Climate Change Affects the Utilization of Light and Heat Resources in Paddy Field on the Songnen Plain, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper explored the influence of climate change on the light and heat resources utilization potential in paddy. It’s an interesting topic, and the authors have done a good job. There are still some minor suggestions:
1. The “Introduction” cites many references, but it does not provide a sufficiently exhaustive and synthetic overview and critical discussion of the state of the art of the related literature.
2. In section 2, these research methods and content of this paper can be richer and more profound, and it is suggested to be improved.
3. The authors should have helped the reader to understand the novelty issues of the developed scheme. These features should have been analysed in “Results”
4. Will Chinese “carbon-neutral policies” influence your results? The following references can be cited in the discussion about carbon emission and air pollution, or forecasting and decision method！
[1]. A novel method for carbon emission forecasting based on Gompertz's law and fractional grey model: Evidence from American industrial sector. Renewable Energy, 181,803-819.
[2] COVID-19 lockdowns and air quality: Evidence from grey spatiotemporal forecasts. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 101228. online, doi:10.1016/j.seps.2022.101228.
[3] Risk assessment of coronary heart disease based on cloud-random forest. Artificial Intelligence Review, 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10170-z.
[4] Multi-attribute group decision making method with dual comprehensive clouds under information environment of dual uncertain Z-numbers. Information Sciences, 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.04.031.
[5] Optimal contract design in sustainable supply chain: Interactive impacts of fairness concern and overconfidence, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2021, 72(7), 1505-1524.
5. The whole paper would benefit from an independent proof read by, preferably, a native or more experienced English speaker. The first sentence of the abstract, for example, covers over four lines.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Included here is my review of the manuscript submitted to the agriculture-MDPI.
Manuscript #: agriculture-1884653
Title: Climate Change Affect the Utilization of Light and Heat Resources in Paddy Field on the Songnen Plain, China
In this work, the authors firstly evaluated process-based crop model (CERES-Rice) on a paddy field of Songnen Plain located in Centeral and Western part of Northeast China. They tried to calibrate model based on anthesis and maturity dates of plants and plant yield observation data, results of their study showed good agreement between simulated and observed dates and yield. Then, they used future climate date (CMIP-GCMs) to predict rice growth period, 21 yield, and light and heat resources utilization efficiency under future climate change conditions. At last, they quantified the effect of different sowing dates on yield and light and heat resources utilization efficiency under different future scenario and for three future time period 2040s, 2060s, and 2080s. The topic of this study is significant, and the manuscript is well organized. The analysis and discussion are solid and convinced. However, I still have some concerns that need to be addressed carefully before publication. Thus, I recommend that the manuscript can be returned to the authors for careful minor revisions which are very important to be addressed before this study is available to the readers.
Comments:
1. In the abstract and the manuscript, the authors mentioned heat and light resources utilization efficiency indices, however in abstract and in manuscript they are represented differently and their full name may confuse the readers such as utilization efficiency of heat (HUE) could be Heat Utilization Efficiency (HUE). Additionally, a specific definition/explanation of these term was not provided.
2. Section 2.5.2, need to rewrite and try to make clear explanation of each index separately.
3. In section 2.6, the authors saying quantifying the effects of mean temperature, while in data section they didn’t mention mean temperature were collected or used in this study.
4. There are so many grammar and English language mistakes in paper, which are very essential to remove before it gets published to any journal. I recommend to ask someone good at English editing to review your manuscript.
Best wishes for your hard work.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work concerns the impact of predicted climate changes on agriculture. In this particular case, the conditions for the growth, development and yielding of rice in north eastern China in the years 2030-2090, compared to the years 2000-2019, were studied. Various climate change scenarios were used. The research was based on modelling with the use of data generators. Different results have been obtained (yield will increase or decrease). In this connection, the most interesting chapter is chapter 4.4. Uncertainty and Limitations of this study. It explains why the results of this type of research are uncertain. This does not mean, of course, that such simulations should not be carried out.
Generally, there are no major objections to the work - it is consistent and logical. The results are interestingly presented. However, the validation of the CERES-Rice Model does not appear to be sufficient to conclude: "the validated results indicated that the CERES-Rice model could effectively simulate rice growth and development on the Songnen Plain, China" (line 235-236). The regressions shown in Figure 3 (especially 3b) are based on too few observations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author answered some of my questions but did not answer some of my questions. He hasn't specifically reviewed the papers I suggested.
The author answered the questions asked haphazardly. I urge you to reconsider.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you for your suggestions and comments. We apologise for our previous oversight of your suggestion. We have carefully reviewed your proposed paper and have made some changes to the article in response to your suggestions. (line 47-48, Page 1; line 12-17, Page 18)
Please see the attached document for details.
Best wishes，
Sincerely，
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
