Phenomenon of Non-Grain Production of Cultivated Land Has Become Increasingly Prominent over the Last 20 Years: Evidence from Guanzhong Plain, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors claim: "Our research findings can provide important scientific basis for understanding the laws of NGP and formulating management policies." Please give us some more concrete recommendations in which way should management policy go. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This is an interesting paper which describes changes over a 20-year period in non-grain production and use of land which was cultivated in 2000. Since then, both non-grain agricultural and non-agricultural uses have extended over cultivated areas, leading to a reduction in land devoted to grain production. The authors refer to several Chinese government reports which recognise the potential impacts these changes may have on basic food supplies. However, changes between different forms of agricultural production have been most noticeable in steeper topographies (cultivation shifting to grassland or forest) and in places of urban development, both of which have been encouraged by different national policies.

General comments

It would be helpful if specific aims were clearly enunciated in the paper, in preference to providing several questions (last paragraph of Introduction). Use-transfer of previously agricultural land is a worldwide phenomenon, and internationally both urbanisation and cash cropping have encroached on even highly productive food-producing land. Agricultural land-use changes frequently exhibit spatial clustering, i.e., the ‘neighborhood’/proximity effect that produces spatial autocorrelation.  The manuscript could be improved by providing a broader context within which to identify specific similarities and differences with such trends in the case study area in China, as there is currently a preponderance of references relating to China.

The manuscript would benefit from including an estimate of the magnitude of grain production losses accompanying a transfer of land to other uses, taking into account yield differences between ‘continuing’ and ‘lost’ grain producing areas.

In the concluding remarks, the difficulties in resolving apparently conflicting national policies relating to food supply and urbanisation in China could be addressed. Potential future policies to enhance food security through increased grain production appear under ‘Governance schemes’ (4.2) and parts of the Discussion should lead to statements in the Conclusion. Perhaps the final section could be headed ‘Discussion and Conclusion.’  

Given the focus on spatial changes, authors may consider the suitability of the paper for submission to an RS/GIS journal.

It is recommended that a native English speaker or a professional editing service review the text for spelling and grammar.

Minor points

Several statements need clarification – some of these are listed below. (Authors – please note that reviewers can assist authors more readily if line numbers are included in your submissions.)

Abstract – ‘There is a significant positive spatial correlation between NGP.’  Correlation with what?

p.1 – ‘1.8 billion mu of cultivated land.’  What unit does ‘mu’ refer to? Is this a part of the International System of Units that I am not familiar with?

p.2, line 1 – ‘non-grain production ON cultivated land’ (not ‘of’)

p.2 – ‘modern characteristic crops’ – please define

p.2 – ‘continuous upgrading of consumption structure’ – please re-word to clarify

p.2 – ‘facility vegetables’ – please define

p.3, 2.1.2 – second sentence is unclear – please re-write

p.4, 2.2.1 – rainfall amounts and temperature values need to be specified – pan E is not a substitute for a climatic description

p.6, 3.2 – delete ‘In contrast’, as nothing is being contrasted

p.9, 4.1 paragraph 1 – needs re-wording for clarity

p.9, 4.2 – needs re-wording for clarity

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Revisions have been included as requested earlier. Some mainly English language expression changes which would improve the paper are noted in the attached annotated Authors’ Cover Letter, and below.

Repetition occurs in some places but I do not have sufficient time to edit for this.

Some suggested corrections to English expression are noted the submitted Authors’ cover letter (attached) and below.

Title – (too long – suggested change in Cover letter)

Line 12 –‘the phenomenon…’

Line 17- ‘…study found a clear trend of spatial expansion of NGP in the past 20 years…’

Lines 20-1 – ‘…the phenomenon and patterns of non-grain production of cultivated land in China…’

Line 71 – ‘mu’??

Line 84 – ‘investment’ (rather than ‘capital’)

Line 103 – ‘…greenhouse…’ (not ‘Greenhouse’)

Lines 188-89 – check spacing between words

Line 234 – ‘…cultivated…’ (not ‘Cultivated’)

Lines 241-42 – placement of figure caption: this should appear after ‘2019’ (line 243)

Figures 6 and 7 – transfer caption to Figure 6 to appear immediately below the figure, and ensure that the caption to Figure 7 is correctly placed.

Line 287 – remove sentence after [46] – repetition, lacks evidence

Line 307 – what are ‘characteristic industries’?

Line 343 – re-word: not a sentence

References – re-format into single space

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviewer's comprehensive and careful review of the paper and constructive comments, which greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. For the English expression problems raised by reviewers in the attachment and comments, we adopted all the suggestions of reviewers, revised and polished the language, and checked the full text to ensure the language specification. The revision part adopts the tracking mode. Please review the revised manuscript. Thank you very much for your careful check on the manuscript.