listed. Remove all words that exists in the tittle
Paragraph 65-81: a lot of references are missing in this paragraph. Actually none of them.
Line 96: In water? The way how is written it seems that crop rotation is in an ocean, sea, lake…
Again no references cited
Line 112: in scientific writing crop is maize, not corn, followed by the full scientific name…
Line 114: one decimal point is quite enough
Paragraph 157: the authors may add this reference: https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2134/agronj14.0465
Paragraph 216: add this reference: https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2135/cropsci2014.03.0199
Paragraph 264: I would suggest to add the following reference here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261219421000284
Paragraph 308-322: add this reference: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20203272598
Line 338: as the world has the same habit
Line 339: maybe systems, not crop rotation methods?
line 391: it will be much easier to follow in the authors provide a picture with Chinas provinces
in the introduction: list the major crop in China, and talk about percentage of crop rotation versus continuous cropping, 10 years if possible, one paragraph
line 409: here you referred on maize.
Line 427: how written it seems that I have to pay attention
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is of interest and has an accurate review coverage of the topic. However, it has aspects that should be improved (see my comment below) in order to be published.
Although the review is comprehensive, the first section does not provide clear concepts of the effects of sequences and their variations among different agroecological conditions. The second part (the one referring to China), which would be the most relevant, lacks a better definition of the agroecological zones and the possibilities of improvement for each zone. Also, the final chapters should be more specific and aligned with the section defining agroecological zones in China.
Another aspect to be improved is the writing, which in many instances has a tone of comments and opinions and not a scientific review, as intended in this publication.
The language should be revised, but I do not have the capacity to do it.
Specific comments.
1- Introduction
This section is unclear and does not have an adequate structure. The objective of this section is to introduce the current situation in China, and the objectives of the work, emphasizing the issues to be discussed and the rationale, but not to advance results that will be discussed in other sections.
Line 35: ..” varieties”. Wouldn't it be better to refer to “crop species”?
Line 39-40: In my opinion, we do not plant the same crop (monoculture) expecting maximum yields; there are other factors, both environmental and commercial, that cause monocultures to be cultivated.
Line 40-41: Before soil problems, there are the sanitary problems of crops planted as monocultures, which affect yields directly.
Line 45-51: I agree with statements in general, but they are too vague, sequences are presented as having a direct effect on yield stability and resilience to climatic variability without mentioning possible factors such as changes in soil quality, nutrient supply, reduction of diseases and pests, etc.
Line 67-81: Although the paragraph is correct, it makes a sort of summary of the effect of the crop sequences, prior to discussing the data (and without any bibliographic citation). In my opinion that paragraph should not go in this section, at least in the presented format.
- Crop Rotation Can Reduce the Frangibility of the Planting System
Line 83-86: I do not agree with the statement. These events cause direct damage to crops and direct damage to the soil system, which subsequently causes damage to crops, but the first impact is direct to the crop that is planted or growing.
Line 89-90: .. “resulting in farmers not getting higher benefits”… It is important to distinguish the fact of losing from winning with respect to having losses, the way it is written, it seems that they won less than possible, but with positive margins.
Line 96: “The Role of Crop Rotation in Water” I suggest changing to something like: “The Role of Crop Rotation in Water Dynamic”
Line 105-108: There is no citation for this affirmation and the way that it is written is questionable.
Line 112-125: The information may be adequate, but the concepts are mixed. Should separate the effect of crop sequences on water storage capacity, due to changes in soil characteristics, and independently changes in water use efficiency, but associated to an ecophysiological process. Finally, what is the reason for the lower water consumption and what does it imply in terms of productivity?
Line 134: “… 25 mm h”, soil type must be named (or described), as is a very high value of infiltration rate.
Line 127-146: In my opinion that what could be discussed in this section is which crop sequences resemble in water consumption and runoff the natural vegetation that was replaced, which puts into perspective the effect of the modifications in the crop sequences.
Line 147-156: You should define "soil health". There are no citations to support what is written, even if agreeing, in the current form it is an expression of desire.
Line 159-163: I do not completely agree, higher cropping intensity may improve carbon input to the system but increase nutrient extraction.
Line 163: “Gramineous” … why capital letters?
Line 192-322: In my opinion, this entire section should be rewritten, arranging the expected effects in the different aspects, with an order of importance and adjusting the bibliographic citations. In the current state of the sites and/or climate that originated many results are not mentioned and the effects may vary depending on the agroecological condition.
Line 337-361: These considerations should have been made clear in the previous sections, in this section I should just go to the specific cases of China.
Line 362-369: “On the one hand…” two times in the same paragraph. I would use this paragraph or section to explain to the reader the major productive zones in China (if possible with a map) and the challenges they face, and how rotations can help.
Line 371-471: Reorder this section once the zones have been defined and geographically located. Reduce the citation of specific trials, and use these cases as examples of the processes that explain the improvements.
Line 473-505: I quite agree with the section, I would just make it clearer what the current subsidy pathways are, how they impact the definition of sequences, and then at the end an improvement proposal.
