Impact of Climate Change on Alpine Phenology over the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau from 1981 to 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see comments in the ms

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

see comments in the attached ms

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers,

We express our utmost gratitude for your recently received correspondence regarding our manuscript, "Impact of climate change on alpine phenology over the Qinghai Tibetan Plateau from 1981 to 2020" (ID: 'forests 2395580'). We greatly appreciate the insightful comments that you have provided, which are invaluable in enhancing the quality of our paper. We have thoroughly scrutinized each comment and incorporated the recommended modifications. Additionally, we have ensured that a colleague who is fluent in English writing has checked the language during the revision process. The primary corrections in the paper and the response to the reviewer’s comments are in uploaded word.

Point 1: Word spelling errorsin line 21.

Response 1: ‘Vegetion’ were fixed to ‘vegetation’.

Point 2: Formatting issues in the parts of ‘References’, ‘Figure name’.

Response 2: We fixed all of formatting issues. Please see lines 507-512, 515, 554, 350 and so on.

Point 3: Inaccurate wording or ambiguous phrase expressions in lines 17-20, 28, 29, 41, 44, 60-61, 64-65, 67-68, 77, 86-88, 93, 95-96, 98, 100, 102, 138, 151, 157, 175, 196, 235, 243, 251-252, 366, 382-383, 400-401.

Response 3: We have revised all of the inaccurate wording or ambiguous phrase expressions. Furthermore, we have undergone extensive English revisions for our manuscript.

Point 4: Reviewer 1 suggests that we should give number of years that go into these averages in line 125-128.

Response 4: The number of years were added. For details, see line 141.

Point 5: Reviewer 1 suggests that we should give a few references in line 173.

Response 5: we cited four papers about ANUSpline Meteorological interpolation. Please see lines 575-585.

Point 6: Abbreviations not explained in lines 56, 209, 305, 309-310.

Response 6: we explained the abbreviations in manuscript.

Point 7: Does 0.01% have any meaning? Please use a reasonable number of digits. I would think that c. 26% is more than enough.

Response 7: For all percentages, we leave out the decimal points in the text. in manuscript. For more information, please see lines 356, 360, 361, 366, 372, 374, 379, 381, 389, 390, 397.

Point 8: One should be able to read and understand table 1 without the text. This is not possible here.

Response 8: we explained the number meaning in table 1. Please lines 262-269.

Reviewer 2 Report

The study examines the Impact of climate change on alpine phenology over the Qinghai Tibetan Plateau from1981 to 2020. The study succeeds in interpretation of precipitation distribution. Overall, this research is potentially full of interest, as it addresses the relevant topic. Moreover, there is still a lack of examples of this type of research. I believe that the study is not drafted in a clear and intelligible fashion; the text is not well organized.

1.      The abstract is not drafted well and also there is spelling mistake of vegetation. The abstract should starts with background followed aims- brief methods-results-conclusion-future implications.

2.      Introduction section and literature review are combined. A distinction for the reader will aid in understanding.

3.      The authors spoke about the limitations of other studies, which are a part of LR, to show the gap. The manuscript will aid the readers if limitations of the present study and future research direction are suggested.

4.      Comprehensive research methodology followed for the research needs a distinct mention in the manuscript.

  Below are some comments that the authors may needs to address.

Major Issues

1. The manuscript is inserted as per MDPI template.
2. Why did the authors choose the data from 1981-2020 and not up to 2022?

 3. Limitations of the study need a mention in the abstract and the manuscript. Limitation needs a separate mention; however it is a part of discussion section.
4. The introduction section, apart from introducing the reader to the problem statement, needs an introduction on how the manuscript is arranged to understand the flow. More work is needed from the authors for the same.
- Why and how current practices will be impacted by understanding precipitation trends
- - what is the research worldwide talking about the same?
5. The precipitation tends should be explored season wise. Is there any shift in the precipitation trend of the summer, autumn, winter or spring seasons in the Qinghai Tibetan Plateau? Which season is more prone to drought? And specify the regions also.
This will help the manuscript to give more value addition to the readers.

Wish you luck

Moderate editing is required.

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers

We express our utmost gratitude for your recently received correspondence regarding our manuscript, "Impact of climate change on alpine phenology over the Qinghai Tibetan Plateau from 1981 to 2020" (ID: 'forests 2395580'). We greatly appreciate the insightful comments that you have provided, which are invaluable in enhancing the quality of our paper. We have thoroughly scrutinized each comment and incorporated the recommended modifications. Additionally, we have ensured that a colleague who is fluent in English writing has checked the language during the revision process. The primary corrections in the paper and the response to the reviewer’s comments are in the uploaded word.

Point 1: 1.The abstract is not drafted well and also there is spelling mistake of vegetation. The abstract should starts with background followed aims- brief methods-results-conclusion-future implications.

Response 1: We have revised the abstract following the recommended structure of background-objectives-methods-results-conclusions-and-future by the reviewer. All word spelling errors have been corrected.

Point 2: Introduction section and literature review are combined. A distinction for the reader will aid in understanding.

Response 2: We have made a distinction between these two parts in the introduction section of the manuscript.

Point 3: The authors spoke about the limitations of other studies, which are a part of LR, to show the gap. The manuscript will aid the readers if limitations of the present study and future research direction are suggested.

Response 3: We have duly addressed the concerns raised by the reviewer here. Specifically, we have included the shortcomings of the research and suggested potential future directions to advance the research reported in our paper.

Point 4: Comprehensive research methodology followed for the research needs a distinct mention in the manuscript.

Response 4: We have updated the abstract and conclusion sections to include an explanation of the study methods.

Point 5: The manuscript is inserted as per MDPI template.

Response 5: The manuscript was formatted using the MDPI template.

Point 6: Why did the authors choose the data from 1981-2020 and not up to 2022?

Response 6:  In the manuscript, we used as many long-term meteorologic and remote sensing data as are currently available to explore how the QTP's phenology responds to climate change. For various reasons, our study period was limited by the unavailability of temperature and precipitation data collected from meteorological stations in 2021-2022. We hope to update the time series dataset when such data, and even more, becomes available from the relevant weather stations.

Point 7: Limitations of the study need a mention in the abstract and the manuscript. Limitation needs a separate mention; however it is a part of discussion section.

Response 7: One of the study's limitations is that climatic driving forces cannot adequately explain the altering trends in vegetation phenology, as pointed out in the abstract and text.

Point 8: The introduction section, apart from introducing the reader to the problem statement, needs an introduction on how the manuscript is arranged to understand the flow. More work is needed from the authors for the same.

- Why and how current practices will be impacted by understanding precipitation trends

- - what is the research worldwide talking about the same?

Response 8:  In light of the reviewer's observations, we have revised the introduction and specifically stated that the study's main focus was to understand the effects of climate change on vegetation phenology across the QTP. For clarity, we summarize the study's objectives, methods, and data at the end of the introduction.

Point 9: The precipitation tends should be explored season wise. Is there any shift in the precipitation trend of the summer, autumn, winter or spring seasons in the Qinghai Tibetan Plateau? Which season is more prone to drought? And specify the regions also.

This will help the manuscript to give more value addition to the readers.

Response 9:  The article separated the precipitation into time periods and geographic regions. The spatial division showed drought was more likely in areas with delayed greening and prolonged growth length. As reported in our study, the temporal division enabled us to understand the trends of single-month precipitation, two-month cumulative precipitation, seasonal precipitation, and four-month cumulative precipitation. This information was illustrated in Figure 1 and Table 1.