Vegetation Growth Carryover and Lagged Climatic Effect at Different Scales: From Tree Rings to the Early Xylem Growth Season

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript (MS) explores quite an interesting topic of lagged effects on tree ring growth. The material involved is abundant and the methods are powerful. It is commendable that the authors clearly indicate the possible uncertainties. The MS will find readership of those interested in dendrochronology and forest growth areas.

However, the MS requires quite a deal of amendments, mostly minor though.

General comments

l. 137 -> It is pertinent to specify which correlation coefficients are used.

l. 177 -> What were the directions of the cores' extraction? Random, cardinal directions?

l. 198 -> It should be explained why the analysis period was set to 1982-2022 when much longer periods were available.

Figure 7, 8 -> It should be explained how the significance of the peaks was found. Some peaks are rather tiny.

Minor comments

l. 14-16 -> The sentence requires editing.

l. 17, 99 -> It's a standard that the Latin names should appear together with the names of their nomenclators at the first appearance in the text.

l. 29, 45, 47, 188 -> Probably, punctuation problem.

l. 53, 55, 68, 71 -> Please, correct the citing format.

l. 100 -> Italics relevant?

l. 105-112 -> The paragraph should be formatted as a paragraph per objectives.

l. 137, 259 -> Brackets unnecessary.

l. 159 annual -> monthly? Otherwise, the precipitation is too low.

l. 174 -> Latin in italics?

Figure 2. -> Legend doesn't match the caption, 'Average high temperature' vs 'average maximum temperature' etc.

Figure 3. -> (a),(b),(c) should be reflected in the caption. The term 'Sample depth' should be explained.

l. 231-232, 282-283, 545-546 -> Sentence is not complete.

l. 234 and throughout the text: the early of growth season of xylem -> 'early' is usually used as adjective, not as noun, so 'the early of' is confusing. Probably, you mean 'the early xylem growth season' (l. 376). If yes, this should be consistently corrected throughout the text.

l. 236 VS -> V-S?

l. 240-246, 294-307 -> Please, use (1) indications for numbered lists.

Figure 4 -> Please, use one font for all indications. The caption requires editing, Figure 4 is not the part of the sentence.

l. 326-327 -> Chinese commas.

l. 332 ii -> i?

l. 348-350 -> Probably, it's better to place it after the formula.

Formula (3) -> σ are not explained.

l. 404, 427 -> What does it mean - 'measured in years', 'measured in seasonal units'? Why not simply 'dimensionless indices'?

l. 475 Under -> under?

l. 493 - Bold face relevant?

l. 538, 588 -> It may be more pertinent to write the names of the authors, not just [].

l. 539 -> Please, edit the title of the subsection without 'To understand'.

l. 541 -> due

l. 558 -> Please, edit the beginning of the sentence.

l. 582 -> previous 

l. 586 temperatures, under -> temperatures. Under?

l. 595 (ab) -> (b)?

l. 603 continuation -> carryover?

l. 613 -> under

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English requires moderate editing.

Author Response

Response to reviewer comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your letter and for the constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript entitled “Vegetation growth carryover and lagged climatic effect at different scales: from tree rings to the early xylem growth season” (ID: forests-3691326). We sincerely appreciate your clear and detailed feedback. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made the corresponding revisions, which we hope fully address the concerns raised.

To facilitate the response to each suggestion, we will first re-enter your suggestion in italic orange font as the title, the specific modification positions are marked in red font, then provide our response to each suggestion and question (blue font represents the “revision strategy” and “response”, and black font represents the “revised results”).

All suggestions and questions have been revised in the manuscript. Our responses to the suggestions and questions raised are as follows.

1. L137 -> It is pertinent to specify which correlation coefficients are used.

Revision Strategy:

Dear reviewer, thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we will delete L137 and incorporate this part into "2.2.2. Tree-ring material", thanks again for your valuable comments.

Revised Result:

(Please see the 2.2.2. Tree-ring material)

A standard deviation (SD) and mean sensitivity (MS) greater than 0.193 indicate a strong climatic influence on vegetation growth. The sparse distribution and low canopy density of J. seravschanica result in low values for the mean correlation coefficient among all series (R1) and the mean correlation coefficient between trees (R2). Sample depth represents the number of samples available for each year. According to the Sub Sample Signal (SSS), when the value in the early chronology exceeds the threshold of 0.85, this period can be used to represent the climatic signal of the sampling site. The effective time periods of the chronologies were determined as KZB (1896–2023), ZTW (1846–2023), and DWZ (1929–2023) (Table 1 and Fig. 3). The Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of ZTW is higher than that of KZB and DWZ, indicating that ZTW contains more climatic information. The regional representativeness of tree-ring chronologies was evaluated using the Expressed Population Signal (EPS), where an EPS value>0.85 indicates reliable regional representativeness. The EPS values of all three sampling sites exceeded this threshold Table 1, confirming the reliability of our chronology data. In this study, GIMMS remote sensing phenology data were used to validate the results simulated by the V-S model. To ensure the reliability of the V-S model data, the tree-ring data were truncated to the period of 1982-2022, so as to align the time with the remote sensing data.

Table 1 Main characteristic parameters of tree ring width standardized chronology

2. L177 -> What were the directions of the cores' extraction? Random, cardinal directions?

Revision Strategy:

Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to the direction of tree core extraction. This study employed two mutually perpendicular directions for extracting tree cores. Sampling in these mutually perpendicular directions can meet the analysis requirements of tree ring indicators. We have revised the expressions in the article.

Revised Result:

(Please see to the 2.2.1)

For each tree, two core samples are collected at breast height using a growth increment borer with an inner diameter of 10 mm from mutually perpendicular directions.

3. L198 -> It should be explained why the analysis period was set to 1982-2022 when much longer periods were available.

Revision Strategy:

Dear Reviewer: Thank you for your meticulous observation of our research data. The core objective of our study is to conduct a cross-analysis of early wood growth data and tree-ring data using V-S model data and the maximum NDVI month, in order to reveal the correlation between climate and vegetation. We used GIMMS remote sensing phenological data to verify the reliability and stability of the V-S model simulation data, and the coverage range of GIMMS remote sensing phenological data is from 1982 to 2022. Therefore, we selected the tree-ring data from 1982 to 2022. Aligning the tree-ring data with the V-S simulation data in terms of time will facilitate the integration and innovation in the cross-domain of tree-ring and V-S model at different scales, providing a comprehensive research approach for ecosystem studies. We added the content of why the period from 1982 to 2022 was used at the end of the tree-ring data section. Once again, we thank you for your evaluation of the detailed narrative of our paper.

Revised Result:

(Please see to the 2.2.2. Tree-ring material last sentence)

In this study, GIMMS remote sensing phenology data were used to validate the results simulated by the V-S model. To ensure the reliability of the V-S model data, the tree-ring data were truncated to the period of 1982-2022, so as to align the time with the remote sensing data.

4. Figure 7, 8 -> It should be explained how the significance of the peaks was found. Some peaks are rather tiny.

Revision Strategy:

Dear Reviewer: We are extremely grateful for your meticulous review of the manuscript and the valuable suggestions you provided. You mentioned that the process of how the peak was discovered needs to be explained. We fully agree that clarifying this discovery process is of crucial importance for understanding this research. We have added relevant explanations in the text and once again, thank you for your detailed evaluation.

5. L14-16 -> The sentence requires editing.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for carefully reviewing the manuscript and pointing out the areas that need improvement. The sentences marked in lines 14-16 do indeed have less smooth expression. We have revised this sentence according to your suggestions, aiming to make the expression clearer, more accurate, and in line with academic norms. The revised sentence is now included in the abstract of the revised manuscript. Once again, thank you for your valuable opinions, which have helped us improve the quality of the manuscript.

6. L17, 99 -> It's a standard that the Latin names should appear together with the names of their nomenclators at the first appearance in the text.

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your detailed evaluation of the plant species name. We have verified it based on the IPNI database. The full scientific name of Juniperus seravschanica is Juniperus seravschanica Kom., and the name "Kom." is the standard abbreviation of Russian botanist Vladimir Komarov. The name information has been added to the first occurrence of the text. Thank you for your correction on the accuracy of the scientific name.

7. L29, 45, 47, 188 -> Probably, punctuation problem.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to the details of the data presentation in this article! You pointed out that there was a problem of mixed punctuation in "L29, 45, 47, 188". We have corrected it to "L29, 45, 47, 188". Once again, we thank you for your suggestion, as it is crucial for improving the quality of this article.

8. L53, 55, 68, 71 -> Please, correct the citing format.

Revision Strategy:

Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion regarding the consistency of literature citation! We have uniformly optimized the citation of references in the text to avoid inconsistent citation formats and made the language more fluent.

Revised Result:

For instance, tree-ring width is significantly influenced by spring snowmelt, which may affect soil moisture supply during the early and peak vegetation growth periods [11].

Vegetation responses to diurnal asymmetry globally exhibit a delay of approximately 12 months [8].

After considering the carryover effect, the relationship between climate and tree-ring width was improved, and it was found that the annual growth of trees is affected by carbon absorption in the second half of the previous growing season [19].

Similarly, the vegetation growth in the Northern Hemisphere is dominated by the carryover effect of enhanced growth signals from the previous season, and its effect exceeds that of climatic factors [17]

9. L100 -> Italics relevant?

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

10. L105-112 -> The paragraph should be formatted as a paragraph per objectives.

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. According to your request, we have placed it in a separate paragraph. Thanks again for your valuable comments.

11. L137, 259 -> Brackets unnecessary.

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have removed the parentheses, thanks again for your valuable comments.

12. L159 annual -> monthly? Otherwise, the precipitation is too low.

Revision Strategy:

Dear Reviewer: Thank you for your detailed evaluation of our precipitation data. We have reviewed our data processing procedure and found no errors. The reason for the low precipitation is that we used the average precipitation rather than the cumulative precipitation. We downloaded the daily meteorological data from ERA5-Land, so we calculated the monthly and annual average precipitation using the daily precipitation data. We will modify the description of the legend in Figure 2 and revise the relevant parts of the article to make it more rigorous and standardized.

Revised Result:

Figure 2. (a-c) represent KZB, ZTW, and DWZ respectively. The average precipitation (PRE) and monthly average temperatures (MaxTEM: average maximum temperature, TEM: average temperature, MinTEM: average minimum temperature) from January to December during 1982-2022.

13. L174 -> Latin in italics?

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

14. Figure 2. -> Legend doesn't match the caption, 'Average high temperature' vs 'average maximum temperature' etc.

Revision Strategy:

Dear reviewer, thank you for pointing out the issues with the expressions and legend annotations in the article! We have made comprehensive revisions to the consistency of the terms "average high temperature" and "average maximum temperature", as well as the matching between the legends and the titles.

Revised Result:

Figure 2. (a-c) represent KZB, ZTW, and DWZ respectively. The average precipitation (PRE) and monthly average temperatures (MaxTEM: average maximum temperature, TEM: average temperature, MinTEM: average minimum temperature) from January to December during 1982-2022.

15. Figure 3. -> (a), (b), (c) should be reflected in the caption. The term 'Sample depth' should be explained.

Revision Strategy:

Dear reviewer, thank you for pointing out the issues regarding the depth samples and the explanation of the terms in the article! We have addressed the term "sample depth" that should be reflected in the title as per the figure. Once again, thank you for your meticulous suggestions. We look forward to further review.

Revised Result:

(Please see to the 2.2.2 last paragraph)

According to the Sub Sample Signal (SSS), when the value in the early chronology exceeds the threshold of 0.85, this period can be used to represent the climatic signal of the sampling site. The effective time periods of the chronologies were determined as KZB (1896–2023), ZTW (1846–2023), and DWZ (1929–2023) (Table 1 and Figure 3).

16. L231-232, 282-283, 545-546 -> Sentence is not complete.

Revision Strategy:

Dear reviewer, thank you for pointing out the incomplete sentences in "L231-232, L282-283, L545-546" in the article! We have made the necessary corrections. Once again, we appreciate your meticulous review. Your suggestions are crucial for enhancing the rigor of the article.

Revised Result:

(Please see to the 2.2.1 last sentence)

The data is sourced from the National Earth System Science Data Center, National Science & Technology Infrastructure of China (http://www.geodata.cn).

(Please see to the 3.1.1 last sentence)

This method effectively integrates physiological indicators with remote sensing data, enabling the quantification of the response of tree growth to environmental changes. The effects of VGC and LCE on vegetation growth are analyzed using data from two scales, EXGs and TRW.

(Please see to the 5.3 first paragraph)

In this study, the climatic conditions for the growth of J. seravschanica showed that moisture was more abundant during the growth initiation period (spring) than in summer and autumn, while summer and autumn were characterized by high temperatures and drought (Figure 3). Under such harsh climatic conditions, both tree-ring width and early growing season xylem growth indicate growth enhancement signals produced by vegetation under the influence of current climatic factors, and these signals continuously affect vegetation growth in the subsequent stage. It was also found that vegetation growth exhibits a long-term dynamic lag response to climate effect. Additionally, previous studies [46] have shown that the VGC of different tree species responds independently to climatic factors, and its action process is not directly affected by the LCE.

17. L234 and throughout the text: the early of growth season of xylem -> 'early' is usually used as adjective, not as noun, so 'the early of' is confusing. Probably, you mean 'the early xylem growth season' (l. 376). If yes, this should be consistently corrected throughout the text.

Revision Strategy:

Dear Reviewer: Thank you for pointing out the issue with the statement " the early of growth season of xylem " in the article. We have revised this sentence to " the early xylem growth season" and systematically reviewed the entire text, standardizing the titles, abstracts, main text, and descriptions of figures and tables, ensuring that the concept is consistently expressed throughout the article. We are grateful for your meticulous control over the details of the article. If you have any other suggestions, please feel free to let us know at any time.

Revised Result:

(Here are the incorrect pieces of information in the picture regarding the " the early xylem growth season, EXGs". The specific details of the text corrections have been completed in the manuscript.)

18. L236 VS -> V-S?

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

19. L240-246, 294-307 -> Please, use (1) indications for numbered lists.

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

20. Figure 4 -> Please, use one font for all indications. The caption requires editing, Figure 4 is not the part of the sentence.

Revision Strategy:

Dear Reviewer, we are extremely grateful for your meticulous review of our manuscript and for your valuable suggestions for revisions. The issue you pointed out regarding the uniformity of font in Figure 4 is of great significance, as it helps enhance the professionalism and readability of the manuscript. Additionally, we have separated the text and graphics. We have made all the necessary revisions based on your suggestions. Once again, we appreciate your professional evaluation.

Revised Result:

Figure 4. verifies the reliability of simulated xylem phenology and remote sensing phenology.

21. L326-327 -> Chinese commas.

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

22. L332 ii -> i?

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

23. L348-350 -> Probably, it's better to place it after the formula.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for pointing out the positioning issue of the content in L348-350! We have verified and found that this paragraph involves the explanation and clarification of formulas. We will make the necessary changes as per your request. Once again, we appreciate your professional advice, as it is crucial for enhancing the readability and rigor of the article.

24. Formula (3) -> σ are not explained.

Response: Dear Reviewer, we would like to express our gratitude for your attention to the unexplained detail of symbol σ in Formula (3). We have included an explanation of it in the revised version of the paper. Once again, we thank you for your contribution to improving the quality of the paper!

Revised Result:

(Please see to the 3.2.2)

 represents the variance of variable i.

25. L404, 427 -> What does it mean - 'measured in years', 'measured in seasonal units'? Why not simply 'dimensionless indices'?

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. We have removed the incorrect statements in the annotations. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your professional evaluation.

26. L475 Under -> under?

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

27. L493 - Bold face relevant?

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

28. L538, 588 -> It may be more pertinent to write the names of the authors, not just [].

Revision Strategy:

Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestions! We have added the author's name at the corresponding position in the text to enhance the accuracy and appropriateness of the expression. Once again, we appreciate your attention to academic rigor and look forward to your further guidance!

Revised Result:

Water availability plays a critical role in the radial growth of J. seravschanica, with sufficient moisture exerting long-lasting effects on growth. Among the climatic factors influencing radial growth, precipitation was the most significant, aligning with findings from Opała-Owczarek et al. [15].

Lian et al. research findings [17], while spring warming is the dominant factor increasing vegetation growth, in summer and autumn, vegetation growth is primarily governed by VGC signals from the preceding season, with a greater effect than that of climatic factors.

29. L539 -> Please, edit the title of the subsection without 'To understand'.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for pointing out the issue with the title! We have removed the phrase "understanding" from the title L539. We greatly appreciate your detailed suggestions and look forward to your further review.

30. L541 -> due

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

31. L558 -> Please, edit the beginning of the sentence.

Revision Strategy:

Dear reviewer, thank you for carefully reviewing the manuscript and pointing out the areas that need improvement. The sentence marked by you on line 558 does indeed have an unclear expression. We have revised this sentence according to your suggestions, aiming to make the expression clearer, more accurate, and in line with academic standards. Once again, thank you for your professional evaluation.

Revised Result:

Lian et al. Research findings [17], while spring warming is the dominant factor increasing vegetation growth, in summer and autumn, vegetation growth is primarily governed by VGC signals from the preceding season, with a greater effect than that of climatic factors.

32. L582 -> previous 

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

33. L586 temperatures, under -> temperatures. Under?

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

34. L595 (ab) -> (b)?

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

35. L603 continuation -> carryover?

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, there was an error in the description of “carryover”, which we have replaced, thank you again for your valuable comments.

36. L613 -> under

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. Due to our carelessness, it caused you a lot of trouble to read, we are very sorry, we have replaced the wrong part, thanks again for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Chen et al.

This article strengthens the modeled relationship between to-date-understudied vegetation growth carryover in relation to prior climatic events with special emphasis on early season xylem phenology.    This review is strongly positive with no major concerns, although I do not have the experience to assess the “black box” details of the modeling. As presented, the models seem appropriate and understandable in general terms.  (Perhaps a model flow chart in the supplementary materials would be user-friendly, although not necessary.)  I enjoyed reading the article and learned from it.   The ability and effort it required is impressive.

Minor concerns:

It might be possible to explain VGC more clearly in terms of working definition,  biological manifestation, present derivation from NDVI,  and i incorporation into the VAR model.   EGSx is more clearly discussed  (esp. lines 260-276).  But except for fleeting and scattered mentions on lines 68-73, 303 , 344, 451, 458  there’s not much general explanatory and methodological info on VGC.  Is VGC implicit in line 229?    A fuller and integrated discussion of VGC in one place would have helped at least this reader, especially since the concept has not been in widespread use very long, and yet is critical to the present paper.

Lines 103, 104. It might help readers to define LCE and VGC explicitly here at the beginning of the article.

Line. 137. I do not see those correlation in Table 1.   Similarly, see line 189.

Table 1. Explain right-most column “SSS” in caption.

Figure 6.  I was slightly confused by “season” in the EEGx x-labels and narrative vs. “year” for TRW.  What precisely is meant by “season”? See lines 380, 390, 408-410.

Line 481, the mention of global warming here seems gratuitous, and mixes a literature citation awkwardly with  present results.

Lines 488-496 are somewhat redundant with 398-444.

Line 527,  was comparatively severe frost damage encountered on-site?

Line 605 and 611, with the exception of DWZ?

Editorial notes to aid revision:

There are   several minor wording problems, readily fixed during copy editing, and most likely translational.    One of the more salient repeated wording issues is the use of “climate change” (e.g., line 48, 102, 548) where the intention might be a more immediate climate effect or weather events than “climate change” in the broad sense of Global Warming?  Another repeated wording issue to fix is “early of growth season”  and similar wordings (e.g. line33.  426,  553, 556, 578, 600  and more).

Fig. 1.   Spelling “Pamir” in caption but “Pamirs” in the figure.

Line 384, 407. Refers to gray lines in Fig. 6 and 7, but they are not really gray, merely faint-colored.

Line 571 and other places, give the actual p-values?

Line 646. Change “I” to “we”? Ten authors.

Typos I  flagged while reading are on lines:  15 (no verb), 45,  67,  88, 100, 174, 188, 282, 310, 332, 475, 493, 541, 545,  561.

I’ll be pleased to see the final publication, and hope these remarks are helpful.

-George Rogers, Jupiter, Florida

Author Response

对审阅者评论的回复

尊敬的评论者：

感谢您的来信和对我们题为“不同尺度的植被生长结转和滞后气候效应：从树木年轮到早期木质部生长季节”的手稿的建设性建议（ID：forests-3691326）。我们衷心感谢您清晰详细的反馈。我们仔细考虑了您的每条评论并进行了相应的修改，希望能充分解决您提出的问题。

为了方便对每个建议的回应，我们将首先以橙色斜体字重新输入您的建议作为标题，具体的修改位置以红色字体标记，然后提供我们对每个建议和问题的回应（蓝色字体代表“修改策略”和“回应”，黑色字体代表“修改结果”）。

所有建议和问题均已在手稿中进行了修改。我们对提出的建议和问题的回答如下。

1. 也许可以从工作定义、生物学表现、NDVI 的当前衍生以及 i 纳入 VAR 模型方面更清楚地解释 VGC。EGSx 的讨论更为明确（尤其是第 260-276 行）。但是，除了第 68-73、303、344、451、458 行的短暂和零散的提及外，关于 VGC 的一般解释和方法论信息并不多。VGC 是否隐含在第 229 行？在一个地方对 VGC 进行更全面和综合的讨论至少对这位读者有帮助，特别是因为这个概念还没有被广泛使用很长时间，但对本文至关重要。第 103、104 行。它可能有助于读者在文章开头明确定义 LCE 和 VGC。

响应： 再次感谢您花时间审阅手稿，并对您非常鼓舞人心的评价。我们在 3.1.2 中对 EXGs 部分进行了组织，并加强了对 EXG 用途的解释。正如您提到的，VGC 的概念已在 L103 和 L104 行中明确说明。同时，我们在第 4.1 节中添加了 VGC 的计算方式。我们再次感谢您在文章中对 EXG 和 VGC 概念的详细评估。

2. 137. 我在表 1 中没有看到这些相关性。同样，参见第 189 行。

修订策略：

尊敬的审稿人，再次感谢您花时间审阅手稿，并对您评价的优点给予非常鼓舞人心的评论。由于我们的疏忽，给您的阅读带来了很多麻烦，我们非常抱歉，我们将删除 L137 并将这部分合并到“2.2.2.Tree-ring material“，再次感谢您的宝贵意见。

修订结果：

（请参阅 2.2.2.树木年轮材料）

标准差 （SD） 和平均敏感性 （MS） 大于 0.193 表明气候对植被生长有很大影响。J. seravschanica 的稀疏分布和低树冠密度导致所有系列间的平均相关系数 （R1） 和树木间的平均相关系数 （R2） 值较低。样本深度表示每年可用的样本数。根据子采样信号 （SSS），当早期年表的值超过 0.85 的阈值时，这个周期可以用来表示采样点的气候信号。年表的有效时间段确定为 KZB （1896-2023）、ZTW （1846-2023） 和 DWZ （1929-2023）（表 1 和图 3）。ZTW 的信噪比 （SNR） 高于 KZB 和 DWZ，表明 ZTW 包含更多的气候信息。使用表达种群信号 （EPS） 评估树木年轮年表的区域代表性，其中 EPS 值 >0.85 表示可靠的区域代表性。所有三个采样点的 EPS 值都超过了该阈值表 1，证实了我们年代数据的可靠性。本研究使用 GIMMS 遥感物候数据验证了 V-S 模型模拟的结果。为保证 V-S 模型数据的可靠性，将树木年轮数据截断为 1982—2022 年，以便与遥感数据保持一致。

表 1 树木年轮宽度标准化年表的主要特征参数

3. Table 1. Explain right-most column “SSS” in caption.

Revision Strategy:

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your attention to SSS in the timeline! In the tree-ring timeline, "SSS" refers to the overall representativeness of the samples (Sub-sample signal, which is a key indicator for evaluating the quality of the timeline. When the sample size decreases (usually in the early part of the timeline), a threshold of >0.85 indicates that the currently available samples are sufficient to reliably represent the common climate signals of that location or region. We have revised this part of the text.

Revised Result:

According to the Sub Sample Signal (SSS), when the value in the early chronology exceeds the threshold of 0.85, this period can be used to represent the climatic signal of the sampling site. The effective time periods of the chronologies were determined as KZB (1896–2023), ZTW (1846–2023), and DWZ (1929–2023) (Table 1 and Fig. 3).

4. Figure 6.  I was slightly confused by “season” in the EEGx x-labels and narrative vs. “year” for TRW.  What precisely is meant by “season”? See lines 380, 390, 408-410.

Revision Strategy:

Dear reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your valuable comments on the discussion of global warming in line 481 of the original text. We agree that directly linking global warming to the research results here is somewhat hasty and disrupts the coherence of the writing logic. We have now revised this part.

Revised Result:

(Please refer to the last sentence of Section 5.1 in the third paragraph)

The three sampling sites of KZB, ZTW, and DWZ, the VGC duration was 6 years for all, indicating good consistency in the influence of enhanced "signals" from the TRW growth of J. seravschanica in the Tajikistan on subsequent vegetation. The VGC of KZB was stronger than that of ZTW and DWZ, which may be attributed to the earlier onset of xylem phenology in KZB (Figure 5). This led to a longer growing season than in ZTW and DWZ, allowing more photosynthetic products to accumulate and thus promoting tree radial growth [58].

5. Line 481, the mention of global warming here seems gratuitous, and mixes a literature citation awkwardly with present results.

Revision Strategy:

Dear reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your valuable comments on the discussion of global warming in line 481 of the original text. We agree that directly linking global warming to the research results here is somewhat hasty and disrupts the coherence of the writing logic. We have now revised this part.

Revised Result:

(Please refer to the last sentence of Section 5.1 in the third paragraph)

The three sampling sites of KZB, ZTW, and DWZ, the VGC duration was 6 years for all, indicating good consistency in the influence of enhanced "signals" from the TRW growth of J. seravschanica in the Tajikistan on subsequent vegetation. The VGC of KZB was stronger than that of ZTW and DWZ, which may be attributed to the earlier onset of xylem phenology in KZB (Figure 5). This led to a longer growing season than in ZTW and DWZ, allowing more photosynthetic products to accumulate and thus promoting tree radial growth [58].

6. Lines 488-496 are somewhat redundant with 398-444.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your detailed comments on the redundant paragraphs in the article. After careful review, we found that there were indeed redundant expressions. We have now deleted the redundant sentence in the last paragraph of 5.1. Once again, we appreciate your meticulous reading and evaluation of our article.

7. Line 527, was comparatively severe frost damage encountered on-site?

Revision Strategy:

Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to Line 527, regarding the frost damage at the DWZ sampling point! Given that DWZ is located at the edge of the Pamir Plateau and has a relatively low annual minimum temperature (for example, the annual minimum temperature was approximately -4.77℃, with an average value from 1982 to 2022), we have optimized the relevant description: we have added the minimum temperatures of three sampling points, KZB (6.40℃) > ZTW (1.25℃) > DWZ (-4.77℃), which more accurately presents the causal relationship of the regional climate and avoids ambiguous expressions, ensuring the traceability of the conclusion. We have revised this narrative expression.

Revised Result:

For MinTEM lagged effects, DWZ showed a negative response with the longest lag duration of 11 seasons, this might be the reason why this sampling point is located on the Pamir Plateau. KZB (6.40℃) is higher than ZTW (1.25℃) and DWZ (-4.77℃). The annual average minimum temperature of DWZ is lower than that of KZB and ZTW, likely due to severe frost damage, which significantly impacts vegetation growth and prolongs the lagged response [75].

8. Line 605 and 611, with the exception of DWZ?

Revision Strategy:

Dear Reviewer: We are extremely grateful for your meticulous review of our manuscript and for your valuable suggestions. Regarding the comments you made on lines 605 and 611 regarding "DWZ exclusion", L605 mainly summarizes the climate response intensity performance of VGC in the TRW and EXGs scales as shown in Figure 6. L611 mainly summarizes the climate response intensity performance of LCE in the TRW and EXGs scales as shown in Figures 7 and 8. From the numerical values on the vertical axis, it can be seen that there is a comparison of the response magnitudes of VGC and LCE on the EXGs scale. The VGC and LCE on the EXGs scale are stronger than those on the TRW scale. We have corrected the incorrect expression in this part. Once again, we thank you for your professional evaluation.

Revised Result:

(Please see to the first sentence of the third paragraph in Section 6.1)

Similarly, the intensity of the lagged climate effect (LCE) varied between the two scales, with the LCE response for EXGs being much stronger than that for TRW.

9. There are   several minor wording problems, readily fixed during copy editing, and most likely translational.    One of the more salient repeated wording issues is the use of “climate change” (e.g., line 48, 102, 548) where the intention might be a more immediate climate effect or weather events than “climate change” in the broad sense of Global Warming?  Another repeated wording issue to fix is “early of growth season” and similar wordings (e.g. line33.  426, 553, 556, 578, 600 and more).

Response: Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits. We agree with you and have made the substitutions in the text, thanks again for your valuable input!

10. 1. Spelling “Pamir” in caption but “Pamirs” in the figure.

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for pointing out the spelling inconsistency in Figure 1, where "Pamir" is different from "Pamirs"! After verification, "Pamir" is in the singular form, while "Pamirs" is the common plural geographical expression. According to authoritative sources such as "China National Geography" and UNEP reports, this area is officially named "Pamirs". We have uniformly corrected the title and the spelling in the figure to "Pamirs", and have also checked all related terms in the full text to ensure consistency. This oversight was due to a careless mistake during writing. Thank you for your meticulous review, which helps improve the rigor of the manuscript!

11. Line 384, 407. Refers to gray lines in Fig. 6 and 7, but they are not really gray, merely faint-colored.

Response: Dear Editor, thank you for your attention to the details of the charts in the manuscript! You commented that the "gray lines" in Figure 6 and Figure 7 are actually faint colors. We have double-checked whether this color is actually gray. The color RGB (234, 229, 227) is actually a light gray. Due to the color reproduction differences of the display devices and the relatively low contrast, it is visually prone to be misjudged as gray. We will modify the description in the annotations. Once again, thank you for your meticulous review. We will promptly adjust according to your suggestions to ensure the accurate presentation of the chart information.

12. Line 571 and other places, give the actual p-values?

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your attention to the significance expressions in the paper! Regarding the presentation of the P-values for highly significant correlations, to present the statistical results more rigorously, we have uniformly marked the specific P-values in the main text and made targeted revisions to ensure consistent expression throughout the paper and compliance with academic standards. Once again, thank you for your meticulous review!

13. Line 646. Change “I” to “we”? Ten authors.

响应： 尊敬的审阅者，感谢您指出第 646 行的表达式问题！“我们”是用来体现研究客观性的，但这部分使用“我”确实不合适。我们还对第 646 行和相关段落的语法结构进行了重大调整，以确保符合学术写作标准。这次修订不仅纠正了 person usage 的问题，还增强了论文的学术严谨性。感谢您的细致审查。

14. 我在阅读时标记的错别字在以下行：15（无动词）、45、67、88、100、174、188、282、310、332、475、493、541、545、561。

响应： 尊敬的审稿人，感谢您在审稿过程中仔细标记论文中的语法和错别字！这些更正对于提高手稿质量至关重要。我们已经检查了每个标记的行并进行了必要的更改。再次感谢您的细致审查。修订版已更新，包含详细的更正，我们期待您的进一步指导！

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent study which reveals how long we can be wrong when analysing the inmediate signal of the secoundary growth and vegetative response of trees related to climate. I find the study very sound and interesting. 

I have only minor comments that could be addressed:

when desribing the climatic variables, you used your own scales concerning temperature and precipitation. I recommed you to use the Gaussen type representation P=2T (e.g.=20 ºC equivalent to 40 mm). In this way, the possible aridity period (when P<2T) will be visualized.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It should be addressed: I have found the abstract quite confussing, if not inadequately written. Please check the grammar and try to improve it. The rest if the paper seems to be more carefully written.

Author Response

Response to reviewer comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your letter and for the constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript entitled “Vegetation growth carryover and lagged climatic effect at different scales: from tree rings to the early xylem growth season” (ID: forests-3691326). We sincerely appreciate your clear and detailed feedback. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made the corresponding revisions, which we hope fully address the concerns raised.

To facilitate the response to each suggestion, we will first re-enter your suggestion in italic orange font as the title, the specific modification positions are marked in red font, then provide our response to each suggestion and question (blue font represents the “revision strategy”, and black font represents the “revised results”).

All suggestions and questions have been revised in the manuscript. Our responses to the suggestions and questions raised are as follows.

Review

1. when desribing the climatic variables, you used your own scales concerning temperature and precipitation. I recommed you to use the Gaussen type representation P=2T (e.g.=20 ºC equivalent to 40 mm). In this way, the possible aridity period (when P<2T) will be visualized.

 Revision Strategy:

Dear Reviewer: We are extremely grateful for your valuable suggestions！ We highly appreciate your suggestion of using the Gaussian expression to construct the P=2T relationship for visualizing the drought period. Based on your opinion, we have added it in the revised manuscript. We have placed this figure in Appendix Figure S1， and inserted the reference to this figure in the last sentence of 2.2.1. We once again thank you for your meticulous and professional evaluation.

Revised Result:

(Please see the Figure S1.)

Figure S1. (a-c) The climatic charts of average temperatures and average precipitation for KZB, ZTW, and DWZ, drawn by Walter Lehrs, the Gaussen type representation P=2T (e.g.=20 ºC equivalent to 40 mm).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the authors' responses and, unfortunately, this has been a hard job. A part of the responses on the site page was in Chinese, for an unclear reason. However, the Word-file was readable and I base my comments on this text file. Also, it is hard to read the manuscript file with numerous editing marks.

2.2.2. Tree-ring material -> Asking to specify the correlation coefficients I meant that there were a number of such coefficients: Pearson (parametrical), Spearman (non-parametrical) etc. Unfortunately, the authors obviously did not understand my comment. I believe, this should be corrected.   I understand from the first reading that the cores were taken from two perpendicular directions. My comment was to specify which directions. For example, you can bore the tree from North and East, or from South and West directions etc. Which ones? Or just randomly?   The responses to other comments I find quite satisfactory. Comments on the Quality of English Language

It's hard to evaluate the language use in the text with abundant corrections, but I suspect, at least minor English editing will be necessary.

Author Response

Response to reviewer comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your letter and for the constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript entitled “Vegetation growth carryover and lagged climatic effect at different scales: from tree rings to the early xylem growth season” (ID: forests-3691326). We sincerely appreciate your clear and detailed feedback. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made the corresponding revisions, which we hope fully address the concerns raised.

To facilitate the response to each suggestion, we will first re-enter your suggestion in italic orange font as the title, the specific modification positions are marked in red font, then provide our response to each suggestion and question (blue font represents the “revision strategy” and “response”, and black font represents the “revised results”).

All suggestions and questions have been revised in the manuscript. Our responses to the suggestions and questions raised are as follows.

Comments 1： 2.2.2. Tree-ring material -> Asking to specify the correlation coefficients I meant that there were a number of such coefficients: Pearson (parametrical), Spearman (non-parametrical) etc. Unfortunately, the authors obviously did not understand my comment. I believe, this should be corrected.   I understand from the first reading that the cores were taken from two perpendicular directions. My comment was to specify which directions. For example, you can bore the tree from North and East, or from South and West directions etc. Which ones? Or just randomly?   The responses to other comments I find quite satisfactory.

Revision Strategy:

Dear reviewer, thank you for your meticulous review of the methodology section of this paper. Regarding the questions, you raised about the correlation coefficients of tree-ring materials and the sampling direction, we will clarify them one by one as follows:

(1) The relevant parameters in Table 1 were obtained by using the ARSTAN program from the international tree-ring database to develop the chronology based on the tree-ring width data that had been cross-dated. We consulted the ARSTAN user manual and also sought advice from experts in the field of tree rings. The consensus was that this relevant analysis was by default using the Pearson correlation coefficient in the ARSTAN program. This method is applicable to the analysis of linear relationships and continuous variables that follow a normal distribution. The algorithm of this software assesses the synchronicity between samples during the establishment of the chronology through the Pearson correlation coefficient. We added "(Pearson correlation analysis)" after describing the correlations R1 and R2 between trees.

(2) The orientation of the sampling points is KZB(S), ZTW(N) and DWZ(SW). Therefore, our sampling process is to first take the first core sample along the slope direction, and then take the second core sample at the horizontal and vertical positions relative to it. We have revised the sentences in this part of the text and added the information of the slope orientations of KZB, ZTW, and DWZ in Table 1.

Revised Result:

(Please see the 2.2.2. Tree-ring material)

The sparse distribution and low canopy density of J. seravschanica result in low values for the mean correlation coefficient among all series (R1) and the mean correlation coefficient between trees (R2) (Pearson correlation analysis).

For each tree, the first core was collected at breast height along the slope aspect KZB (S), ZTW (N), and DWZ (WS) using a 10 mm inner diameter increment borer, and then the second core was collected from a direction perpendicular to the first one.

Table 1 Main characteristic parameters of tree ring width standardized chronology

Author Response File: Author Response.docx