Effects of Future Climate Change on Spring Maize Yield and Water Use Efficiency under Film Mulching with Different Materials in the LOESS Plateau Region of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

 I have read it and found it to be quite interesting. However, I would like to bring your attention to some issues that I have outlined in the attached file.

Best of luck in addressing these concerns.

Sincerely,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Dear authors,

I noticed some areas where there are problems with the English writing. For example, in Figure 2, the caption requires some rewriting for clarity.

I kindly request you to review and revise the remaining sections of the article to ensure clarity and accuracy in the English writing.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript describes a study on the effect of film mulching with different materials on spring maize crop, and the authors conducted a forecasting analysis under climate change scenarios. Overall, the manuscript is well written in correct English and form. However, there are a few issues and clarifications that are needed before allowing its publication.

1. The abstract is too long, and the authors should consider shortening the background section to make it more concise.
2. The authors need to specify the soil texture in the "study area" section for better understanding and contextualization of the research.
3. In Table 1, even though the authors mentioned what (P, B, and CK) stand for in the introduction, it is recommended that the authors explain the significance of each letter under the table. Additionally, repeating "Machine farming, 30 cm for all the years" is unnecessary, and the authors can add a sentence to state this information instead.
4. It would be beneficial for the manuscript to include some theoretical background information on the DNDC model to provide a better understanding of its application in the study.
5. The authors should clarify how they determined the values of each parameter in Table 2. It is necessary to specify what was measured and what values were obtained from literature sources.
6. The major weakness of this study is the lack of clarification regarding the calibration/validation process of the model. It is essential for the authors to choose a calibration period where they adjust the model parameters and a validation period when they evaluate the reliability of the model. Both of these processes are necessary in this type of research.

Please address these issues and make the necessary revisions to improve the manuscript before considering its publication.

The manuscript is written in satisfactory English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

 

Congratulations on improving your article based on the feedback from the referees. The revisions you made have significantly strengthened the paper, making it suitable for acceptance in the journal. Your hard work and attention to the reviewers' comments have paid off, resulting in a more robust and compelling piece of research. We appreciate your dedication and commitment to enhancing the quality of your work. We encourage you to proceed with the submission, as the revised article now meets the requirements for publication.

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors already revised their paper point-by-point according to reviewers' comments and tried their best to improve our manuscript.

English language is adequate.