Dear reviewer， We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. We have given due consideration to this, and our answers are set out below: 1. There is a lack of literature to support our new insights into understanding climate change, and for this reason we will include a synthesis of climate change in the introduction to the article. 2. We built the SWAT model and analysed the results through the model outputs, which may be biased, but within the allowable limits. 3. The SWAT model itself divides the study area into sub-watersheds, each of which has its own different geo-climatic characteristics. Because of the large number of sub-watersheds, we divided the entire study area according to the precipitation differences based on the outputs of the sub-watersheds for the subsequent analyses. 4. Previously, only the regions with the most and least precipitation were considered, and there was a real lack of discussion about the other regions, so I thank the reviewers for their valuable comments, and will follow up by adding the relationship between precipitation, ET, and recharge for the other regions in the article. 5. Thank you very much for your suggestion. This paper focuses on the impacts of climate change on groundwater recharge to agricultural land and does not take into account future land use, which is something we expect subsequent researchers to take into account when doing related studies. 6. Thank you for these papers, we will read them carefully and add the SWAT-MODFLOW coupled model as a methodology in the discussion section, thank you very much for your professional and valuable comments. Thank you very much for your attention and time.

Dear reviewer， We feel great thanks for your professional questions and your attention to detail in our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. We have given due consideration to this, and our answers are set out below: 1. Even though agriculture occupies 37% of the total study area and farmland dominates along the basin, the farmland in the Zhangjiakou Yang River Basin is mainly irrigated by groundwater, and the SWAT model was built to model the hydrology of the basin, so that the percentage of agricultural groundwater recharge is higher overall. Of course, we did not measure the actual proportion of the part. 2. For WP1 - WP5 the five regions are divided mainly according to the different rainfall, the specific situation is shown in Figure 3, subsequently, if you need a more detailed description of the five regions, we can consider the list of instructions. 3. We will scrutinize the article and define all abbreviations. 4. For the calibration and validation of the model, we selected nine parameters, for the details of the parameters are shown in Table 1. we selected the discharge and PET of the hydrological stations for the validation of the accuracy of the model, the details are shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. 5. We focus on the relationship between recharge, runoff, and precipitation under the SSP5-8.5 scenario, and we can add specifics under the SSP2-4.5 scenario if needed. 6. Crops were not considered in this study for the time being, and we conducted a more general study; crops grown in the Yanghe River Basin in Zhangjiakou are dominated by maize and wheat, but we don't know the reality of irrigating crops with groundwater, so there are some difficulties in connecting crops to groundwater recharge. 7. For article formatting issues, we will refer specifically to the submission guidelines for detailed revisions, and thank you very much for the reviewer's warm tips! 8. Building the SWAT model requires more input data, and we have a more comprehensive set of relevant climate data for the two climate models, GFDL-CM4 and MRI-ESM2- 0, and the results of the data analyses show clear trends. Thank you again for the reviewer's comments, and thank you for your time and attention in reviewing our article, which we will carefully revise according to your valuable comments.

Dear Referee，

We feel great thanks for your professional questions and your attention to detail in our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. We have given due consideration to this, and our answers are set out below:

1.This study uses the SWAT hydrological model in conjunction with CMIP6 climate data. The aim of the study is to analyse the spatial and temporal variability of future climatic elements and agricultural groundwater recharge in the Yanghe River Basin and to further analyse the climatic and hydrological elements that drive groundwater recharge in agricultural fields, and the analysis does not focus on groundwater flow processes.

2. After certain analyses, past changes in land-use change between 1981 and 2025 were generally larger only in ten years, with fewer land-use changes in five years, which were ignored in view of the small impact on the results of the study.

3. Soil data sources were downloaded from the HWSD World Soil Database, but were subjected to, data cropping and projection, soil reclassification, and the creation of a soil database. Through Excel and GIS software, soil types were accounted for, reclassified and relevant attributes such as soil structure, bulk weight, and available water were calculated. Meanwhile, soil physical attributes were calculated and hydrological groupings were determined using SPAW software. Finally, a soil index table is created. Therefore, I question your statement that ‘this relatively coarse resolution may not be able to capture the spatial variability of soil properties in the study area’, but I believe that the processed soil data can reflect the soil properties of the study area.

4. We chose the calibration period (2000-2001) and the validation period (2002), but the specific time steps were days and months, and the indicators were chosen not only for export flows but also for PET, so that the model predictions have a certain degree of credibility.

5. The interpretation and clarity of some of the graphs and tables will be completed and further improved.

6. Regarding runoff, although it is mentioned in the text, according to the results of the study, precipitation is the main driver of groundwater in agricultural fields, and for regions with relatively high temperatures and low precipitation, groundwater recharge in agricultural fields decreases with increasing evapotranspiration. Runoff, on the other hand, accounts for only a small fraction of future net atmospheric water inputs and is not the part we focused on in this study.

Finally, thank you very much for your careful review of the manuscript and for your interest in this study. We have benefited greatly from your comments and will consider your suggestions for relevant changes. Thanks again.