Vegetation Dynamics and Hydro-Climatic Changes during the Middle Holocene from the Central Himalaya, India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors used many models such as: pollen photographs, the total pollen sum (TPS), and TILIA software for controlled the vegetation dynamics and hydro-climatic changes during the Middle Holocene from the Central Himalaya, India.

General review:

1.Generally, the manuscript presents a very interesting topic and the specific research seems to include some significant points for the research community of this field.

2. The proposed paper is very well written with very good use of English language. Except some minor grammatical mistakes and word errors, this paper is written with a very good scientific style. The authors should check again the paper to correct these minor mistakes.

3. The proposed paper is very well structured. It begins with an analytical Introduction with the appropriate references that helps the reader to get into the subject immediately.

4. The results scientifically explained with the use of the appropriate scientific literature

5. The quality of the work in Discussion section is very high and qualitative

6. Conclusions are appropriate for this paper.

However, some Points has been found in this manuscript, where the authors need to revision it:

1.     the abstract: Usually, the abstract divided into three (3) parts: Introduction, methodology, and conclusion. In this abstract, I don’t see the method (or cited the model) that used in this study and in the end, you have not added at least one sentence which can concluded this study. The authors need to re-written the abstract.

2.     Keywords:

2.1.          In the keywords, I find some keys which not cited in the abstract, please replaced it with others cited in the Abstract.

2.2.          The authors used sometime region/study, which represent the same. So, for the text of the paper, it should be taking one word region or study. For my opinion, the study is good.

3.     introduction: the authors used sometimes many Refs for same sentences (ex: [6-13], [14-20], [21-37] ….!!!). The authors need to delete some from them, you can take at least between two to three.

4.     Figure 1:

4.1.          this figure is missing, the coordinates is not clear, the start that used in the third map in below is not accepted. By the ARCGIS, you can add the limit of your study area in this map.

4.2.          The scale for the two first maps in the upper is very biggest.

4.3.          Please add this symbol :1a, ab for each map.

4.4.          The last maps need also to a legend.

5.     Figure2: is missing: what do you mean by the first column. Maybe for each thickness in the column, you can cite the lithology name.

6.     Figure 3: I understand that the R² = 0.976 is the correlation coefficient!! If is it correct, how you can obtain this?

7.     I find in this manuscript many abbreviations, without full name, and which are not know such as: RSP, KOH, HF, BSIP…..you should be add for each abbreviate the full name or you can add in the last of the manuscript a list of abbreviations.

8.     Line 146: you say: The pollen diagrams (Figures 5 and 6) were constructed using TILIA software……can you explain me this?

Figures 4-7, 5p2, 6p3 and 7 are missing in particularly for the Fig 7 . The text appear in them is not clear.

9.     Line 259 and 332: You have two similar sub-headers (5.1, and 5.1.)

Respecting the above mention requirements, the manuscript in current version does not meet the publication criteria. I would suggest significant improvement is necessary and the paper may be again submitted to the journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to the comments of Reviewer 1

The authors used many models such as: pollen photographs, the total pollen sum (TPS), and TILIA software for controlled the vegetation dynamics and hydro-climatic changes during the Middle Holocene from the Central Himalaya, India.

General review:

1.Generally, the manuscript presents a very interesting topic and the specific research seems to include some significant points for the research community of this field.

Response: Thank you for your encouraging words. It means a lot to us.    

2. The proposed paper is very well written with very good use of English language. Except some minor grammatical mistakes and word errors, this paper is written with a very good scientific style. The authors should check again the paper to correct these minor mistakes.

Response: Thank you for your kind words.  

We have gone through the paper gain and rectified the mistakes as per your kind suggestion.

3. The proposed paper is very well structured. It begins with an analytical Introduction with the appropriate references that helps the reader to get into the subject immediately.

Response: Thank you for your kind words and encouragement.  

4. The results scientifically explained with the use of the appropriate scientific literature

Response: Thank you!

5. The quality of the work in Discussion section is very high and qualitative

Response: Thank you for your encouraging words.

6. Conclusions are appropriate for this paper.

Response: Thank you for your encouraging words.

However, some Points has been found in this manuscript, where the authors need to revision it:

1. the abstract: Usually, the abstract divided into three (3) parts: Introduction, methodology, and conclusion. In this abstract, I don’t see the method (or cited the model) that used in this study and in the end, you have not added at least one sentence which can concluded this study. The authors need to re-written the abstract.

Response: We have tried to rectify the Abstract as per your kind suggestion, made bold and purple coloured also in the revised MS for your kind perusal.  

2. Keywords:

Response:

2.1. In the keywords, I find some keys which are not cited in the abstract, please replaced it with others cited in the Abstract.

Response: Rectified as per your kind suggestion.

2.2. The authors used sometime region/study, which represent the same. So, for the text of the paper, it should be taking one word region or study. For my opinion, the study is good.

Response: Rectified as suggested!

3. introduction: the authors used sometimes many Refs for same sentences (ex: [6-13], [14-20], [21-37] ….!!!). The authors need to delete some from them, you can take at least between two to three.

Response: Sir/Madam, we have tried our best to provide the relevant research I the citations in the MS/revised MS.

The main motive behind the citations are to not to exclude the main references and the studies conducted on the very subject and also from the study area.

4. Figure 1:

4.1. this figure is missing, the coordinates is not clear, the start that used in the third map in below is not accepted. By the ARCGIS, you can add the limit of your study area in this map.

Response: We have provided the SRTM DEM of the study area. Also, we have provided the explanation of each geographical maps in Figure 1a.

4.2. The scale for the two first maps in the upper is very biggest.

Response: Rectified as per your kind suggestion. And is providing you the new one.    

4.3. Please add this symbol :1a, ab for each map.

Response: Added!

4.4. The last maps need also to a legend.

Response: Rectified as suggested!

5. Figure 2: is missing: what do you mean by the first column. Maybe for each thickness in the column, you can cite the lithology name.

Response: Sir/Madam, Figure 2 is there. The detailed lithology were mentioned in the MS as below:

The litholog comprises 18 cm thick matrix supported gravely sand with clastic material as a basal unit, which is underlain by 5 cm thick mud deposit with oxidized rock fragments. It is overlain by the deposition of 5 cm thick unoriented debris material, which is followed by 120 cm thick mud deposit with oxidized rock fragments with a sharp contact. This mud unit is overlain by 3 cm thin layer of unoriented debris material, which is followed by 15 cm thick mud deposit. After this alternate layers of clastic material (20 cm, 12 cm, and 5 cm), there were muddy deposits (6 cm, 5cm). These alternate layers are overlain by the 30 cm thick mud deposit with a 3 cm thick unoriented debris material. The top most 18 cm thick unit is unoriented debris material.  

We have, however, highlighted the matter in the revised MS just for your kind perusal.

6. Figure 3: I understand that the R2 = 0.976 is the correlation coefficient!! If is it correct, how you can obtain this?

Response: The correlation coefficient R2= 0.976n indicates that the relationship between age (Ka BP) and the height from the base (per cm). In addition, it indicates very strong linear relationship between the variables of age and height from base.

            We obtained this value by plotting the regression line for the scatter plots of age (on Y axis) and height from base (on X axis) values. The indicates the continuous deposition of lake sediments through time.   

7. I find in this manuscript many abbreviations, without full name, and which are not know such as: RSP, KOH, HF, BSIP…..you should be add for each abbreviate the full name or you can add in the last of the manuscript a list of abbreviations.

Response: As suggested, we have provided the full names of all the abbreviations used in the MS/revised MS.

8. Line 146: you say: The pollen diagrams (Figures 5 and 6) were constructed using TILIA software……can you explain me this?

Response: First of all, we have rectified it as we have only 1 pollen diagram as Figure 7 in the revised MS. 

We put the raw count of pollen and spores in the software TILIA software and there are certain steps we have to follow to construct the pollen diagram (with the help of that very software).

Figures 4-7, 5p2, 6p3 and 7 are missing in particularly for the Fig 7 . The text appear in them is not clear.

Response: We have rectified the issue in the revised MS as per your suggestion.

9. Line 259 and 332: You have two similar sub-headers (5.1, and 5.1.)

Response: We have rectified it in the revised MS as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Vegetation dynamics and hydro-climatic changes during the Middle Holocene from the Central Himalaya, India"  investigates a record of pollen-based vegetation dynamics and contemporary climate change in response to the variations in the ISM precipitation during the Middle Holocene. 

However, there are still some questions to be considered as follows:

Specific comments:

1. The introduction of the research background is not detailed enough. The author may not fully browse the existing relevant studies.

2. Line 56, 16 articles are cited in one line, which is suspected to be piled up.

3. The author should clearly point out the purpose of this study in the last paragraph of the introduction. 

4. This study uses ten dating data. Why does Table 1 only show three of them?

5. Line 332, the title order should be 5.2. It is suggested to add a map of regional/global comparison to this part to more clearly explain regional relevance and global response mechanism.

6. The figures in this paper are not clear enough. 

7. There are many references cited in the article, but the research in the past five years is very rare. 

Author Response

Response to the comments of Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Vegetation dynamics and hydro-climatic changes during the Middle Holocene from the Central Himalaya, India" investigates a record of pollen-based vegetation dynamics and contemporary climate change in response to the variations in the ISM precipitation during the Middle Holocene. 

However, there are still some questions to be considered as follows:

Specific comments:

1. The introduction of the research background is not detailed enough. The author may not fully browse the existing relevant studies.

Response: Sir/Madam, we have tried our best to incorporate the existing relevant research, conducted from the Himalaya, in Introduction of the MS/revised MS.   

2. Line 56, 16 articles are cited in one line, which is suspected to be piled up.

Response: Sir/Madam, we have tried to cite the relevant articles in the MS, which are also in line with the matter discussed in the MS/revised MS. 

3. The author should clearly point out the purpose of this study in the last paragraph of the introduction. 

Response: The principal objective behind conducting the study has already been mentioned. However, for your kind perusal, the portion has been highlighted and made bold also in the revised MS.  

4. This study uses ten dating data. Why does Table 1 only show three of them?

Response: The three dates in the Table 1 are the raw dates. And the dates were interpolated and extrapolated, that’s why ten dates were shown.

5. Line 332, the title order should be 5.2. It is suggested to add a map of regional/global comparison to this part to more clearly explain regional relevance and global response mechanism.

Response: We have rectified the changes in the revised MS as per your kind suggestion.

We beg your pardon, as we may not be in a position to construct and provide you the very map.   

6. The figures in this paper are not clear enough. 

Response: We have tried to provide the clear figures with the feasible high resolution, along with the MS.  

7. There are many references cited in the article, but the research in the past five years is very rare. 

Response: Sir/Madam, we have tried to cite only the relevant references in the MS/revised MS. Moreover, the present research is of the Middle Holocene, encompassing the 1700 cal yr BP during the Middle Holocene. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In the revised version, I did not see any figures and tables.

The discussion part has not been modified or improved. 

Author Response

Response to the comments of Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Vegetation dynamics and hydro-climatic changes during the Middle Holocene from the Central Himalaya, India" investigates a record of pollen-based vegetation dynamics and contemporary climate change in response to the variations in the ISM precipitation during the Middle Holocene. 

However, there are still some questions to be considered as follows:

Specific comments:

1. The introduction of the research background is not detailed enough. The author may not fully browse the existing relevant studies.

Response: Sir/Madam, we have tried our best to incorporate the existing relevant research, conducted from the Himalaya, in Introduction of the MS/revised MS.  

2. Line 56, 16 articles are cited in one line, which is suspected to be piled up.

Response: Sir/Madam, we have tried to cite the relevant articles in the MS, which are also in line with the matter discussed in the MS/revised MS. 

3. The author should clearly point out the purpose of this study in the last paragraph of the introduction. 

Response: The principal objective behind conducting the study has already been mentioned. However, for your kind perusal, the portion has been highlighted and made bold also in the revised MS.  

4. This study uses ten dating data. Why does Table 1 only show three of them?

Response: The three dates in the Table 1 are the raw dates. And the dates were interpolated and extrapolated, that’s why ten dates were shown.

5. Line 332, the title order should be 5.2. It is suggested to add a map of regional/global comparison to this part to more clearly explain regional relevance and global response mechanism.

Response: We have rectified the changes in the revised MS as per your kind suggestion.

We beg your pardon, as we may not be in a position to construct and provide you the very map.  

6. The figures in this paper are not clear enough. 

Response: We have tried to provide the clear figures with the feasible high resolution, along with the MS. 

7. There are many references cited in the article, but the research in the past five years is very rare. 

Response: Sir/Madam, we have tried to cite only the relevant references in the MS/revised MS. Moreover, the present research is of the Middle Holocene, encompassing the 1700 cal yr BP during the Middle Holocene. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

no