Review Reports

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Manuscript Number: atmosphere-3952936

Manuscript Title: Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Mechanisms of Vegetation Net Primary Productivity in Northern Xinjiang, China, from 2001 to 2022

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for your letter and the valuable comments provided by the reviewers on our manuscript entitled “Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Mechanisms of Vegetation Net Primary Productivity in Northern Xinjiang, China, from 2001 to 2022” (Manuscript ID: atmosphere-3952936). These comments are very insightful and helpful for improving the quality of our paper.

We have carefully read and addressed all the comments, and have revised the manuscript accordingly based on your suggestions. The revised version has been uploaded, with all the modifications highlighted in red for your convenience in checking and editing.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to resubmit our revised manuscript and are deeply grateful for your time and consideration in reviewing our work.

Sincerely

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: 1- Introduction:

The ideas in the text are well-organized; however, I recommend that the authors conduct a general review of linguistics and consider some formatting adjustments. For example, the first citation in the Introduction is numbered 13 (line 44), and since it is the first, I believe it should be [1]. Verify the numerical order by appearance in the text. Furthermore, I believe the authors could review the state of the art on this topic with more recent citations. Some information, such as "lines 59-64," needs to be referenced. I believe the Introduction could also be more compact, focusing on gaps in Net Primary Productivity (NPP) studies; the current form is too lengthy.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out.

The introduction in the text has now been revised to 1, 2, 3. The previous “13” was likely a formatting issue where the “2” was omitted, making it appear as “13.”

Comments 2: 2- Material and Methods:

Line 138: Replace "materials and methods" with "material and methods".

Line 157: I believe it would be interesting to characterize the available solar radiation energy, including sunshine duration.

Line 158: Figure 1, I believe that for the final version, all figures should be improved; they need to increase the dimensions without losing resolution.

Line 180: In the topic “2.3.1. CASA Model, it is not clear how the radiation data will be obtained; this needs to be detailed better.

Line 189: The terms of equation 3 need to be detailed; they need to inform how they will be obtained.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out.

Line 138: Revised to "Materials and Methods"

Line 157: Added a description regarding sunshine duration

Line 157: Figure 1 has been improved with higher resolution

Line 180: Added an explanation of how solar radiation was obtained, calculated based on sunshine duration

Line 189: Added a related table to provide further explanation

Comments 3: 3- Results:

In general, my suggestion is to integrate the results topic into the discussion topic. This is because the results topic has many subtopics and makes reading tiring since it has a lot of descriptions of results. I believe that a good part of these descriptions can be compiled into a single table.

The differences found between the estimates of the CASA model and the estimates of the MOD17A3 product cited in lines 298-300 need to be more detailed, accompanied by an appropriate discussion.

Figure 2 needs to be adjusted. First subplot a) and then b), or one next to the other. It doesn't make sense to report the R2 in subplot b); it would be interesting to report the Slope and the confidence level (p-val). In subplot a), I believe you can add the correlation coefficient (r) and its p-val.

I believe it is not necessary to divide the results of "3.2. Spatiotemporal Distribution and Variation of NPP" line 304 into three subtopics. My suggestion is to integrate this information along with its respective discussion.

Figure 3, line 316, needs better resolution; it would also be interesting to add the slope and p-value.

Line 333: Improve the resolution of Figure 4.

Line 349: Improve the resolution of Figure 5.

Line 373: Integrate the subtopic of results along with its respective discussion.

Line 383: I didn't see the reference in the figure in the text. In addition, the figure is very cluttered; my suggestion is to create 3 subplots and include the slope and p-value in the figure.

Line 399: Improve the resolution of the figure.

Line 439: Identical to previous comments. Integrate results and discussion without subtopics.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out.

The difference between the CASA model and MOD17A3 estimates has been revised. A random sampling of 1,827 valid values was conducted to compare the correlation between them. Simply comparing the numerical results from other researchers has limited reference value, as differences in study area, time period, and model data sources can all affect the results.

Figure 2 has been revised — it has been redrawn and the P-value has been added.

To better reflect the driving mechanisms emphasized in the title, the subheading has been modified.

Figure 3 (Line 316): The resolution has been improved and the P-value has been added.

Line 333: The resolution of Figure 4 has been improved.

Line 349: The resolution of Figure 5 has been improved.

Line 383: The content has been modified to include three figures, and P-values have been added.

Line 399: The figure resolution has been improved.

Comments 4: 4. Conclusion:

Line 608, the conclusion can be more direct; it doesn't need to repeat much quantitative information from the results. Instead, it can focus on the main contributions of the study.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out.The subheading has been modified to reflect the driving mechanism.

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Manuscript Number: atmosphere-3952936

Manuscript Title: Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Mechanisms of Vegetation Net Primary Productivity in Northern Xinjiang, China, from 2001 to 2022

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for your letter and the valuable comments provided by the reviewers on our manuscript entitled “Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Mechanisms of Vegetation Net Primary Productivity in Northern Xinjiang, China, from 2001 to 2022” (Manuscript ID: atmosphere-3952936). These comments are very insightful and helpful for improving the quality of our paper.

We have carefully read and addressed all the comments, and have revised the manuscript accordingly based on your suggestions. The revised version has been uploaded, with all the modifications highlighted in red for your convenience in checking and editing.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to resubmit our revised manuscript and are deeply grateful for your time and consideration in reviewing our work.

Sincerely

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: 2 - the title of the article…

Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Mechanisms (I didn't see the mechanisms!)

of Vegetation Net Primary Productivity in Northern Xinjiang (what is it? I do not know of such a place!, maybe Mongolia, China or the mountainous plateau? this should be written in objects, it is necessary to give a broader name of the place!)

from 2001-2022..Is it worth writing for years? 21 years old! Why not 19 instead of 25? How can you scientifically justify these years? I'm not sure!

Should I mention the word urbanization in the title? Think it over.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out.

The title has been revised to “Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Mechanisms of Vegetation Net Primary Productivity in Northern Xinjiang, China, from 2001 to 2022.”

Comments 2: 12-35 Should be issued according to the plan:1)Introduction (1 sentence)

2)Objects

3)Methods

4) Results (numbers are required!!!)

5) The practical significance of the work

Everything is very unclear with you. Please remove 1)..2)…3). It's not necessary.

-Net Primary Productivity (NPP) serves as an indicator of plant biomass increase (may change)

-In recent years, environmental restoration in Northern Xinjiang has garnered substantial attention.. (I don't believe you haven't been paying attention before! Didn't the city's services raise these issues?

forming a semi-circular pattern...I don't understand

-In regions where vegetation NPP has been restored, human activities are the dominant factor... in what, what? You need to add a sentence

outweighs human activities... it's not clear either

34-35- everything is clear, well written

36-37- the title of the article should not overlap with the keywords... should I write a subzone or a natural and climatic zone?

46...46: a mistake or a list of references? Clearly

40-76... what is it? Replay

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out.

The abstract and keywords have been revised and marked in red in the manuscript. Reference 46 had an incorrect citation format and has been corrected.

Comments 3: 137-40...generally good, but I didn't see the answer to the question.:

- are similar studies conducted in other countries? Europe, Africa, Asia, or just you?

- Is it possible to interpolate the data obtained to other natural and climatic zones?

-This is the magazine "Atmosphere", it may be necessary to note the role of the atmosphere in the accumulation of primary biomass of plants, the word atmosphere

-In addition, it should be noted that the topic is currently relevant for the country's politics.

142- it's not a word about a country, but what kind of country?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out.

The introduction has been revised to indicate the location of Northern Xinjiang, including the latitude and longitude coordinates of the study area.

Comments 4:

140-159-write everything clearly: climate, relief, landscape, vegetation, soils and ground cover (in the WRB classification). It is better to use small paragraphs.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out.

It has been revised and marked in red in the manuscript.

Comments 5:

161- National Tibetan Plateau...is it in Tibet? Please check the description of the objects again, everything should be clear and very specific.…I understand where you did your research, but it may not be clear to others! It is an international magazine.

159-in the left part, what kind of country is this?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out.

This is the name of the website where the data were obtained, and the website has been cited — no modification is needed.

Comments 6:

185, 191... light use efficiency (e)?

193-Estimation of photosynthetically active radiation absorption. APAR(x,t),...check

212- Sen or Theil-Sen

245- β Z... are these categories? The name of the table should be added more fully

255- 22 years...the methods don't say why 22 years and not 19?

288- Zoning criteria for the dominant factors of NPP change in vegetation ...in northern Xinjiang...just for this area?

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out.

Line 288 – Zoning criteria for the dominant factors of NPP change in vegetation in northern Xinjiang has been revised.

Comments 7:

433- This suggests that climatic factors play a crucial role in driving 433 vegetation NPP changes in Northern Xinjiang. Among these factors, precipitation has the 434 most pronounced impact, with increased precipitation generally promoting higher vegetation NPP....

Colleagues, please check everything and put such suggestions into the discussion.

(check everything)

504- China is primarily influenced by topography and further...I did not see any references to literature

556- reference to literature

571-150 billion yuan...what is it? Either remove the link or change sentence

590-I don't understand why this is, maybe just continue the paragraph.

623- northern slope oasis zone...why not in the Facilities.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out.

Line 433 – Reflected in the discussion section, with minor revisions made to that part.

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Manuscript Number: atmosphere-3952936

Manuscript Title: Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Mechanisms of Vegetation Net Primary Productivity in Northern Xinjiang, China, from 2001 to 2022

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for your letter and the valuable comments provided by the reviewers on our manuscript entitled “Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Mechanisms of Vegetation Net Primary Productivity in Northern Xinjiang, China, from 2001 to 2022” (Manuscript ID: atmosphere-3952936). These comments are very insightful and helpful for improving the quality of our paper.

We have carefully read and addressed all the comments, and have revised the manuscript accordingly based on your suggestions. The revised version has been uploaded, with all the modifications highlighted in red for your convenience in checking and editing.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to resubmit our revised manuscript and are deeply grateful for your time and consideration in reviewing our work.

Sincerely

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Abstract:

Line 23. Please use the same number after dot.

Response 1:Thank you for pointing this out.

Line 23. Revised.

Comments 2: Introduction

check “13”. Ok, I see further that are references. Please refer to the journal’s rules… its incorrect style.

53, 113, 133, etc. The NPP abbreviation already showed before.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out.

check “13”. Ok, I see further that are references. Please refer to the journal’s rules… its incorrect style.

53, 113, 133, etc. The NPP abbreviation already showed before.All relevant changes have been made and marked in red in the manuscript.

Comments 3: Material and Methods

180-186. A detailed explanation of the Casa model is needed, as it’s a key approach of the study. Please provide a description of the method.

Please report software used.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out.

All relevant changes have been made and marked in red in the manuscript.

Comments 4: Results

Please increase the size of all fugies.

Is it not clear how NPP under croplands is higher than under forests?

Fig .6. Please add NPP unit on the map.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out.

Figure 6 has also been revised.

Comments 5: Discussion

Please use the same number after dot across the whole text.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out.

Thank you very much for the reviewer’s valuable comments — the suggested revisions have been completed accordingly.

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Manuscript Number: atmosphere-3952936

Manuscript Title: Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Mechanisms of Vegetation Net Primary Productivity in Northern Xinjiang, China, from 2001 to 2022

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for your letter and the valuable comments provided by the reviewers on our manuscript entitled “Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Mechanisms of Vegetation Net Primary Productivity in Northern Xinjiang, China, from 2001 to 2022” (Manuscript ID: atmosphere-3952936). These comments are very insightful and helpful for improving the quality of our paper.

We have carefully read and addressed all the comments, and have revised the manuscript accordingly based on your suggestions. The revised version has been uploaded, with all the modifications highlighted in red for your convenience in checking and editing.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to resubmit our revised manuscript and are deeply grateful for your time and consideration in reviewing our work.

Sincerely

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

Comments revised. However, there are still numerous minor mistakes, as at line 518. Please check and read again the whole text.

Response 1: Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and revised several minor issues.