the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 27 Feb 2024
The Spatial-Temporal Evolution of the Chongzhen Drought (1627–1644) in China and its Impact on Famine
Abstract. Investigations of past extreme climate events offer insights into the interactions between natural forces, ecosystems, and human societies. The Chongzhen Drought, which occurred from 1627 to 1644 CE, stands as possibly the most severe drought in central and eastern China over the last 1500 years, remarkable for its duration, extent, and the vast number of people affected. Concurrently, a widespread famine emerged, triggering peasant uprisings that were argued as having contributed to the Ming Dynasty's downfall. This study extracted 1,802 drought records and 1,977 famine records from Chinese historical documents to reconstruct the spatial-temporal progression of the drought and its impact on famine. The records provided drought information of season, duration, and intensity, which enabled a classification of four drought severity levels. Then kernel density estimation reconstructed the spatial pattern of drought and the Drought Kernel Density Index (DKDI) series in sub-regions. Between 1627 and 1644, the drought affected most of central and eastern China. The severe drought zone was mainly located north of 29° N, shifting from Northwest China to North China and then expanding to the south. The development of drought in different regions was not synchronized. Northwest China faced the earliest drought outbreak, which eased in the middle period and peaked in 1640. North China's DKDI series forms a single-peaked curve, indicating a gradual aggravation of the drought from 1633 to 1640. The Yangtze-Huai Region's DKDI series shows a multi-peaked curve, with repeated cycles of worsening and easing drought, peaking in 1641. Furthermore, the reconstruction of the spatio-temporal progression of famine revealed overlapped ranges and similar development trends to that of the drought. The years marking the peak of the Famine Kernel Density Index (FKDI) in Northwest China, North China, and the Yangtze-Huai Region coincided with those of the DKDI. Regression analysis identified drought as the primary factor triggering famine, accounting for approximately 67.3 % of its occurrence. In North China, the contribution of drought was higher, at 73.4 %. Series and correlation analyses indicate a continuity of 2–3 years in drought's impacts on famine. The paper further clarified the dominant pathway of climate impact transmission in this case: extreme drought → declining agricultural harvest → food shortage → famine. Other natural and socio-economic factors, such as locust infestations, nomadic invasions, and economic decline, also played a role in the occurrence of famine. Human response measures were instrumental in regulating the transmission of climate change impacts.
- Preprint
(3121 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 31 May 2024)
-
CC1: 'Comment on cp-2024-11', Mei Ai, 06 Mar 2024
reply
This manuscript investigates a mega-drought that occurred at the end of the Ming Dynasty and its social impacts. The authors have thoroughly explored the records from Chinese historical documents, which not only help to know the development of drought, but also provide a perspective on the relationship between disaster and human beings. The manuscript is well-organized and logical, with supportive evidence. The methodology is interesting, but I think there are some questions worth noting.
(1) Based on historical documents, there is already a widely used criterion for classifying drought-flood levels in the academic community (referred to Yearly charts of dryness/wetness in China for the last 500-year period). Given this, why did the authors choose to define a new grading criteria (Table 1) instead of employing the existing one?
(2) When classifying drought levels, how to deal with a drought event that spans years?
(3) The maps and names of the provinces used in the manuscript are modern, but historical place names and provincial divisions may have differed. I suggest explaining how to convert location information with examples.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2024-11-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Siying Chen, 15 Mar 2024
reply
Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your comments and suggestions are all very valuable to us, facilitating to improvement of our work. According to the comments, we made some modifications. Please find the itemized responses below.
Comment 1: Based on historical documents, there is already a widely used criterion for classifying drought-flood levels in the academic community (referred to Yearly charts of dryness/wetness in China for the last 500-year period). Given this, why did the authors choose to define a new grading criteria (Table 1) instead of employing the existing one?
Response 1: The criteria in Yearly Charts of Dryness/Wetness in China for the Last 500-Year Period (hereafter referred to as "Yearly Charts") were defined to classify the level of drought and flood disasters. The criteria not only consider the hazard's duration and intensity but also the social consequences caused. Events such as famine, surges in grain prices, and population displacements are also considered as criteria for determining levels. However, one focus of this study is to investigate the interrelation between drought and famine, necessitating that data on droughts and famines be mutually independent. Therefore, the grading criteria in "Yearly Charts" are inapplicable for this study.
Employing a similar methodology, our proposed grading criteria were also based on semantic differences, maintaining an emphasis on the duration and intensity of drought events. However, a distinction lies in that our criteria specifically target drought manifestations within the natural environment, particularly meteorological and hydrological droughts, while intentionally excluding agricultural and socio-economic droughts that involve human intervention. Consequently, the spatial-temporal patterns of drought identified in this study reflect the anomaly of the natural system, making it possible for comparative analysis with the famine process, which represents the anomaly of the human system.
The criteria in "Yearly charts" are attached here for reference.
Criteria
Keyword examples
Level-1
Very wet
Long-lasting and intense precipitation, widespread flooding, catastrophic typhoon rains along the coast, etc.
Spring and summer rains; summer rain for more than a decade, the river overflowed; spring and summer floods, drowned people and animals without counting; summer and fall floods inundated seedlings; heavy rain for days, the land can be boat; several counties flood; hurricanes and heavy rains, drifted away the fields and houses.
Level-2
Wet
Sustained precipitation with little damage in spring and fall. Locally flood. Hurricanes and heavy rains with little damage.
Spring rains hurt the seedlings; fall rains hurt the crops; April floods, famine; August floods; a county's flash mountain flood, destroying the fields.
Level-3
Normal
The year was productive, great harvest, or no drought or flood can be recorded.
Great Harvest; fall Harvest; great year
Level-4
Dry
Drought that causes little damage, lasting for a single season or month; localized drought.
Spring drought; autumn drought; drought; drought in a particular month; rains are scarce; drought and locust.
Level-5
Very dry
A drought that lasts for several months or spans seasons; a widespread severe drought.
Spring and summer drought, barren land, people eat grass roots and bark; summer and fall drought, the crops are withered; summer severe drought, famine; no rain from the 4th to 8th month, no harvest; rivers/ponds/wells dry up; great drought in Jiangnan region.
Comment 2: When classifying drought levels, how to deal with a drought event that spans years?
Response: The basic time unit for drought events and drought levels in this study is the year, while the basic spatial unit is the county. Drought events that span years are dissected into their seasonal components for detailed evaluation. For example, a "winter-spring drought" is considered to be a winter drought in the first year (level 1) and a spring drought in the second year (level 1).
In Sect.2.2 (line 112 in the preprint), we will add a sentence to clarify:
“The basic time unit for drought events in this study is the year, while the basic spatial unit is the county.”
Comment 3: The maps and names of the provinces used in the manuscript are modern, but historical place names and provincial divisions may have differed. I suggest explaining how to convert location information with examples.
Response 3: As mentioned in Appendix A, the database for this study comprises 6,282 records, 5,006 of which come from A compendium of Chinese meteorological records of the last 3000 years. This collection had already converted historical place names into corresponding modern ones during the compilation process. Thus, the majority of the records did not require any conversion of locations. However, for some records extracted from other collections that only provided historical place names, conversions to modern place names were carried out according to The Historical Atlas of China (Tan, 1982). The belonging provinces were identified based on the modern administrative divisions of China, referencing the Handbook of the People's Republic of China's Administrative Divisions (Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China, 2020). An illustrative example is as follows:
There is a record from the collection History of Natural Disasters in Shandong Province: “1641; Wuding; severe drought and famine, cannibalism; the History of Ming”. Following the methodology described in Sect.2.1, six fields of information were identified from this record. "Year" is 1641. Wuding, an ancient place name, corresponds to modern Huimin County, hence "Location" is Huimin County. According to the current administrative divisions, Huimin County belongs to Shandong Province, so "Province" is recorded as Shandong. "Content" is severe drought and famine, cannibalism. "Source" is History of Natural Disasters in Shandong Province. "Original document provenance" is the History of Ming.
This example will also be added to Sect.2.1 (line 95 in the preprint) to elucidate the data processing procedure.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2024-11-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Siying Chen, 15 Mar 2024
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on cp-2024-11', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Mar 2024
reply
General comments：
The study investigates the Chongzhen Drought (1627-1644 CE), one of the most severe droughts in central and eastern China in the last 1500 years. By extracting records from Chinese historical documents, spatial patterns and temporal series of drought and famine are reconstructed respectively to reveal the spatio-temporal progression of the drought and its impact on famine. The regional differences and the phase divisions of the drought and the dominant pathway from drought to famine are analyzed then. This research can enhance our comprehension of historical climatic extremes and their societal consequences. The manuscript is well-organized, logically sound and clearly written.
Specific comments:
Line 39-49: I understand that the authors intend to begin with the topic of famine and subsequently introduce drought as one of its primary causes. However, in my view, the second paragraph of the introduction would benefit from a more detailed discussion of drought, especially since the first paragraph focuses solely on climate change. A logical progression from climate change to drought and then to famine would seem to flow more naturally and align more coherently with the subsequent narratives.
Line 46: It would be beneficial to clearly mark the corresponding periods of the late Eastern Han, Western Jin, late Sui, late Tang, late Ming, and late Qing dynasties in order to assist readers unfamiliar with Chinese history in understanding the context. The same applies to line 51.
Figure 1: The figure contains a mix of historical and modern geographical concepts, potentially leading to confusion. For instance, under contemporary geographical categorizations, Shanxi Province is not typically considered part of the northwest region, nor is Henan part of the North China region, and Hunan is not included in the Southeast region, among others. It might be clarifying to substitute "Northwest China" with "Northwest region" and "North China" with "Northern region." The former terms are commonly employed in the delineation of modern China's geographical divisions: East China, South China, North China, Central China, Southwest China, Northwest China, and Northeast China.
Table 1: I have the following three types of questions:
(1)The translation of Chinese expression “崇祯十年旱” should be "Drought in the tenth year of Chongzhen period" which is analogous to the expression "Drought in the third year of Chongzhen period (崇祯三年旱)". Given this similarity, both records should be classified at the same level. However, in Table 1, the former is classified as level 3, while the latter is classified as level 2.
(2)The expression of "Drought in the third year of Chongzhen period (崇祯三年旱)" means "There is a drought in a specific year". "Winter drought (冬旱)" is also a situation in which drought occurs in a given year. From this perspective, the two records should be classified at the same level. However, in Table 1, the former is classified as level 2 and the latter is classified as level 1.
(3) How should readers interpret and compare different types of drought expressions? For instance, why is the drought level of ‘Drying up of wells’ classified as Level 3 in Table 1, which is higher than that of ‘The grass and trees are withered and scorched’, classified as Level 2?
It is recommended to provide more detailed descriptions on how to classify the original records using the semantic difference method. This would assist readers in achieving similar classification results with the same data. The authors could consider categorizing all descriptions into groups such as drought descriptions, plant descriptions, and descriptions of rivers, wells, and groundwater. Subsequently, they could summarize the text descriptions within each category and classify them into levels 1-4. The same approach could be applied to Table 2.
Line 149: Readers unfamiliar with China may not know the locations of the Wei River, Fen River, and Guanzhong Plain. The same applies to Line 189, where the locations of Changsha, Hexi Corridor, Fen and Zhang Rivers in Shanxi, Wen and Si Rivers in Shandong, Baiyangdian, Suzhou Creek, etc., have not been introduced in the article.
Figure 2a: What distinguishes a Drought Zone from a Severe Drought Zone? What criteria are used to classify areas into Drought Zones and Severe Drought Zones? Is it the case that areas experiencing level 1-2 drought events are classified as Drought Zones, while areas experiencing level 3-4 drought events are classified as Severe Drought Zones? The same question applies to the classifications in Figure 4a..
Figure 2b: I have the following two suggestions.
(1) By converting the ordinates to the same scale, the changes and differences in the DKDI index across each region can be displayed more intuitively. For example, it can be unified into a range from 0 to 1 with an interval of 0.1.
(2) The expression of the start and end time of each stage in the figure is different from the text content. Taking the "Starting Phase" as an example, the start time seems to be someday before 1627 and the end time seems to be someday after 1633 from the figure.
Line 160-170: The changes of DKDI in the southeast and southwest regions are not mentioned in this paragraph.
Line 171: It is recommended to provide more details on how the four phases of the drought were determined by analyzing the temporal and spatial variations of the drought.
Line 190: This line implies that the Yellow River once flowed through Jiangsu Province. But as we can see from Figure 1, the Yellow River does not flow through Jiangsu Province. This discrepancy is due to Figure 1 representing the modern course of the Yellow River, which has historically changed its course. This statement could potentially cause confusion among readers and therefore necessitates additional clarification.
Figure 4b: Can it be divided into distinct phases like drought? If not, the phases of drought are suggested to be re-marked on the chart for easier comparison.
Table 4: What is the correlation coefficient in the fourth year? If we want to draw conclusions that affect three years, shouldn’t we at least list the correlation coefficient for the fourth year?
Line 302: Do these 15 response types occur exclusively in the Yangtze-Huai Region, or are similar patterns observed in other regions as well?
Technical corrections:
Line 139: Formulas need to be numbered.
Figure 3: The graticules appear to be missing from the figure. The same issue is observed in Figure 6.
Figure 4: Typically, figures are not placed directly beneath the title.
Table 6: This table should be reformatted into a three-line table.
Figure 7: The figure is note cited in the text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2024-11-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Siying Chen, 24 Apr 2024
reply
Thank you for dedicating your time and expertise to review our paper. Your comments and feedback are invaluable to enhancing the quality and clarity of the work. We are truly grateful for your careful review and comprehensive suggestions. Please see the detailed responses in the attached PDF document. Referee’s comments (RC) are marked in bold font, and authors’ responses (AC) are marked in normal font. All line numbers mentioned correspond to the preprint version.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Siying Chen, 24 Apr 2024
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 320 | 47 | 19 | 386 | 13 | 14 |
- HTML: 320
- PDF: 47
- XML: 19
- Total: 386
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1