Assessment of Changes in Agroclimatic Resources of the Republic of Bashkortostan (Russia) under the Context of Global Warming

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Assessment of Changes in Agroclimatic Resources in the Republic of Bashkortostan (Russia) in the Context of Global Warming

 

General Comments

 

This study aims to analyze contemporary changes in agroclimatic resources in the Republic of Bashkortostan from 1961 to 2020. However, the manuscript exhibits several flaws that need attention. Firstly, it lacks clarity regarding the substantial contribution of this work and the new insights it provides. The study appears to be a scientific report, and the topics discussed may not be of interest to international readers, considering the top thirty most cited papers. Additionally, the claimed novelty of the research is questionable. The literature review is inadequately addressed, and the authors have not clearly articulated the significance of their work or identified its substantial contribution. Overall, the study requires significant improvement to meet the journal's standards.

 

Detailed Comments:

 

Introduction

The Introduction section should undergo a complete rewrite and restructuring. The literature review needs substantial improvement, and the authors should clearly explain the relevance of their work in relation to the current state-of-the-art. Additionally, they should identify the substantial contribution and novelties introduced in their study. A brief paragraph defining the study and detailing the actions taken should be added at the section's end. Furthermore, the authors should connect the state-of-the-art analysis to their study goals, highlighting knowledge gaps in the literature.

 

Problem Statement

Define the problem of interest in a new short section after the Introduction (problem statement or materials and methods).

 

Results

The discussion section requires significant enhancement. The authors should provide a more in-depth critical appraisal and use qualitative and/or quantitative reasoning to explain and discuss their results.

Discussion

The findings of this study should be compared to the results presented in the methodology, and additionally, comparing the obtained results with those from other studies in the literature would enhance the significance and interest of this research.

Conclusions

The Conclusions section is too brief and needs a complete rewrite. The authors fail to clearly summarize the actions taken and results. In addition to summarizing actions and results, they should explain the significance of their findings using quantitative reasoning, especially when compared to benchmarks from other studies in the literature. A clear and concise paragraph about research limitations and future work should be included.

 

References

Carefully check citations throughout the manuscript and the references section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language must be significantly improved throughout the text. The manuscript contains flaws such as overly long phrases, unnecessary word repetition, verbal incongruity, and occasional mistakes. Overall, the paper would benefit from editing by a native English speaker or a language editing service.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

 

Dear reviewer 1.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our article. Below are the answers to your comments.

Point 1.  

Introduction

The Introduction section should undergo a complete rewrite and restructuring. The literature review needs substantial improvement, and the authors should clearly explain the relevance of their work in relation to the current state-of-the-art. Additionally, they should identify the substantial contribution and novelties introduced in their study. A brief paragraph defining the study and detailing the actions taken should be added at the section's end. Furthermore, the authors should connect the state-of-the-art analysis to their study goals, highlighting knowledge gaps in the literature.

Response 1

Thank you very much for the comment. The introduction has been completely revised taking into account the current level of science, and a literature review has been added (lines 43-71). In the introduction, we tried to reflect the novelty of our research in more detail (we added a paragraph at the end of this section). We described the goals and briefly the methods for a better understanding by readers (lines 81-87).

Point 2.  

Problem Statement

Define the problem of interest in a new short section after the Introduction (problem statement or materials and methods).

Response 2

 Thanks for the comment. We have added a problem statement introduction. Lines – 81-87.

Point 3.  

The discussion section requires significant enhancement. The authors should provide a more in-depth critical appraisal and use qualitative and/or quantitative reasoning to explain and discuss their results.

Response 3

Thanks for the comment. We have reviewed the analyzed indicators and excluded those that do not correlate with yield. In addition, we understand that other factors, such as mineral fertilization, also affect yields. Therefore, we tried to change the wording. We also noted the results of other studies consistent with our conclusions.

Point 4.  

Discussion

The findings of this study should be compared to the results presented in the methodology, and additionally, comparing the obtained results with those from other studies in the literature would enhance the significance and interest of this research.

Response 4

Thanks for the important comment. Since we expanded the research part by using the ERA 5 database, we were able to assess current and future agro-climatic conditions and their impact on yields. An analysis of the literature has shown that our results are consistent with some other studies (lines 347-361, 385-402).

Point 5.  

Conclusions

The Conclusions section is too brief and needs a complete rewrite. The authors fail to clearly summarize the actions taken and results. In addition to summarizing actions and results, they should explain the significance of their findings using quantitative reasoning, especially when compared to benchmarks from other studies in the literature. A clear and concise paragraph about research limitations and future work should be included.

Response 5

Thank you for the important remark. In conclusion, we have added the results of additional studies on climate scenarios and conclusions obtained both as a result of our own research and through the analysis of scientific publications.

Point 6.  

References

Carefully check citations throughout the manuscript and the references section.

Response 6

Thanks for the comment. We have rechecked the references and design of the literary sources. In general, we try to use the "Mendeley" for automatic registration of references and literature sources.

 

All changes made based on your comments and those of other reviewers are highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article describes the changes in agroclimatic resources in Bashkortostan over the last seven decades. The work included calculating several indices based on 70 years of meteorological record at 30 stations and then estimating correlations between those indices and 20 years of yield data in the region. The results indicate that warmer temperatures cause drier conditions, leading to lower yield. Although I see that the study includes a lot of data processing and extensive literature review, the draft in its current form looks more like a report than a scientific article, and findings may be too trivial, lacking novelty. Unfortunately, I can only recommend rejection in its current form. Based on the points outlined below, I suggest some ways to improve it.

One way to improve the article would be extending it spatially or focusing in the spatially varying climate-change-induced effects of agroclimatic resources on the crop yield. One other way could be including various methods and data for studying the topic. There are a lot of spatially resolved dataset of long-term climate variables and yield are available (see ERA, JRA reanalysis for climate, IIzumi et al 2020 for crop yield). If the interest for the crop yield is only 20 years, then why not using satellite products as well? Validating and combining methods would provide more insight into your findings. Also, you expand the analysis to the economic losses, e.g., estimating past and future potential monetary losses due to changed climatic conditions in the region. Furthermore, although authors find significant correlations, as we all know correlations does not always mean causations, other factors such as nutrients/fertilization/irrigation should be discussed as well. The crop yields data stayed mystery for me, as its description was only included in three lines (lines 146-149), more explanation is needed to understand it.

Some other comments:

1) Abstract in its current form only describes results but should include the research gap that is studied and implication

2) The introduction should be reorganized by adding existing research on agroclimatic resources in general and in the Republic of Bashkortostan, in particular. The research gaps are not clear. Literature around is too general. The background should answer why the study was carried out and point out the existing research gap.

3) The article is too long for its content, should be shortened

4) Too many figures and tables that look very similar. Consider leaving only the most important ones, putting others as a supplementary file or appendix.

5) Try to expand the analysis beyond estimating correlation coefficients, consider using path analysis, for example.

6) Please justify utilized indices. Why do you choose them?

7) Many figures show very low R2 values, but no explanation is given. Please either discuss them or consider removing the figures that have not significant results.

Minor:

L64:  RB abbreviation was not properly introduced

- Abstract L28-30: add what the implication of these results are

- Introduction. Currently, the location (RB) is introduced in the beginning but the described in terms of its agricultural importance at the end of the intro, it does not read well. Please reorganize the structure of the introduction.

- please keep the use of two terms - agroclimatic and agrometeorological resources carefully, do not mix them, if they refer to the different things.

- References L479: add full description of ref. 1

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Abstract L14-15 “The presented 14 article is devoted to the study” -> we study

Abstract L24: “ It is established that” – not needed, remove

Abstract L28 “it was revealed” -. We revealed

L46: Simple say that climate change affects crop growing conditions

Although you describe colors for the figures in the tables, please show them in the figures as well. Consider removing those tables, adding the content to the figures

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

 

Dear reviewer 2!

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our article. Below are the answers to your comments.

Point 1

One way to improve the article would be extending it spatially or focusing in the spatially varying climate-change-induced effects of agroclimatic resources on the crop yield. One other way could be including various methods and data for studying the topic. There are a lot of spatially resolved dataset of long-term climate variables and yield are available (see ERA, JRA reanalysis for climate, IIzumi et al 2020 for crop yield). If the interest for the crop yield is only 20 years, then why not using satellite products as well? Validating and combining methods would provide more insight into your findings. Also, you expand the analysis to the economic losses, e.g., estimating past and future potential monetary losses due to changed climatic conditions in the region. Furthermore, although authors find significant correlations, as we all know correlations does not always mean causations, other factors such as nutrients/fertilization/irrigation should be discussed as well. The crop yields data stayed mystery for me, as its description was only included in three lines (lines 146-149), more explanation is needed to understand it.

Response 1

Thank you for this important and very valuable remark. We used the database "Agroclimatic indicators from 1951 to 2099 derived from climate projections". HadGEM2-ES Model (UK Met Office, UK) and MIROC-ESM-CHEM Model (JAMSTEC, Japan) were used, as they showed the best connections with data from meteorological stations of the Republic of Bashkortostan. The methods section describes in more detail how we used them (lines 150-165). Based on these models, we made forecasts for RCP2.6, 4.5, 6.0, 8.5 scenarios. The results are presented in lines 298-325. Unfortunately, we have not found up-to-date and forecast yield data. The databases recommended by you do not contain information on the studied area. But we have added a figure 6 (lines 267-368). compiled according to the data of the Federal Statistics Service for the Republic of Bashkortostan, which shows the dynamics of yields of different crops.

Point 2

Abstract in its current form only describes results but should include the research gap that is studied and implication

 

Response 2

 

Thanks for the critical comment. The results of the analysis of climate scenarios have been added to the annotation. Conclusions are drawn about future threats to yields. Lines 29-35.

Point 3

The introduction should be reorganized by adding existing research on agroclimatic resources in general and in the Republic of Bashkortostan, in particular. The research gaps are not clear. Literature around is too general. The background should answer why the study was carried out and point out the existing research gap.

Response 3

Thank you very much for the comment. Literary sources have been added showing the level of the problem in other countries of the world. New publications are presented to reflect the current level of world science of the problem under study. We tried to look at the problem more carefully. The introduction has been completely rewritten (Lines 43-71).

Point 4

The article is too long for its content, should be shortened. Too many figures and tables that look very similar. Consider leaving only the most important ones, putting others as a supplementary file or appendix.

Response 4

We absolutely agree with your comment. We have removed or optimized tables and repetitive drawings. In addition, agro-climatic indicators that did not show a correlation with yield were excluded from the article.

Point 5

Try to expand the analysis beyond estimating correlation coefficients, consider using path analysis, for example.

Response 5

Thank you very much for the recommendation. We agree that, for example, a multifactorial analysis of the impact of climate change on yields would provide a clearer result. However, the agro-climatic coefficients we use are complex and already include a number of factors (temperature, humidity of the territory). Therefore, we decided to use correlation analysis, which allows us to detect possible connections quite effectively.

Point 6

Please justify utilized indices. Why do you choose them?

Response 6

Hydrothermal indices used in calculations are widely used to assess the conditions of heat and moisture supply, because Inside the calculation method there are indicators for temperatures and atmospheric precipitation. They interpret droughts or very humid years well. Also, the database of observations made it possible to make calculations for each weather station for the period 1961-2020. According to these indexes. This argument is given in the article in the lines 107-130.

Point 7

Many figures show very low R2 values, but no explanation is given. Please either discuss them or consider removing the figures that have not significant results.

Response 7

Thanks for the comment. We have excluded the r² value from many drawings. Nevertheless, we have left them in the article to demonstrate the trends of changes.

Point 8

L64:  RB abbreviation was not properly introduced

Response 8

Thanks for the comment. The change has been made.

Point 9

- Abstract L28-30: add what the implication of these results are

Response 9

Thanks for the comment. The change has been made. Lines 32-34.

Point 10

- Introduction. Currently, the location (RB) is introduced in the beginning but the described in terms of its agricultural importance at the end of the intro, it does not read well. Please reorganize the structure of the introduction.

Response 10.

Thanks for the comment. The change has been made.

Point 11

- please keep the use of two terms - agroclimatic and agrometeorological resources carefully, do not mix them, if they refer to the different things.

Response 11.

Thanks for the comment. We tried to take this remark into account and removed the term "agro-climatic".

Point 12

- References L479: add full description of ref. 1

Response 12.

Thanks for the comment. The change has been made.

Point 13

Although you describe colors for the figures in the tables, please show them in the figures as well. Consider removing those tables, adding the content to the figures

Response 13.

Thanks for the comment. We have removed the extra table. The index values are given on the maps in the corresponding zones.

Point 14

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Abstract L14-15 “The presented 14 article is devoted to the study” -> we study

Abstract L24: “ It is established that” – not needed, remove

Abstract L28 “it was revealed” -. We revealed

L46: Simple say that climate change affects crop growing conditions

Response 14.

Thanks for pointing out specific errors. We tried to correct them.

All changes made based on your comments and those of other reviewers are highlighted in yellow.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the aim of the study was to analyze modern changes in agroclimatic resources of the Republic of Bashkortostan in the period 1961-2020. This research is very interesting. Here are some advises:

Please introduce the data source in the second part.

Please carefully check the text, as there are mainly formatting issues:

Line 153-157, pay attention to the upper and lower footmarks of the corresponding letter characters in the formula;

line 293, There are many spaces in the sentence. ie.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please introduce the data source in the second part.

Please carefully check the text, as there are mainly formatting issues:

Line 153-157, pay attention to the upper and lower footmarks of the corresponding letter characters in the formula;

line 293, There are many spaces in the sentence. ie.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

 

Dear reviewer 3!

Thank you very much for your high appreciation of our article. Below are the answers to your comments.

 

Point 1

Please introduce the data source in the second part.

Response 1

Thank you very much for your comment. The data sources for calculating agro-climatic indicators were the  data of the Bashkir Department of Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring (line 133, reference  number - 44) . Data on crop yields are obtained from the funds of the Federal State Statistics Service for the Republic of Bashkortostan. The number of the reference number is 38,  lines - 99-101.

 

Point 2

Please introduce the data source in the second part.

Response 2

Thanks for the comment. The change has been made.

 

Point 3

Please introduce the data source in the second part.

Response 3

Thanks for the comment. The change has been made.

 

Point 4

Please introduce the data source in the second part.

Response 4

Thanks for the comment. The change has been made.

All changes made based on your comments and those of other reviewers are highlighted in yellow.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are some research implications to this manuscript, but there are no new ideas or methods.

And, there are some problems in this manuscript that need to be further answered or improved, as follows:

Line 29-30: “Negative relations were found between air temperature and crop yield.” The description is incomplete, please tell us when the negative relationships happen. 

Line 35-37: “In different regions of the world, the responses of climate change are predominantly negative for the agricultural sector.” Please provide an accurate description. 

Introduction: What are the problems and shortcomings of the research on agroclimatic resources? What new ideas and effects did this study bring?

Discussion: the discussion is not deep enough, and it is suggested to explore deeper causes or trends, as well as how this research is different and unique from previous studies.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4

 

Dear reviewer 4.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our article. Below are the answers to your comments.

Point 1

Line 29-30: “Negative relations were found between air temperature and crop yield.” The description is incomplete, please tell us when the negative relationships happen. 

Response 1

Thanks for the edit. The wording of the sentence has been changed: "Negative relationships have been found between the air temperature and the yield of potatoes (r²=-0.50) and cereals (r²=-0.53)" (line.28-29).

Point 2

Line 35-37: “In different regions of the world, the responses of climate change are predominantly negative for the agricultural sector.” Please provide an accurate description. 

Response 2

Thanks for the comment. We have expanded this thesis. Estimates for Western Europe, Africa, Asia and North America are presented. Lines – 44-74.  

 

Point 3

Introduction: What are the problems and shortcomings of the research on agroclimatic resources? What new ideas and effects did this study bring?

Response 3

Thanks for the comment. Agro-climatic studies are extremely important because they allow us to assess the impact of climate and the peculiarities of adaptation of the agricultural sector. The presented study analyzes the main agro-climatic indicators of the Republic of Bashkortostan, since at the moment no such detailed studies have been conducted for its territory. We have tried to change the introduction taking into account these arguments.

Point 4

Introduction: What are the problems and shortcomings of the research on agroclimatic resources? What new ideas and effects did this study bring?

Response 4

Examples of changes in agro-climatic indices in other countries have been added to the discussion. In general, they correspond to the results we have obtained. For the first time in the Republic of Bashkortostan, changes in such agro-climatic indicators as the mean temperature and precipitation sum during the implementation of different climatic scenarios were considered. The tendency to increase the temperature and the growing season, while reducing the amount of precipitation, is highlighted. Similar trends were noted for Canada and Poland. Lines 348-360, 386-403.

All changes made based on your comments and those of other reviewers are highlighted in yellow.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the manuscript. However, I still have some major comments that should be addressed before the manuscript is accepted.

 

Response 1. Thank you for including the model results. However, I would like to have more explanations on these data. Seeing that RCP was used, I guess that use analyzed CMIP5 data, but then it should be properly introduced and cited Then you should cite it. In your response, you wrote “as they showed the best connections with data from meteorological stations of the Republic of Bashkortostan”, but I would like to see the evidence, like scatterplots against other models etc.

 

The study shows that the temperature and yield for most crops increase during the 2000-2020 period. Thus, I am quite surprised that the correlation between yield and air temperature is mostly negative. Could you please elaborate on this?

My comment 2 on the research gap was not properly addressed. The abstract still looks like a technical resort, although slightly improved from the previous version. I see that you added “Currently, no detailed studies have been conducted for this area to assess the effects of global climate change on agro-climatic resources.” (lines 16-17), however, this is too general.

Figure 2, please add uncertainty ranges to the figure and add the description of data sources to the legend.

 

Figures 7 and 8 just show the future temperatures and precipitation in the region, this can be merged into one figure, as there is not much new information. Regional climate changes have been discussed in many other studies. Please also add geographical (lat-lon) information to the figures. Are those means of two model simulations?  

 

Figure 7, is absolute temperature shown or anomaly, relative to what period?

 

Please, re-consider y=the shown level of precision in your figures and make it consistent. Sometimes you show three numbers after the comma, sometimes two. Please leave just one or two.

 

“RB” please introduce abbreviation.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Revision of the manuscript made the language worse, not better. It should be improved extensively. Here are some examples just from the abstract, but please correct through all the manuscript.

1)    In the abstract and along the manuscript you have many constructions like --very long sentence- ending with “was revealed”, “was assessed”, “have been determined” (passive voice). This is difficult to read.

2)    Fix grammar, 17-19 “were calculated the sums”? 19-20 (no verb)

3)    Line 23 “The period under consideration there is a steady increase” - fix grammar.

4)    Line 30 “affects a decrease” – causes decrease, leads to decrease but not “affects”.

L353 “allows you” -> “allows”

 

There are many more grammatical and editorial errors, please address them carefully.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2!

 Thank you very much for reviewing our article again. Thank you for the important advices to improve it. Below are our responses to your comments

Point 1.

Thank you for including the model results. However, I would like to have more explanations on these data. Seeing that RCP was used, I guess that use analyzed CMIP5 data, but then it should be properly introduced and cited Then you should cite it. In your response, you wrote “as they showed the best connections with data from meteorological stations of the Republic of Bashkortostan”, but I would like to see the evidence, like scatterplots against other models etc.

Response 1

Thank you very much for the comment. The citation to the database is provided in line 154, number in the list of references "45". We have added scatterplots for all models presented in the source "45". See Figure 2.

Point 2.

The study shows that the temperature and yield for most crops increase during the 2000-2020 period. Thus, I am quite surprised that the correlation between yield and air temperature is mostly negative. Could you please elaborate on this?

Response 2

Thank you for your comment. Please note that there are negative correlations either for individual months or for the growing season (see Table 3). In addition, we have redesigned the drawing showing the dynamics of yield. Now this is Figure 7. We have added a graph with the dynamics of the average temperature to each crop. Despite the tendency to increase yields, we observe negative associations with the average annual temperature. The graphs clearly show how a sharp increase in temperature corresponds to a decrease in yield. The changes can be found in lines 274-281

Point 3

My comment 2 on the research gap was not properly addressed. The abstract still looks like a technical resort, although slightly improved from the previous version. I see that you added “Currently, no detailed studies have been conducted for this area to assess the effects of global climate change on agro-climatic resources.” (lines 16-17), however, this is too general.

Response 3

Thanks for the comment. We tried to improve the abstract. Lines 17-42.

Point 4

Figure 2, please add uncertainty ranges to the figure and add the description of data sources to the legend.

Response 4

Thanks for the comment. Confidence intervals have been added to the figure at the significance level α = 0.05.After editing, the figure is number 3

Point 5

Figures 7 and 8 just show the future temperatures and precipitation in the region, this can be merged into one figure, as there is not much new information. Regional climate changes have been discussed in many other studies. Please also add geographical (lat-lon) information to the figures. Are those means of two model simulations?  

Response 5

 Thanks for the comment. We merged the figures and added a geographical reference. After editing, the figure is number 8

Point 6

Figure 7, is absolute temperature shown or anomaly, relative to what period?

Response 6

Thanks for the comment. The figure shows the annual mean temperature.

Point 7

Please, re-consider y=the shown level of precision in your figures and make it consistent. Sometimes you show three numbers after the comma, sometimes two. Please leave just one or two.

Response 7

Thanks for the comment. The values were brought into a single form – two decimal places.

Point 8

“RB” please introduce abbreviation.

 Response 8

Thanks for the comment. Abbreviation introduced. See line 80.

 

All new changes made based on your comments and those of other reviewers are highlighted in green.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest accept it to publish in the journal. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 4!

Thank you very much for your assessment!

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract highlights the negative correlations of crop yield and temperature. However, correlations (I am not sure whether you show R or R2, please confirm and make it consistent through the article) seem to be higher for precipitation. Thus, I recommend changing the discussion from the temperature-driven reductions in the yield to the impacts of temperature-driven precipitation changes on the yields, please add necessary analysis for this.

Please introduce abbreviations (RCP, IPCC and others)

Figure 3: please indicate in the legend what error bars refer to. The error bars seem not to have any interannual variation, please confirm they are correct, what are they based on?

Please improve all the legends, adding necessary information. Currently it is not clear what data are used for the figures (inventory, model simulations etc)

What is the spatial resolution of utilized RCP data?

Figure 4, please add color bar to the figure (in addition to table 2)

Figure 6, also add color bar to the figure, or make the colors uniform.

Figure 7 – are the trends significant? Did you observe any impact of the warming hiatus?

Figure 5 – is referred to in the discussion on seasonality (line 248), however, it does not show any seasonal data.

Please add a table or a paragraph explained the differences between RCP scenarios in general and in the region of interest in particularly. I wonder why RCP6.0 and not RCP8.5 that has the largest warming projects the largest precipitation decrease.

Lines 324-329 please confirm the referred figures (e.g., Figure 8c shows temperature, not precipitation)

Figure 8 would be easier to read if anomalies relative to the fixed past period and not absolute values were shown.

Table 4 please add a confidence interval (based on the models you have).

Please also confirm that the changes in the yield were not caused by other factors like soil fertilization with nutrient and irrigation, or on opposite extreme events, and add analysis/discussion on this.

Please make the discussion more concise and focused on your work, avoid phrases like “Interesting conclusions were found” but focus on how the earlier results compare to your findings and what implications are.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2!

 Thank you very much for reviewing our article again. Thank you for the important advices to improve it. Below are our responses to your comments

 

Point 1

The abstract highlights the negative correlations of crop yield and temperature. However, correlations (I am not sure whether you show R or R2, please confirm and make it consistent through the article) seem to be higher for precipitation. Thus, I recommend changing the discussion from the temperature-driven reductions in the yield to the impacts of temperature-driven precipitation changes on the yields, please add necessary analysis for this.

Response 1

Thank you for your comment. The article notes the negative relationship of field with the temperature of the growing season. This information is presented in table 3 and lines 309-311. We added this information to the abstract. Line 39.

We agree with you that the precipitation has a greater impact on yields, which is demonstrated by correlations with both the  of precipitation sum and agro-climatic indices (table 3 and lines 302-312).Temperature and precipitation  during the growing season have a complex effect on cereals. This is proved by correlations with HCS and the Ped index (r=0.45, r=-0.56, respectively). Aridity at the beginning of the growing season affects the yield of oilseeds and potatoes. This is confirmed by correlations with the Ped index (r=-0.49, r=-0.52, respectively). In general, the aridity of the growing season has a significant effect on the yield of grain crops (r=-0.57). Lines – 32-40.

 

Point 2

Please introduce abbreviations (RCP, IPCC and others)

Response 2

Thanks for the comment. We made the necessary changes. Lines 80, 99, 124.

 

Point 3

Figure 3: please indicate in the legend what error bars refer to. The error bars seem not to have any interannual variation, please confirm they are correct, what are they based on?

Response 3

Thanks for the comment. We have corrected Figure 3. The error bars is displayed as a percentage.

Point 4

Please improve all the legends, adding necessary information. Currently it is not clear what data are used for the figures (inventory, model simulations etc)

Response 4

Thanks for the comment. We made the necessary changes. Lines 165, 190, 224, 240, 254, 264, 296, 330, 336.

 

Point 5

What is the spatial resolution of utilized RCP data?

Response 5

Thanks for the comment. The spatial resolution of the data was 0.5° x 0.5°. Line 172.

 

Point 6

Figure 4, please add color bar to the figure (in addition to table 2)

Response 6

Thanks for the comment. We made the necessary changes.

 

Point 7

Figure 6, also add color bar to the figure, or make the colors uniform.

Response 7

Thanks for the comment. We made the necessary changes. We make the colors uniform

 

Point 8

Figure 7 – are the trends significant? Did you observe any impact of the warming hiatus?

Response 8

Thanks for the comment. As we answered  in response 1, the significant correlation with temperature was in growing season. So, we deleted this figure

 

Point 9

Figure 5 – is referred to in the discussion on seasonality (line 248), however, it does not show any seasonal data.

Response 9

Thanks for the comment. The figure just shows the repeatability in (%) of years of excessive moisture (rise) and droughts (right). We added legends for maps.

 

Point 10

Please add a table or a paragraph explained the differences between RCP scenarios in general and in the region of interest in particularly. I wonder why RCP6.0 and not RCP8.5 that has the largest warming projects the largest precipitation decrease.

Response 10

Thanks for the comment. In the introduction, we added a paragraph explaining the difference between RCP scenarios. Lines 100-102. We added a paragraph to the discussion explaining the implementation of scenarios for Russia and the Volga Federal District,  which the Republic of Bashkortostan belongs. Lines 392-395.

A large amount of precipitation in the RCP 8.5 scenario compared to the RCP 6.0 scenario was also detected for other regions, for example, for China. It is assumed that the amount of precipitation is influenced by evotranspiration [61]. For the UK, there is also a lower value of precipitation for the RCP 6.0 scenario in some areas compared to the RCP 8.5 scenario. The authors of the study [62] associate this phenomenon with the high variability of precipitation in the UK. For the RB, this issue requires additional study. Nevertheless, we note that the greatest decrease is observed in the mountainous part of the republic, which is characterized by great climatic variability. Line 400-407.

 

Point 11

Lines 324-329 please confirm the referred figures (e.g., Figure 8c shows temperature, not precipitation)

Thanks for the comment. We made the necessary changes.

 

Point 12

Figure 8 would be easier to read if anomalies relative to the fixed past period and not absolute values were shown.

Response 12

Thank you very much for this important remark. We changed the maps. The maps show anomalies relative to the period 1961-1990. We used this time period, since this is the basic historical period. It includes the middle of 1970, when the active phase of warming began.

 

Point 13

Table 4 please add a confidence interval (based on the models you have).

Response 13

Thanks for the comment. We made the necessary changes.

 

Point 14

Please also confirm that the changes in the yield were not caused by other factors like soil fertilization with nutrient and irrigation, or on opposite extreme events, and add analysis/discussion on this.

Response 14

Thank you very much for your comment. We also reviewed official statistical data on the application of mineral fertilizers for crops in the republic [33]. Unfortunately, data on fertilization has been available only since 2008. Correlations between yield and the amount of fertilizers applied are not significant (with cereals r = 0.25; with industrial crops r = -0.002; with oilseeds r = 0.25; with potatoes r = 0.05). 39.8 thousand are irrigated in the republic. ha of plots, which is only 0.5% of agricultural land (according to 2021 data) [41], which is a catastrophically small amount to maintain yields. Therefore, the main attention was paid to the interrelation-ships of productivity with agro-climatic indicators. Lines – 283-290

 

Point 15

Please make the discussion more concise and focused on your work, avoid phrases like “Interesting conclusions were found” but focus on how the earlier results compare to your findings and what implications are.

Response 15

Thanks for the comment. We have tried to exclude unnecessary phrases and information not related to the region or agricultural culture from the discussion.

 

All new changes made based on your comments and those of other reviewers are highlighted in blue.