The Agro-Climatic Change Characteristics across China during the Latest Decades

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

MS ID: agriculture-1507561

The manuscript explains changes in temperature, precipitation, and incoming solar radiation for the major province of China using meteorological observations for the period 1961-2020. Authors have tried to explain “Potential Agricultural growing Season (PAGS)”; however, it was very difficult to understand what authors really mean by this PAGS period. The MS fails to present the context and facts clearly and thus require a major revision. The MS should minor and major concerns indicated below.

Minor concerns:

1. In the title use of word “Agro-climatic change and variation characteristics” is confusing. Thus, title needs to be reframed to clearly indicate what authors really have presented in the MS. Accordingly, the suggested title could be simply “The agro-climatic characteristics during the latest decades across China”
2. Figure 1: The colour coding to show the ranges of change in precipitation and insolation should be matched to depict the ranges. Same colour should be used to indicate ranges of lower and higher bounds in both panels of precipitation and insolation.
3. Authors have used two distinct term “agro-climatic change” and “Climatic change” (line 99, 154-156). How both are different from each other should be explained at the beginning under methodology section.
4. Line 85-86 suggest providing period of index PAGS, however in the result there is no mention about this period. Which period was evaluated as the period of PAGS need to be presented?
5. Line 89-93: these are the part of result and hence these lines should be shifted to result section.
6. Section 3.1 and 3.2 both have same title “Characteristics of agro-climatic change”. Either change the caption of the title (section 3.1 and 3.2) or present entire explanation under one common title.
7. Line 102/137: “during PAGS” what does this PAGS period mean?
8. In the captions of all Figures, avoid using abbreviations (such as PAGS), instead use the full form.
9. Line 181-183: The statement is not in the context of analysis done by the authors and there is no mention of it in the results of the MS.
10. Line 186: “PAGS periods had lengthened”. Where is this PAGS period shown in the MS?
11. Caption of Figure 8 and 9 seems to be confusing to provide appropriate illustration. Please see and revise accordingly.

Major concerns:

12. Line 83-84: Whether the active agriculture growing season was considered for air temperature of 10° C only. Confirm it. If yes, then provide detailed justification for it.
13. PAGS need a better and elaborated explanation.
14. What is the significance of showing the probability density function through Figures 2-4 needs to be explained for readers?

My specific comments are listed below:

The paper is appropriate for the journal and matches with the theme of the journal. However, authors need to address the minor and more specifically the major concerns indicated above, and thus MS must be revised accordingly.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1:

Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments.

 

1. In the title use of word “Agro-climatic change and variation characteristics” is confusing. Thus, title needs to be reframed to clearly indicate what authors really have presented in the MS. Accordingly, the suggested title could be simply “The agro-climatic characteristics during the latest decades across China”

Response: Thanks for suggestion. According to the suggestion, the title was changed to “The agro-climatic change characteristics during the latest decades across China”.

 

2. Figure 1: The color coding to show the ranges of change in precipitation and insolation should be matched to depict the ranges. Same color should be used to indicate ranges of lower and higher bounds in both panels of precipitation and insolation.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. In Figure 1, the color for precipitation ranging from red to blue was used to represent precipitation ranging from deficit to abundant, which matched the vision of blue color indicating more wetter and precipitation. Relatively, the color for insolation ranging from blue to red represented insolation ranging from deficit to abundant, which also matched the vision of red color indicating much higher insolation.

 

3. Authors have used two distinct term “agro-climatic change” and “Climatic change” (line 99, 154-156). How both are different from each other should be explained at the beginning under methodology section.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. According to the suggestion, the explanation of “agro-climatic change” and “Climatic change” was added in the section Materials and Methods: “Moreover, agro-climatic variation was characterized by the metric of standard deviation in mean air temperature, sum of precipitation and sum of insolation during PAGS. The differences of magnitude change and variation for temperature, precipitation and insolation during PAGS between 1991-2020 and 1961-1990 were thus used to reveal the change characteristics of agro-climatic change. The changes of mean magnitude and variation for above factors during the whole year (from 1 Jan to 31 Dec) were additionally used to reveal the characteristics of climate change. Thus, the difference between PAGS and whole year was to reveal the difference between agro-climatic change and climate change.”

 

4. Line 85-86 suggest providing period of index PAGS, however in the result there is no mention about this period. Which period was evaluated as the period of PAGS needs to be presented?

Response: Potential agricultural growing season (PAGS) was the period of the first date with daily mean air temperature ≥ 10 ^oC and last date with daily mean air temperature ≤ 10 ^oC, which was redefined in section 2.2.

 

5. Line 89-93: these are the part of result and hence these lines should be shifted to result section.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. It was right that the part of “It was clear that FD was earlier and LD was later which led to a longer PAGS in 1991-2020 relative to 1961-1990 (Figure S1).” was the result of the change in PAGS between 1991-2020 and 1961-1990. This cited here intended to express that the length of PAGS was changed as time went on and get the followed conclusion “This indicated that a dynamic PAGS was more suited for assessing growing seasons not the use of a constant growing season.” So we thought that these were appropriately cited in this section.

 

6. Section 3.1 and 3.2 both have same title “Characteristics of agro-climatic change”. Either change the caption of the title (section 3.1 and 3.2) or present entire explanation under one common title.

Response: According to the suggestion, the title of section 3.2 was changed to “Characteristics of agro-climatic variation”.

 

7. Line 102/137: “during PAGS” what does this PAGS period mean?

Response: PAGS meant the period between the first date with daily mean air temperature ≥ 10 ^oC and last date with daily mean air temperature ≤ 10 ^oC, which was recited in the first paragraph of section 2.2.

 

8. In the captions of all Figures, avoid using abbreviations (such as PAGS), instead use the full form.

Response: According to the suggestion, the abbreviation of PAGS in the captions of Figures was changed to full form of “potential agricultural growing season”.

 

9. Line 181-183: The statement is not in the context of analysis done by the authors and there is no mention of it in the results of the MS.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. The context in revised MS was restated related to the analysis in our study and previous publication: “A better understanding of the change and variation of temperature, precipitation and insolation during agriculture growing season was necessary for assessing agriculture climatic resources. It was generally accepted that crop planting dates had changed and growing seasons lengthened significantly in response to climate warming especially for contemporaneous temperature and precipitation.”

 

10. Line 186: “PAGS periods had lengthened”. Where is this PAGS period shown in the MS?

Response: Thanks for suggestion. The statement of “PAGS periods had lengthened” could be concluded from the context of “It was clear that FD was earlier and LD was later which led to a longer PAGS in 1991-2020 relative to 1961-1990.” in section 2.2.

 

11. Caption of Figure 8 and 9 seems to be confusing to provide appropriate illustration. Please see and revise accordingly.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. The caption of Figure 8 and 9 were changed in the revised MS: “Difference between the change of factors (mean air temperature, precipitation and insolation) during potential agricultural growing season in 1991-2020 relative to 1961-1990 and the change of factors (mean air temperature, precipitation and insolation) during the whole year in 1991-2020 relative to 1961-1990”; “Difference between the variation of factors (mean air temperature, precipitation and insolation) during potential agricultural growing season in 1991-2020 relative to 1961-1990 and the variation of factors (mean air temperature, precipitation and insolation) during the whole year in 1991-2020 relative to 1961-1990”.

 

12. Line 83-84: Whether the active agriculture growing season was considered for air temperature of 10° C only. Confirm it. If yes, then provide detailed justification for it. PAGS need a better and elaborated explanation.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. It was generally accepted that air temperature of 10°C was the threshold temperature for active agriculture growing season, as reported in previous publications (Gourdji et al.,2015; Chu et al., 2017). The first date with daily mean air temperature ≥ 10 ^oC and the last date with daily mean air temperature ≤ 10 ^oC was widely calculated by the 5-day moving average method, and the time period between the first date and last date was taken as the potential agricultural growing season (PAGS). The above context in section 2.2 was changed to “The threshold for the start time point of an active agriculture growing season was set at 10 ^oC, according to the general agreement in previous publications [20-21]. The period between first date (FD) with daily mean air temperature ≥ 10 ^oC  and the last date (LD) with daily mean air temperature ≤ 10 ^oC was thus defined as the potential agricultural growing season (PAGS), implying the potential time period for agriculture production. The values of FD and LD were widely calculated by the 5-day moving average method [22-23].”

 

13. What is the significance of showing the probability density function through Figures 2-4 needs to be explained for readers?

Response: Thanks for suggestion. The probability density function could be used to see detail difference in distribution of mean air temperature, sum of precipitation and sum of insolation in periods, and the explaination was added in the section 2.2: “Therefore, agro-climatic change was characterized using the difference in the probability density function (PDF, which was used to illustrate the detail distribution pattern) as well as the mean magnitude of mean air temperature, sum of precipitation and sum of insolation during PAGS between periods. ”

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes a desk-based study that compared variation in climate and trends in agriculture for the periods 1991-2020 to 1961-1990. I am not convinced of its relevance in its current form to this journal. The link with agriculture is very weak; this is much more a paper about climatic variations than agriculture. The impact on agriculture is not just about changes in climate but also about the crops grown and how productivity is affected. There is no mention of this. At the very least much this needs to be addressed.

The rationale for the work is not particularly strong. This needs to be strengthened. At line 58 the text mentions that a few agro-climatic resource studies have been undertaken but references for these are not given nor are they summarised. What gaps does this study fill and what are the drivers for the work?

Fundamentally, this study collates and re-purposes existing data. I am not convinced it tells science much that it does not already know. Indeed, it is not ‘new’ science to extract existing data and offer a relatively simple analysis of trends as given in Section 3.1.

The article is reasonably well written and structured. However, I note that the authors write predominately in the first person (using ‘we’ and ‘our’). This is not good scientific writing as it places emphasis on the researchers and nit the researcher; the latter being the purpose of publication. I suggest the authors depersonalise the text. Figures are adequate but please make sure metrics are provided in the figure captions.

The abstract is unbalanced focusing predominately on the study findings barely justifying the need for the study and not mentioning the methodology at all. Please rewrite the abstract so that the rationale for the work is clear, the methodology is briefly described and the study highlights are summarised.

The information given in Section 2.1 might be better as a map.

Please explain what is meant by ‘agriculture climatic resources’. This is rather ambiguous.

Referencing needs to be improved. There are several statements without adequate referencing. For example, please reference the China Meteorological Data Sharing Service System mentioned at line 77 and World Meteorological Organization statement given at line 87.

The methodological description is very sparse. Please significantly expand. The exact parameters extracted (i.e. the meteorological observations) and worked should be described in this section. At line 79 the text reads ‘The observed daily mean air temperature, precipitation and insolation were recorded from 1961 to 2020’. Are these the only parameters used? The statement is also vague – recorded by whom? Issues of data confidence, how gaps in data and outliers where handled, how was data extracted at source, sensitivity etc.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #2:

Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments.

 

1. This manuscript describes a desk-based study that compared variation in climate and trends in agriculture for the periods 1991-2020 to 1961-1990. I am not convinced of its relevance in its current form to this journal. The link with agriculture is very weak; this is much more a paper about climatic variations than agriculture. The impact on agriculture is not just about changes in climate but also about the crops grown and how productivity is affected. There is no mention of this. At the very least much this needs to be addressed.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. Climate change has a tight impact on agriculture production since agriculture is dominated by thermal, water and insolation factors, which would lead alterations in crops grown and productivity, e.g. the date of crop phenology, the length of crop growing season as well as yield. The results of climate change on crops grown and productivity were widely hotpots in the previous studies, and would be highlighted and our next exploration in the future. From the perspective of the changes of climatic resources in agricultural growing season, their spatial-temporal characteristics in recent years were fundamental for understanding the climate change for agriculture, could help us guide the agriculture production adaptations in response to change agricultural climatic resources. According to the suggestion, the relevant text was added in section 1 in the revised version.

 

2. The rationale for the work is not particularly strong. This needs to be strengthened. At line 58 the text mentions that a few agro-climatic resource studies have been undertaken but references for these are not given nor are they summarized. What gaps does this study fill and what are the drivers for the work?

Response: Thanks for suggestion. In line 51-58, we addressed that there was a tightly linkage between climate change and agriculture, e.g., climate change and variation has altered crop development and its phenology, as reported in previous researches (Polley et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2015; Steiner et al., 2018; Praveen and Sharma, 2019; Xia et al., 2019;). These researches focused on change of crop production impacted by climate change, especially for climate warming. However, there was still lack of studies on seasonal alterations and characteristics of climatic resource, i.e., thermal, water and insolation factors during crop growing seasons, which was fundamental for better understanding the linkage between climate change and agriculture production. Moreover, what was the difference of the climate change and variation between agricultural growing season and natural whole year? These were the main driver of the work. According to the suggestion, the text was changed to “there is still lack of studies on seasonal alterations and characteristics of climatic resource, i.e., thermal, water and insolation factors during crop growing seasons. Moreover, what is the difference of the climate change and variation between agricultural growing season and natural whole year? As the spatial heterogeneity of climatic changes also has regional effects on agricultural production [17-19], a systematic study of spatial-temporal change and variation of climatic variables such as temperature, precipitation and insolation during the season of agriculture production is needed for China, which is fundamental and important for better understanding the linkage between climate change and agriculture production.” 

 

3. Fundamentally, this study collates and re-purposes existing data. I am not convinced it tells science much that it does not already know. Indeed, it is not ‘new’ science to extract existing data and offer a relatively simple analysis of trends as given in Section 3.1.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. It was right that the method of change, variation and trend used in this study was relatively simple and similar to general utilization about climate change. However, this study intended to offer the change and variation of climate resources including thermal, water and insolation factors that tightly affecting agriculture production, at the time slice of dynamic potential agricultural growing season in the latest 60 years from 1961 to 2020. Moreover, the difference of the climate change and variation between agricultural growing season and natural whole year was also detected in this study. From the perspective of agriculture production, we explore the features of climate change and variation.

 

4. The article is reasonably well written and structured. However, I note that the authors write predominately in the first person (using ‘we’ and ‘our’). This is not good scientific writing as it places emphasis on the researchers and nit the researcher; the latter being the purpose of publication. I suggest the authors depersonalise the text. Figures are adequate but please make sure metrics are provided in the figure captions.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. According to the suggestion, the first person (using ‘we’ and ‘our’) in the manuscript was changed in the revised version to match the purpose of publication. Besides, the metrics in figures were provided in the figure captions.

 

5. The abstract is unbalanced focusing predominately on the study findings barely justifying the need for the study and not mentioning the methodology at all. Please rewrite the abstract so that the rationale for the work is clear, the methodology is briefly described and the study highlights are summarized.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. Accordingly, the abstract was changed in the revised version, adding the mention of the methodology and importance of the study, as well as the rechecked results.

 

6. The information given in Section 2.1 might be better as a map.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. According to the suggestion, the domain of this study, including provinces and meteorological observation stations, was added in Figure 1 in revised version.

 

 

7. Please explain what is meant by ‘agriculture climatic resources’. This is rather ambiguous.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. The context of ‘agriculture climatic resources’ meant the resources, i.e., temperature, precipitation and insolation during the period of agriculture production, which was changed to “climatic resources during the period of agriculture production.”

 

8. Referencing needs to be improved. There are several statements without adequate referencing. For example, please reference the China Meteorological Data Sharing Service System mentioned at line 77 and World Meteorological Organization statement given at line 87.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. China Meteorological Data Sharing Service System mentioned was a data system of China Meteorological Administration, which was added in the revised version. Besides, the reference of World Meteorological Organization statement was also added in the revised version.

 

9. The methodological description is very sparse. Please significantly expand. The exact parameters extracted (i.e. the meteorological observations) and worked should be described in this section. At line 79 the text reads ‘The observed daily mean air temperature, precipitation and insolation were recorded from 1961 to 2020’. Are these the only parameters used? The statement is also vague – recorded by whom? Issues of data confidence, how gaps in data and outliers where handled, how was data extracted at source, sensitivity etc.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. The methodological description in previous version was simple and sparse, so the data collection and control measurement, description of the indices for agro-climatic change and variation, and the method for analyzing the agro-climatic change and variation between periods were rewrote in the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled:  Agro-climatic change and variation characteristics during the latest decades across China, investigates seasonal alterations and characteristics of thermal, water and insolation factors during crop growing seasons in the continental part of the country.

The Authors undertook thorough research based on meteorological data derived from over 2000 weather stations over the China territory. They explained well the idea of taking into research the dynamic period of potential agricultural growing seasons.  The methods are described well, however, some additional information submission would be advisable.

1. Has it been taken into account how the measurement procedures and measuring instruments changed over the years 1961-1990 in relation to 1991-2020?
2. Information regarding types of instruments used for the measurements is missing, which I suggest being completed.
3. Was it analyzed how the location or surroundings of the measuring stations changed over the analyzed 60 years?
4. Judging by the distribution of points on the maps in the supplementary materials, the spatial distribution of the weather stations from which the data was collected was uneven across the country. Could this disproportion between the southern, central and north-eastern parts of the area and the western and north-western parts of the area have an impact on the presented results?
5. How has the homogeneity of data from so many weather stations been studied? What method was used?
6. What percentage of the meteorological data has been rejected due to lack of homogeneity?
7. In Figures FS 2-4 the significance level should be indicated in a more visible way since it is hard to locate the points among the other colorful ones.
8. In what unit of flux density the insolation is expressed?

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #3:

Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments.

 

1. Has it been taken into account how the measurement procedures and measuring instruments changed over the years 1961-1990 in relation to 1991-2020? Information regarding types of instruments used for the measurements is missing, which I suggest being completed.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. The change of temperature, precipitation and insolation over the years 1961-1990 in relation to 1991-2020 was measured by the difference in the mean change (characterized by mean magnitude and probability density function) and variation (characterized by standard deviation). For better understanding the measurement, the context in section 2.2 was changed to “Therefore, agro-climatic change was characterized using the difference in the probability density function (PDF, which was used to illustrate the detail distribution pattern) as well as the mean magnitude of mean air temperature, sum of precipitation and sum of insolation during PAGS between periods. Moreover, agro-climatic variation was characterized by the metric of standard deviation in mean air temperature, sum of precipitation and sum of insolation during PAGS. The differences of magnitude change and variation for temperature, precipitation and insolation during PAGS between 1991-2020 and 1961-1990 were thus used to reveal the change characteristics of agro-climatic change. The changes of mean magnitude and variation for above factors during the whole year (from 1 Jan to 31 Dec) were additionally used to reveal the characteristics of climate change. Thus, the difference in the changes of mean magnitude and variation between PAGS and whole year was to reveal the difference between agro-climatic change and climate change.”

 

2. Was it analyzed how the location or surroundings of the measuring stations changed over the analyzed 60 years?

Response: Thanks for suggestion. The location or surroundings of the measuring stations chosen in our study was not changed over the analyzed 60 years, in order to keep internal long-term consistency and homogeneity in the data.

 

3. Judging by the distribution of points on the maps in the supplementary materials, the spatial distribution of the weather stations from which the data was collected was uneven across the country. Could this disproportion between the southern, central and north-eastern parts of the area and the western and north-western parts of the area have an impact on the presented results?

Response: Thanks for suggestion. Limited by the observation environment and measurement instrument, weather stations were uneven across the country, and disproportioned between the southern, central and north-eastern parts of the area, and the western and north-western parts of the area, which could not been solved currently. However, the spatial-temporal changes of temperature, precipitation and insolation could be revealed from these stations though the number of stations in western and north-western parts, because these stations were located in the similar climatic regions and to some extent reveal the presented results in this study.

 

4. How has the homogeneity of data from so many weather stations been studied? What method was used?

Response: Thanks for suggestion. The homogeneity of data in obtained weather stations was controlled by China Meteorological Data Sharing Service System, measured by the extreme, mutation and outlier value in comparison with climatic baseline range for these stations.

 

5. What percentage of the meteorological data has been rejected due to lack of homogeneity?

Response: Thanks for suggestion. Currently, there were 2499 stations in total across China. However, some of them were deployed after 1961 or ever later much, as well as the limitation of missing value and inhomogeneity in the data, so 21.4% stations were rejected and remained 2057 stations used in this study were recorded in completed observation from 1961 to 2020.

 

6. In Figures FS 2-4 the significance level should be indicated in a more visible way since it is hard to locate the points among the other colorful ones.

Response: Thanks for suggestion. The Figures S 2-4 was remapped in revised version, as the dot with circle represents the trend of temperature, precipitation and insolation was at the 0.05 significant level.

 

7. In what unit of flux density the insolation is expressed?

Response: Thanks for suggestion. The unit of insolation observation was expressed by sunshine hours, as expressed by “insolation (unit was h)” in the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

MS can now be published in its present form.

Author Response

Thanks for your agreement of publishing the form in our MS.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes a desk-based study that compared variation in climate and trends in agriculture for the periods 1991-2020 to 1961-1990. This is the second time I have reviewed this manuscript and, unfortunately, I do not think the authors have done nearly enough to satisfy my concerns.  I am not convinced of its relevance in its current form to this journal. Whilst I very much agree that climate change affects agriculture and, indeed that agriculture can help mitigate the effects of climate change the authors have not presented their work in a way that focuses on the agricultural link. This manuscript is largely about climatic variations than agriculture. The impact on agriculture is not just about changes in climate but also about the crops grown and how productivity is affected. There is no mention of this.  Plus, the rationale for the work is still not particularly strong. The authors have made very minor, superficial changes and not addressed the fundamental problems.

Author Response

Thanks for suggestion. It is right that the impact of climate change on agriculture includes climate resources, crops grown and productivity. Besides, agriculture can also help mitigate the effects of climate change. Accordingly, in order to strengthen rationale for the work, in the introduction section, we added the information related to interrelations between climate change and crop grown and productivity: “Climate change has been reflected in alterations in crop grown and productivity. For example, the length of crop growing season has increased at least 1.0 d per decade since 1960 across China [12]. As a result of climate warming, there is a general trend for earlier spring and summer phenophases and later autumn phenophases [13]; The phenological dates for maize and wheat, e.g. flower and maturity date, have been found in a general advance [14]. It is recently reported that climate change slows the growth rate in agricultural productivity between 1961 and 2020, and the annual fluctuation below the growth trend can be attributed to the unfavorable weather like drought, heatwaves or floods [15-16]. Agriculture is vulnerable and very sensitive and closely connected with climate change [17-19], and climate change can also be affected by the change in agriculture. Whilst the adverse impacts of climate change on crop yield have been estimated, these can be substantially moderated by adaptations such as adjustment in planting and harvesting dates, migration and irrigation expansion for crops [16、20]. Continued and alternative adaptations will be needed not only in the current time period but also in the future, given that climate change has negative impacts on crop production if no adaptation taken [21]. It is imperative to assess the characteristics of agriculture growing season and its climatic resources, as they are fundamental and important determinant for guiding agriculture adaptations in response to climate change.”

Then, the intention and rationale of this study was to (1) explore the effect of climate change on agriculture grown, i.e., the change of first date with daily mean air temperature ≥ 10 °C, the last date with daily mean air temperature ≤ 10 °C and potential agricultural growing season in 1991-2020 relative to 1961-1990; and (2) detect the features of climate change and variation of mean air temperature, precipitation and insolation during the dynamic agricultural growing season. In the revised version, the section 3.1 ‘The effects of climate change on agriculture grown’ was added.

Moreover, the works about climate change affecting productivity and agriculture can help mitigate the effects of climate change were also implemented as follows: “A simple comparison of the linkage between agro-climatic change and agriculture was furtherly analyzed at the national scale, for the reason of limitation in dataset for specific crop in specific regions in China. There was an obvious increasing trend and variation in mean air temperature, a slight increasing trend and variation in precipitation, and a decreasing trend and variation in insolation during PAGS in 1961-2020 (Figure S10). Meanwhile, a significant increase in the yield of total major crops was detected in China these years (Figure S9), proving that to some extent climate change was beneficial to agriculture production. However, the increasing trend (641.3 kg·ha^-1 per decade) of the yield of total major crops in 1991-2020 was much less than that trend (926.7 kg·ha^-1 per decade) in 1961-1990, suggesting that climate change slowed agricultural growth [16]. Besides, the variation of yield anomaly was getting smaller in recent years but the variations of mean air temperature and precipitation during PAGS were getting larger, implying that agriculture also had mitigated the effects of climate change by the usage of adaptations, i.e., changing sowing date, longer-duration and stress resistance variety [39-40]. Whilst agriculture production was comprehensively affected by management, cultivation technique, soil and climatic conditions, above-mentioned adaptations were inevitably induced by the change of climatic resources.”  For the reason that there are multiple crops which have the specific growing characteristics in different regions across China, the detailed comparisons between climate change and crops productivity, by usage of methods like statistical models and crop growth simulation models, are needed to be deeply analyzed based on the detailed data acquisition, this will be our next purpose owe to your great suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx