Dry and Wet Changes and Vegetation Time-Delay Responses in Western China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors analyzed the cross-correlation between dry and wet changes and vegetation responses in western China from the spatial scale. Overall, this is a very interesting study. The study methodology is feasible, the design is scientifically sound and the results are reliable. But there are rooms for improvement before it is published.

 

1. The abstract is not a plain list of the findings of the study, but a logical presentation of the main findings and conclusions. It is recommended that the abstract be substantially revised.

2. The language needs further revision, with inconsistent tenses and inaccurate expressions in several places.

3. The format of the references in the text does not conform to the requirements of the journal and it is recommended that they be changed in line with the requirements of the journal.

4. The progress of the study needs a lot of logical adjustments. 1) It is presented in 2-3 paragraphs; 2) It is recommended to further systematize the existence of gaps in dry and wet research in western China. 3) Then the innovation of this study needs to be highlighted.

5. Data sources lack key web sites or references.

6. Maximum synthesis method and Pearson correlation analysis are missing key references.

7. Figure 2 is barely legible. It is suggested that the full text be referenced in eps format in high resolution to increase readability.

8. Section 3.1. It’s better to move ‘the description of the Western China sub-region and the areas included’ to the study area section (Section 2.1).

9. Figure 1 shows that the meteorological stations in the study area are spatially unevenly distributed, which can cause errors in the spatial interpolation of the data. It is recommended that this point be mentioned in the discussion.

10. In the Results section, the authors make multiple references to correlations reaching significant levels. Has it been tested for significance and is the significance at the 0.05 or 0.01 level? How was this achieved?

 

11. The conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper. A conclusion is not merely a summary of the main topics covered or a re-statement of your research problem, but a synthesis of key points and, if applicable, where you recommend new areas for future research. Suggestions for rewriting the conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim of this study is to analyze the cross-correlation between dry and wet changes and vegetation responses in western China from the spatial scale. This manuscript is well organized and the drawn conclusions are coherent with the obtained results. The references should be updated to include more recent studies.

Lines 7 – 8: To use a sentence to introduce the topic of your study.

Lines 30 - 31: To arrange the keywords alphabetically.

Lines 58 – 62: To better describe your hypotheses and predictions.

Lines 74 - 75: I think that you should add these important and recent references as examples to support your sentence: “The Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC warns that 35 climate change is already causing substantial damage and increasingly irreversible losses in terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and distant Marine ecosystems”. I would like to suggest:

Ali, H., et al. (2021). Expanding or shrinking? range shifts in wild ungulates under climate change in Pamir-Karakoram mountains, Pakistan. PloS one, 16(12), e0260031.

Osland, M. J., et al. (2021). Tropicalization of temperate ecosystems in North America: The northward range expansion of tropical organisms in response to warming winter temperatures. Global Change Biology, 27(13), 3009-3034.

Lines 75 – 76: The legend in  figure is unreadable.

Line 121: To delete “Methods”. You already are in the “Materials and Methods” section.

Lines 169 – 175: Is IDW the best method for interpolation analysis?

Lines 177 – 386 : You cannot write all the results in bullet. It is not correct!

 

Lines 388 – 412 : To greatly expand on this section of the manuscript.  You must discuss your findings, comparing them to previously published results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

 

The manuscript is entitled " Dry-wet change and vegetation delay response in western China”. Manuscript Number atmosphere-2039921. Generally, it is an interesting approach emphasizing the interaction between aridity index and vegetation type or precipitation distribution in western China. However, the manuscript is required to be revised before being considered for publication since it displays several points that need to be improved, clarified, supported, and rephrased. However, a gap in methodology with data analyses has been identified, and it is suggested to create a sub-sector in chapter 2 with the current methodology. The introduction should include the scope of this effort. In a nutshell, the article touches upon an interesting subject of the water resources sector through the lens of the climate approach of natural resources and it is clearly related to the scope of the Atmosphere Journal. However, the quality of this work could be further improved by addressing the abovementioned points. Thus, I suggest reconsidering after major revision.

 

General comment:

The manuscript aimed to propose a modern methodology to correlate remote and climatic data that would emphasize enhancing the NDVI and the aridity index of the study areas with different climatic zones. The most general critical comment is that the study is missing the common period between the remote (1982 – 2015) and climatic data (1960 – 2017). Thus, it is essential to recalculate in the same period to compare the final inputs. In addition, there are some problematic points. For example, the correct name of the index is the aridity index against the humid index. Based on the final maps (figures 3 – 9) the correlations are low, and it is proposed to include different indices (NWDI, EVI, SPI, SPEI) and various statistic parameters (root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), mean bias error (MBE)) to examine the variabilities in study areas. However, I suggest improving the discussion and comparing it with similar articles in similar conditions harmonized with the new additions. Also, it is suggested to avoid using the first person "we" because it generally creates less formal language. An additional comment is to include a part of chapter 2 for the case study presentation (demographic, land use, data). In addition, I propose that the author create a diagram/flowchart with the methodology steps to help potential readers.

 

Specific comments

Line 11: please change the word paper with effort or similar

It is suggested to increase the introduction sector with similar works (aridity index, dryness, remote sensing indices, land use changes etc.)

Figures.: please increase the quality of these maps

Include a table with the rain gauges’ data (basic statistics, coords, elevations) in the appendix

It is proposed to include a figure with the NDVI maps for the investigated decades.

Author Response

Please see the attachment．

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has made extensive changes to the manuscript and has responded well to the comments. I think it reaches the quality of Atmosphere and is ready for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Well done!