Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is necessary to write the full names for all abbreviations in your abstract (like NDVI, MGWR...)

2. Why did you use the MGWR? Did you find any scale effects of the relationships you discussed in previous studies?

3. If you discussed Figure S1 and S2, you should insert them as normal figures. 

4. Add an explanation to Figure 10. What correlation analysis did you conduct to generate Figure 10? Why is it a spatial map?

5. Why are MGWR results in the discussion section?  Why didn't you show the summary of the results? For MGWR, the different bandwidth is an important output. Why there are no coefficient maps?  Did you consider significant estimates? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript (forests-2800629) investigates the impact of extreme climate events on vegetation in the Yellow River Basin from 2000 to 2020, revealing a significant increase in extreme weather patterns and their substantial influence on vegetation, especially in grasslands. This highlights the increase in extreme precipitation and temperature over 21 years and the increase in the annual vegetation index, which occurred predominantly in southern regions. This research underscores the crucial interaction between extreme climate conditions and vegetation, offering valuable insights for environmental conservation strategies.

The authors have done a good job with this manuscript. The sections are suitable, but corrections are still necessary to make the manuscript fit for publication, especially regarding the description of the captions, and to clarify whether the objectives and hypotheses were effectively met.

All captions with figures and tables should be rewritten and improved in terms of their descriptions. They should reflect all the elements that appear and be self-descriptive and explanatory.

I think the authors could explain better the negative values, even though they are normalised indices, but what is the real interpretation of the data? A higher or lower value does not indicate the potential of the analyses.

The authors mention a supplementary figure, but I do not have these data available for analysis, or is it a writing error?

In the results section, the authors need to clearly indicate when they refer to tables, figures, and which data are related to both. There is a series of values, but I cannot visualise them clearly. Could you rewrite and indicate?

What do the abbreviations throughout the manuscript mean? Especially in the map images? Describe in the legend.

Why do the authors focus on linear models when apparently the adjustments would be better in an exponential or logarithmic model?

In the discussion section, the authors need to improve consistency. For example, what were the advances in relation to the analyses and models previously constructed in other localities? Are they applied and correlated with those you found? There is a very strong description of the data but without theoretical and referential grounding supporting these discoveries. For example, in the discussion, the authors do not state whether the data were or were not associated with other models. Additionally,  were the objectives and hypotheses achieved or refuted? Make this clear!

Some questions:

Data limitations and impact on findings: The manuscript acknowledges potential limitations due to data sources, especially the impact of clouds and haze on remote sensing data. How might these limitations have specifically affected the findings, particularly in terms of the accuracy of the NDVI measurements?

Interpolation Method Variability: This study mentioned that different interpolation methods can yield varying outcomes. What specific interpolation methods were used in this study, and how might other methods have influenced the results differently?

Urbanisation and climate change effects: This research focused on the impact of extreme climate change (ECC) on vegetation but did not explore the combined effects of urbanisation and climate change in depth. How might urbanisation in the Yellow River Basin interact with ECC to influence vegetation patterns?

Comparative analysis with other regions: While the present study provides detailed findings for the Yellow River Basin, there are limited comparisons with other similar regions. How do the trends and findings in the Yellow River Basin compare to those in other environmentally sensitive or fragile areas globally?

Future Research Directions: The conclusion of this study suggests that future research should prioritise a more thorough investigation of extreme climate events. What specific aspects of extreme climate events would be most beneficial to explore in future studies, and what methodologies might be employed to address these aspects effectively?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Check grammar, especially in longer sentences and paragraphs. Some redundancy and verbosity occur.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for responding to my comments and incorporating my suggestions. The manuscript has improved and is now suitable for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor corrections

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestion. The manuscript has been accepted by MDPI's official polishing service and has been revised and resubmitted.