Direct and Legacy Effects of Spring Temperature Anomalies on Seasonal Productivity in Northern Ecosystems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Noting several issues with grammar, I stopped reading at by page five. I suggest sending it back to the authors for a more carefully edited manuscript.
Here is an example of what I found:
Line 55-56: Earlier research in this area have has utilized
Line 61: Citation needed to support the statement: “Moreover, NDVI is often acclaimed to misrepresent non-linear nature of vegetation responses, and thus regarded less efficient to be a proxy of GPP. “
Line 66: Citation needed for “Among these products, GOSIF-GPP, NIRv-GPP and FluxSat-GPP, based on solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF), canopy near-infrared reflectance, eddy flux and satellite fusion respectively, are shown better to reflect photosynthetic activities.”
77 anomalies? (2) How does each biome respond to these direct and lagged effects?
Line 80-81: awkward sentence and the question mark is not needed “In this study, environmental drivers only consider warming and drought related variables, that is, temperature, soil moisture and VPD.?”
Starting in section 2.2: spell out all acronyms the first time used.
Staring on line 124, awkward sentence/improper grammer: Compared GOSIF-GPP to GPP retrieved from 91 FLUXNET tier1 flux sites (https://fluxnet.org/data/fluxnet2015-dataset/) of Eddy-Covariance (EC) measurements an overall correlation between the two is R2=0.71 (p < 0.001).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks for your comments. We have addressed all of your comments and provided a revised manuscript. We look forward to seeing your feedback.
best regards,
Wenxin
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the subject of this study is interesting for readers and contributes to the enrichment of knowledge related to the role of climate on the vegetation in the northern areas. The manuscript is well structured; however, I recommend reviewing it before it is published.
The introduction chapter does not provide enough background. Please include more revealed studies related to this topic!
L62-66: Please provide information on studies in which these products have been analyzed.
The methods and data chapter does not provide information on other studies in which this methodology has been applied. The methods used are not new. Please refer to previous studies!
L141: Why did the analysis stop in 2018?
Also, in the discussion chapter, the authors discuss the results obtained, but the interpretation from the perspective of previous studies is weakly highlighted.
L202-341: Please mention if the discussed aspects are found in other studies! The two references [25, 26] are not enough for all the issues discussed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks for your comments. We have addressed all of your comments and provided a revised manuscript. We look forward to seeing your feedback.
best regards,
Wenxin
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article “Direct and legacy effects of spring temperature anomalies on seasonal productivity in northern ecosystems” access the correlation between spring temperature and gross primary production (GPP) anomalies of spring, summer and autumn during 2001-2018. The authors also evaluate legacy relationship between GPP and others drivers (air temperature, soil moisture (SM) and vapor pressure deficit (VPD)) with GPP anomalies of the following seasons. The analysis was carried out at north of 30ºN latitude considering 12 terrestrial biomes. GPP data used came from three different products (GOSIF-GPP, NIRv-GPP and FluxSat-GPP).
The draft is in general well. The work has the importance of studying the spatial and temporal relationships between temperature anomalies and GPP of different biomes present north of the 30ºN latitude, also considering variables associated with droughts (HS and VPD), in a context of climate change. The organization of the manuscript is correct.
The principal concern is about the use of SM variable without specifying the depth on which was estimated, particularly if we taking in account that different biomes (eg. forests or grasslands) have different roots length and, consequently, can intake soil water from different depths. This topic also can be considered in discussion (L314:320)
Minor comments are highlighted in the draft.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks for your comments. We have addressed all of your comments and provided a revised manuscript. We look forward to seeing your feedback.
best regards,
Wenxin
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have fully addressed the issues you mentioned, can you please review our response and the revised text again?
Thanks very much for your time.
Best regards,
Wenxin and Hanna
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
