Vegetation Greening and Its Response to a Warmer and Wetter Climate in the Yellow River Basin from 2000 to 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, authors conducted a survey on vegetation greening and its response to warm and humid climate in the Yellow River Basin from 2000 to 2020, the relative contributions of climate change and human activities to vegetation greening were also quantitatively assessed. and obtained interesting research results, the results confirmed that human activity images had a greater impact on vegetation greening in the Yellow River basin than climate change. After careful review, I think the revised article can be published, but there are a few small problems that need to be explained clearly.

1. As the authors mentioned: the small number of meteorological stations, the exclusion of other climatic factors, and the need for more detailed aspects of anthropogenic disturbances. So I suggest author try to using ERA reanalysis data to replace observation meteorological station.

2. Climate change is a natural process, and vegetation has automatic adaptability, and the change will not be drastic. The author mentioned that vegetation greening and temperature are negatively correlated, but this view is not necessarily correct. Appropriate precipitation and temperature are the reasons for promoting vegetation greening together.

3. In 20 years, the vegetation itself will grow and add more branches, so there will be more leaves, so I think you should also compare the changes in vegetation area.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article investigates the response of vegetation to climate variables. It is an interesting approach to coupling remote sensing indices and climate data from ground-based meteorological stations. The outputs are useful for policy-making and management. However, some revisions are listed below to increase scientific soundness and give the readers a wider view of the topic.

In the introduction, it would be beneficial to highlight the temporal variation of hydrometeorological variables, particularly emphasizing the examined time step and its implications for the drought regime in vegetated areas, taking into account vegetation phenology (https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology10080167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128605)

Additionally, incorporating recent studies (https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15133360, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1727) that explore various spectral indices for detecting vegetation response to water stress would strengthen the introduction.

It has been observed that the Introduction and Material and Methods sections share the same chapter number (1), and it is recommended to rectify this numbering issue.

To improve the readability of figures, consider increasing the font size in the legend of all figures and the coordinates frame.

Including a table that provides details on data sources, formats, and data availability for all the data used in this research would enhance transparency.

Authors are encouraged to briefly justify their choice of the applied statistical test in the Material and Methods section, accompanied by relevant literature documentation.

In the conclusion, it is suggested to avoid presenting an extended abstract and, instead, clearly summarize the main outputs of the current approach, highlighting their significance for policy-making and management.

These revisions aim to contribute to the overall scientific rigor, clarity, and completeness of the article, ensuring that readers gain a more comprehensive understanding of the research.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1.     This paper studies vegetation greening and its response to climate changes in the Yellow River Basin from 2000 to 2020. The paper provides useful information that has practical significance.

2.     The paper is generally written well. Some mistakes and clarifications, though, should be addressed, as mentioned below.

3.     All the section title numbering is wrong. There are duplicated section titles 1.; 1.1; 1.1.1, which is repeated several times.

4.     Please define “p” used in the M-K test to help the reader understand it. What’s the practical meaning of 0.05?

5. In Table 1, it is 100 v.s. 0. How about the situations in between?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor editing is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the article and now can be published