Drought Resistance of Desert Riparian Forests: Vegetation Growth Index and Leaf Physiological Index Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, congratulations on your research, I appreciate your results. A well-structured paper. Overall, a complex work, the analysis involving a number of important and varied components for the final conclusion. The results obtained presented in tables, figures and diagrams are quite relevant to the proposed research and analysis. The conclusions are supported by the analyzes done, complementing the existing information in this field.
Recommendations:
Line 134 - 2.2. Field monitoring data - it is not italic
Table 2 - Poaannua / Poa annua
Line 419 - Conclusion or conclusions?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled "Drought Resistance of Desert riparian Forests: Vegetation Growth Index and Leaf Physiological Indexes Approach" aimed to answer how the distribution pattern and growth indicators of natural vegetation as well as the physiological indicators of P. eufratica are altered under different growth conditions, based on the results of field surveys and monitoring. This study analyzes the survivability of vegetation in the riparian desert forest. In addition, the results of this study will also be useful for the implementation of ecological protection in the green sector downstream of the Hotan River basin.
Thus, here are some comments that should be considered for a better presentation of the manuscript.
ABSTRACT: the abstract should be restructured, I suggest a brief introduction with justification that addresses the importance of the research, clear presentation of the objectives, methodological synthesis, main results and conclusions.
INTRODUCTION: the justification of the study was presented in an appropriate way, with the highlights and hypothesis evidenced in the text, which facilitated the understanding of the research objectives.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
2.1. Overview of the study area
I suggest that the authors present the climatic classification of the study site according to Köppen (Line 116 to 123).
2.3. Calculation of vegetation growth index
The authors report ANOVA as the technique used for data analysis and, between lines 169 to 172, they report the use of CFD. I suggest a broader detail that justifies the use of the data analysis technique and the use of CFD.
RESULTS
Some points in the methodology generated expectations, however they were not addressed in this topic, such as the application of CFD as support for ANOVA. Adjust the methodological aspects or present the results achieved with the use of the technique.
DISCUSSION
In the discussions, the authors could compare the results found with other monitoring techniques such as applied remote sensing, highlighting advantages and disadvantages of the methods employed.
I suggest that the authors, based on the results achieved, highlight some mitigating measures that can help minimize the problem addressed.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions meet the proposed objectives and the results found.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very interesting, well-written manuscript and focuses on a topic of sure interest for the readership of Sustainability journal. It is generally well structured. However, it has some unclear issues. Please see the following list of general and specific comments:
General comments:
1. The objective and the novelty of this paper should be addressed in the Introduction.
2. Some more relative references should be added in the section of Introduction.
Reduction in leaf size at higher altitudes across 39 broad-leaved herbaceous species on the northeastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau.
The salinization process and its response to the combined processes of climate change–human activity in the Yellow River Delta between 1984 and 2022
3. Please check the code of equation according to the Sustainability journal requirement.
4. Line 102, the references format is not correct, please revise it.
5. Figure 1, please reproduced the CHINA image.
6. In Figure 4, please explain the sub-(a)、（b）、（c）、（d）.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript deals with the diversity and ecological distribution of vegetation on both sides of a river that crosses a desert, completed with measurement of some physiological parameters. All of this influenced by edaphic moisture. This study is of great interest because of its contribution to the knowledge of conservation of this type of habitats, which are being degraded due to human activity and climate change.
The manuscript is well structured and written. The bibliography is very up-to-date. The Introduction, Results and Discussion sections are sufficiently developed. However, the methodology is not novel and its description is incomplete, so that it needs to include some more details. Moreover, there are some aspects of the Results section that should be reviewed. Also, particular comments are highlighted in color in the attached file.
Therefore, I recommend this manuscript for publication but after a revision taking into account the reviewer comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript "Drought Resistance of Desert Riparian Forests: Vegetation Growth and Leaf Physiological Indexes" aims to investigate alterations in distribution patterns and growth indicators of natural vegetation, as well as physiological indicators of P. Eufratica, under varying growing conditions. This study analyzes vegetation survivability in the desert riparian forest by utilizing field surveys and monitoring results. Furthermore, the findings of this study can aid in the implementation of ecological conservation measures in the downstream green sector of the Hotan River basin. The manuscript has been revised, and the provided suggestions have been taken into consideration. It is my conviction that this work should be continued.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have reviewed and improved the manuscript taking into account the reviewers' suggestions. Therefore, I recommend this manuscript for publication but after a revision taking into account the reviewer comments.
Minor comments:
- Line 228: Replace “oven-dried at 800 °C” by “oven-dried at 80 °C”
- Lines 423-424: According to the authors´response “Thank you for your comments. Yes, it refer to medium VS3 and exuberant VS1. We revised the above sentence in the main manuscript” But in the new version of the manuscript, in lines 423-424, the sentence has not been revised. Please check it.
- Figure 6: Authors´response “Thank you for your reminder/comments. We revised all the statements made for Figure 6. And we really realized that there were some flaws, which were being corrected and certified now in the main manuscript.” OK, but Figure 6 must be revised and replaced, since the same figure 6 appears in the new version of the manuscript as in the previous version.
o On the one hand, the values shown in figure 6 in the graph on the right do not correspond to Chla/b. For example, if we consider VS1, the approximate values of Chla and Chlab are, respectively, 0.70 and 0.18 mg/g. So, in theory, Chla/b should have a value close to 3.9 (0.7/0.18=3.9). However, Figure 6 shows for VS1 a very different value of Chla/b=0.45. There is something wrong. Please check it. In addition, in this graph on the right, the units “mg/g” must be removed, since Chla/b has not units.
o On the other hand, since Chlt = Chla + Chlb, then for VS3 there is an error, since approximately Chla = 0.11 and Chlb = 0.22, while Chlt = 1.25. Please check it and modify figure 6. I think the error could be in the Chla value for VS3.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
