Expansion of Treeline in North China and Its Relationship with Altitude Sensitivity Gradient of Larix gmelinii

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the research work and manuscript is really interesting and provides new information. However there are some issues to be addressed towards its quality improvement.

Try to add more plain words as key words.

In line 50, the "are warming" needs improvement. In several cases, spaces are missing from the text, add space also between the value and celsius unit or other units (m etc.).

In line 51, do you mean indeed "altitude" or "longitude", which are 2 different things, since the sentence does not make sense to me.

In line 60, please add as well the relevant study of https://doi.org/10.3390/f13060879 .

In lines 68-70, explain in which way it is different?

In line 90, the word "sits" needs improvement. Instead of annual rings, you better use "growth" rings.

In line 490, the "from positive to negative" is not very clear since it refers to "sensitivity".

In line 159, the "to examine to association" needs improvement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors address an important issue of the mountain forest well being in response to climate change parameters - temperature an precipitation. They suggest that the increase in temperature forces the treeline to expand to higher elevations. However, the same temperature increase reduces the forest growth at lower elevations having an adverse effect on trees.

The research looks interesting. There are couple places in the manuscript that can be made clearer:

It is not clear why the timberline formed at the specific height. The forest was affected by fire at many altitudes, but the regeneration was faster at the different ones. What would be the reason for it?

It seems that the suggested applications of the findings is too broad. The meteorological conditions up-slope the mountain and along the latitudes are different in both temperature and precipitation and can't easily replicate one another as it is suggested. 

Sincerely,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

As I have checked the authors have implemented the proposed changes in the revised verion of manuscript towards the improvement of their work. Almost all the changes have been implemented and in my opinion, the manuscript is well-prepared and organized enough to be accepted for publication in this journal. I remain at your disposal for any clarification.