Phenological Response of an Evergreen Broadleaf Tree, Quercus acuta, to Meteorological Variability: Evaluation of the Performance of Time Series Models
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Suggest supplementing with some sample photos taken by the camera.
2. Suggest providing a detailed supplement on how to calculate the GCC index.
3. It is suggested to divide the results section into two subsections.
4. Why was the cubic spline method chosen for the interpolation of GCC data?
5. If not for space constraints, it is suggested to place the figures from the appendix in the corresponding sections of the main text.
6. The conclusion and abstract cannot be exactly the same.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language needs further polishing.
Author Response
comments 1: Suggest supplementing with some sample photos taken by the camera.
response 1: Thank you for your good suggestion, we presented sample photo taken by the our phenocam. (p.3)
comments 2: Suggest providing a detailed supplement on how to calculate the GCC index.
response 2: We appreciate your suggestion; we provided a formula for calculating the GCC index and additional information. (p.2)
comments 3: It is suggested to divide the results section into two subsections.
response 3: As you suggested, we divided the results section into two parts. (p.4)
comments 4: Why was the cubic spline method chosen for the interpolation of GCC data?
response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, we chose the cubic spline interpolation method because this method is generally more robust for unequally spaced points compared to many other interpolation methods. (p.3)
comments 5: If not for space constraints, it is suggested to place the figures from the appendix in the corresponding sections of the main text.
response 5: We believe our manuscript contains too many figures, and Figures 4 and A1 present duplicate information. Moreover, Figure A2 provides diagnostic details of the SARIMAX model, which are not critical to the main focus of this study. Thank you for your opinion.
comments 6: The conclusion and abstract cannot be exactly the same.
response 6: We appreciate your suggestion; we revised the abstract as you recommended. (p.1)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI found presented research as of a high quality and almost ready to publish. I detected only a few errors or unclear points in some sentences (see attached text). Besides I am not sure if some figures really should be moved to the appendix. In my opinion it would be better to see it inside chapters.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
comments 1: minor comments in terms of grammarly or terms.
response 1: We appreciate your comments, we have made the corrections to all the sentences as you recommended.
comments 2: I am not sure if some figures really should be moved to the appendix. In my opinion it would be better to see it inside chapters.
response 2: We believe our manuscript contains too many figures, and Figures 4 and A1 present duplicate information. Moreover, Figure A2 provides diagnostic details of the SARIMAX model, which are not critical to the main focus of this study. Thank you for your opinion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript (MS) presents an experience of using a ground-based automated facility to register the seasonal development of an ever-green forest. The data received were treated with time series models.
In principle, the study presents interest and will find the readership in the journal. The MS is written by quite a clear language and the logic is mostly quite easy to follow. However, some clarifications as well as fixing of minor shortcomings are necessary before the MS may be recommended for a publication.
General comments
I. In the Abstract, it is necessary to give a short idea of what GCC is physically because abstracts may be read alone. In the Methods (l. 75), a more explanation of GCC will be helpful for the reader.
II. In the Methods, it is necessary to give the distance at which the camera registered the canopy parameters. This may be interesting for readership.
III. l. 161-163 Although observed GCC time series had higher similarities with temperature variables, the trend component, which removed seasonal and random components, showed higher similarities with humidity and precipitation variables -> As far as I understand, the trend component is an inherent part of the observed GCC values. So, it looks a bit strange to discuss the difference between GCC values and the trend component. This should be clarified.
IV. l. 178-185 -> Hmax was introduced as a factor but never discussed in the fragment.
V. In the Discussion, the limitations of the study presented should be given more space. What the authors call 'phenology', 'phenology data' is only a small fragment of what phenology is. The authors measure only one spectral (green) component of the forest canopy, which makes the study similar to remote satellite-based sensing. Real phenology includes much more biological parameters, such as start of sap flow, bud burst, flowering onset etc. So, the use of the term 'phenology' is not quite exact and may mislead the readership.
Minor comments
l. 18 -> It's a standard to provide the Latin with the names of authors at the first appearance in the text.
l. 64 -> supports?
l. 87 -> was apart from the... ?
l. 167-168 -> The sentence should be clarified. Similar---what with what?
l. 188-195 -> It looks like wrong font was applied.
l. 213 -> Citing format is incorrect.
l. 242-244 -> The sentence should be corrected. It sounds so that humidity showed a trend similar to precipitation ('to each other').
Author Response
comments 1: it is necessary to give a short idea of what GCC is physically in abstract and methods
response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, we mentioned the GCC value in terms of the tree’s physiological aspects. (p.1, 2)
comments 2: it is necessary to give the distance at which the camera registered the canopy parameters
response 2: We appreciate your suggestion; we mentioned the distance from the camera to ROI. (p.2)
comments3: it looks a bit strange to discuss the difference between GCC values and the trend component. This should be clarified.
response 3: GCC values refer to the observed GCC data that does not decompose. The time series data exhibit strong seasonality and unexplained randomness, making it difficult to identify the long-term trend. For this reason, we decomposed each time series into its components (p.4). As you suggested, we mentioned the meaning of the trend and seasonality in detail (p.5).
comments4: Hmax was introduced as a factor but never discussed in the fragment.
response 4: We appreciate your suggestion, we mentioned the Hmax in the results (p.6)
comments 5: The limitations of the study presented should be given more space.
response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, we revised the further study and the limitations of the study specifically. (p.6)
comments 6: The use of the term 'phenology' is not quite exact and may mislead the readership.
response 6: We appreciate your suggestion and have revised the term 'phenology' to 'phenocam data' to avoid potential misinterpretation by readers.
comments 7: minor comments in terms of grammarly or terms.
response 7: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have made the corrections to all the sentences as you recommended.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll questions have been answered clearly, and the revisions have been made appropriately. At present, I believe the article has effectively demonstrated the selection and evaluation of methods for forest phenology analysis, providing guidance for future research.
Author Response
comments 1: All questions have been answered clearly, and the revisions have been made appropriately. At present, I believe the article has effectively demonstrated the selection and evaluation of methods for forest phenology analysis, providing guidance for future research.
response 1: Thank you for your opinion
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to recommend it for a publication. I have no more issues to mention.
I only ask the authors to pay attention to lines 107-109 where obviously wrong font is applied.
Author Response
comments 1: I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to recommend it for a publication. I have no more issues to mention.
response 1: Thank you for your opinion
comments 2: I only ask the authors to pay attention to lines 107-109 where obviously wrong font is applied.
response 2: We appreciate your comments, we have made the corrections to the sentences as you recommended.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
