Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Driving Factors of “Non-Grain Production” in Hubei Province Based on a Non-Grain Index
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The revised version of the manuscript meets the standards of scientific papers, the "Sustainability" profile.
Recommends for publication in the form submitted for review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Non-grain Production (NGP) of cultivated land is a simple and complex issue. The simplicity lies in the fact that there must be too little return from sowing grain crops, and the complexity lies in the fact that there is a tipping point for this transformation, which involves many factors. Therefore, it is recommended that the research focus on this aspect of the tipping point to be more valuable.
Details that still need to be modified and improved are as follows:
1. There used to be some double-season rice in Hubei province, but now it is basically single-season rice. How will the novel non-grain index perform in the face of single-season and double-season rice? It is worth further consideration.
2. There are some problems with the logic of lines 196-204, please reorganize.
3. In Figure 7, the text of the legend "Hign-Hign" should be "High-High".
---------------------------------------------------
1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
Excessive use of cultivating land for NGP has threatened food production, and it is necessary to study analytical methods to quantify regional non-grain and its potential impact factors.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?
The topic is relevant in the field, and the improved method it proposes improves the estimation.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
Improved method with a novel none-grain index is proposed and the result looks good.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
Planting single-season or double-season rice has some effect on the research method proposed in this paper, and further data validation is needed.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
The paper's findings are consistent with the arguments and address the main issues it raises.
6. The references are appropriate
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
1. Planting single-season or double-season rice has some effect on the research method proposed in this paper, and further data validation is needed. Please add data analysis.
2. It is recommended that the research focus on this aspect of the tipping point to be more valuable.
Author Response
Please see the attachmeny.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The parts that have not been revised and improved should be described in the future study.
Author Response
We want to thank you for your comment and we made relevant improvement.
The limitation of the non-grain index is that its measurements overestimate the NGP when “double‑to‑single” is evident. At the same time, the specific impact of rice-crayfish farming on food security remains unclear, and it lacks relevant regulations. Therefore, it is recommended to focus future research activities on countermeasures and threats to “double‑to‑single”.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The literature review is described in detail. The research methodology is very well prepared. Research results are clear and reliable.
The research topic is relevant, but research analysis and results are only locally based. The authors should argue why the study was conducted in only one region. Is this problem relevant in other regions of China? Whether the research results reflect a global problem and whether the results can be applied to China or other countries.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The spread of non-grain production and the factors affecting it is a generally relevant research topic. It may be of interest in both European and global contexts and may provide new insights into policies to encourage multifunctional farming and sustainable agricultural practices, for example. However, the approach proposed by the authors is debatable. It does not appear to be new (many studies have been devoted to this topic with an emphasis on China) but rather an application and "transformation" of previous studies and their testing in a local context, which narrows the audience.
In addition, the manuscript has several significant shortcomings:
1) analysis of previous studies was done incorrectly. The authors often use "some studies" without proper references: 70-78; 82-90. The same is valid for discussion. Additionally, research novelty needs to be stated clearly in comparison to previous studies.
2) the index proposed by the authors is confusing: the authors call it “grain-tillage”, while the calculation reflects non-grain areas share. If called non-grain, this index correlates with an existing article https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11213494
3) The use of the formula (5) proposed by the authors could not lead to the estimates reported in a paper because the obtained values could be at least 1 (as we add 1 to the ratio).
4) The explanatory text added to the formula (5) needs to be clarified (201-205).
5) The discussion needs to be corrected as it excludes https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11213494, where factors affecting NGP are explored in detail.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript submitted for review addresses an important and current research problem. The issue of non-grain production in the form proposed by the authors is important not only from a scientific but also from a practical point of view.
The issues raised correspond to the "Sustainability" profile.
The manuscript is based on thoughtful, well-designed analyzes using statistical data from authoritative sources. Research methods were properly selected and applied. The results obtained were well presented.
The theoretical part was developed on the basis of carefully selected literature on the subject.
I suggest that the abbreviation (NGP) be abandoned in the title of the manuscript, and the full name "Non-grain production" be given. In the further part of the manuscript - Abstract, the correct notation has already been used - the full name and its abbreviation in parentheses and further on the authors use the abbreviation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The article addresses an important topic that can be extrapolated to other geographical regions, rural agricultural areas, because the excessive use of land can lead to imbalances and implicitly endanger food production in the long term.
The article is well structured, the methods used based on spatial autocorrelation analysis, the Theil index and geographically weighted regression have clearly highlighted the need to reduce this tendency of excessive land use and establish some objectives for the sustainability of their use.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Calculating “(all cultivated land – land for grain)” means non-grain. The ratio of this value to all cultivated (or sown, it doesn’t matter in this context) means a share of non-grain. Entitling this value “grain-tillage” is confusing and doesn’t reveal its sense.
The methodology to construct a “grain-tillage index” is unclear, contradictory, meaningless and not novel. First, the calculation based on excluding sown-grain area (as mentioned, this accounts for multiple cropping) from cultivated land is meaningless. Second, the approach is the same as in the paper https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11213494, but muddled via mathematical transformations. The main difference is adding 1, which is unclear. Third, the index’s methodology (182-223) and the whole manuscript contain many contradictions throughout the text. Just a few examples: 1) “The results showed that the value of the grain-tillage index grew from 0.497 14 to 1.113 as NGP increased significantly in Hubei Province…15”. 2) “The index value represents the proportion of cultivated land 210 for grain crops, a high value indicates a low level of NGP. When the sown-grain area is 211’..3) “the 215 sowing area of grain is reduced, and (?? − ??) increases, the grain-tillage index also in- 216 creases, which indicates the growth of NGP.”
Many phrases and ideas from the paper mentioned above were used without proper reference in the text.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Now (after changing the index title) the similarity with the paper https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11213494
is obvious.
This research is not novel in the NGP index and contains many phrases and ideas from the https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11213494 without proper referencing.
I can't recommend this paper for publication in Sustainability.
