Assessing Role of Drought Indices in Anticipating Pine Decline in the Sierra Nevada, CA
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study assessed drought index performance with streamflow, NDVI, and basal area increment of some tree species as a case study. Due to the high level of complexity of the research questions, the results achieved were not as exciting as expected. However, the study was well designed, statistical analyses were comprehensive and solid, and the results were well presented and discussed. The information presented is informative and useful. The paper was very well written, although it was a bit long. I would recommend it for publication in Climate after minor revision.
Page 2, Line 61: Please spell out NVDI here as it was the first time it appeared.
Author Response
NDVI was written out in the introduction the first time it was used. (Thank you for pointing this out)
Reviewer 2 Report
This study attempts to explain the drought-induced tree decline and mortality of Jeffrey Pine using several types of Drought Indices (DI), which the authors derived using PRISM data along with field observations. The study shows no significant error between DIs derived from either PRISM data or field observation data. However, the relationship between DIs and Basal Area Increment (BAI), which the reviewer believes is most important in this study, was not clarified. In this sense, the paper is not particularly interesting for readers, but it attempts to explain BAI using various indices, and the results of such attempts may be helpful for future research. It is also essential as basic knowledge on how trees respond to drought. Therefore, the reviewer has concluded that we can accept the manuscript for publication with minor revisions.
Some specific comments are as follows.
Many alphabetic abbreviations appear, making the paper very difficult to read. A list of abbreviations should be attached.
After clarifying the physical meaning of each index and the differences between them, could a little more consideration be given to which indices are more relevant to the BAI from the physical viewpoint? Although the authors have had some physical discussions in "4. Discussion," they should clearly state why DI could not explain BAI in this particular study in "5. Conclusion."
Author Response
We attached a list that describes each acronym (thanks for the suggestion).
We added a sentence in the conclusion with regard to the capacity of drought indices to predict BAI -- that DIs were significant in the models predicting BAI, but the effect was low (they explained little of the variation in the data). The model we developed has not been proposed before to analyze the effect of drought indices on BAI within the context of concurrent, biological co-variates.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript titled “ Assessing drought index performance with streamflow, NDVI, and pine basal area increment in the Sierra Nevada, CA“. I find the idea interesting and in line with the aim of the journal. I have some concerns on the experimental set-up to justify what the authors claim. Moreover, the rationale behind some of the data presented was not entirely clear. I also recommend to the authors to improve their references by conducting a more extensive review on international literature. Particularly, in the introduction statements are not supported by the references selected by the authors. The logic of some sentences is also questionable. Below are my point to point analysis of manuscript.
I suggest to modify the title title should be more crisp and brief.
Abstract introductary statment is too long, it has to be improved with more specific rational of the study. Abstract should have crisp information about aim meterials method result and conclusion, which I dont find in the present form of abstract.
Introduction of manuscript is too short with fewer references. I recommend to add writeup to the introduction.
Materials and methods
Could you please throw more light on the procedure employed?
Results and discussion:
Although this section looks okay, I suggest comparing with more studies of similar nature.
Conclusion: This section looks general and brief. I suggest expanding it to capture the study's outcome and some recommendations given
Write the full form of NDVI at least once.
Line no: 28, All adjectives used, seems to be similar. The sentence needs to be reframed
Line no: 39, Information in bracket need to be explained
Line no: 41, No need to write abbreviations for two times
Line no: 71, Proper referencing is required, why “as in” is used?
Line no: 71, Rewrite the entire sentence
Line no:71, After full stop and is used that too in smaller case, needs to be rewritten
Line no:81, The bracket open is to be closed, and the statement need to be rewritten
Line no:131, Required to be written again
Author Response
response to reviewer 3 is attached.
Thank you for your suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has modified the manuscript as per my suggestion. I suggest accepting the manuscript in its present form.
