Seasonal Ecosystem Productivity in a Seasonally Dry Tropical Forest (Caatinga) Using Flux Tower Measurements and Remote Sensing Data
, Keila Rêgo Mendes 2,4, Losany Branches Viana 5, Gabriele Vieira Almeida 6, Pedro Rodrigues Mutti 2, Cláudio Moisés Santos e Silva 2, Bergson Guedes Bezerra 2, Thiago Valentim Marques 2,7, Rosária Rodrigues Ferreira 2, Cristiano Prestelo Oliveira 2,4, Weber Andrade Gonçalves 2,4, Pablo Eli Oliveira 2, Suany Campos 2, Maria Uilhiana Gomes Andrade 2, Antônio Celso Dantas Antonino 8 and Rômulo Simões Cézar Menezes 8
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors introduced changes sugested by the reviewers, paper seems to be all right now
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The authors are thankful for the comments and review collaboration.
Best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
CO2, H2O, need use the subscript.
There are some misuses of the abbreviation.
Figure 2, 3, 4, 5, the horizontal ordinate need to be checked carefully.
Figure 7 is unclear.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The authors are thankful for the comments and review collaboration.
The CO2 and H2O words was corrected.
The abbreviations was revised.
the Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, was uploaded
The Figure 7 was corrected and uploaded.
Best regards.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
(1) The third objective question is too small.
(2)“evapotranspiration rates are high all year round (1500 to 2000 mm yr-1)”，Here the evapotranspiration would be water surface evaporation.
(3)The full name of the MODIS need be given for the first time.
(4)The NDVI and EVI are best known. Therefore the introduction of these two indices are not needed in section 2.3.
(5) In section 3.2, the GPP values are confused. The authors need to check them carefully.
(6) The Figure 6 to 8 are the main results of the manuscript. But there are few introduction and discussion on them.
Reviewer 2 Report
- the abstract need improvement, the "background and aims" and "method" parts are too heavy, however, the "result" and conclusion is too tight. this is not good for a scientific manuscript, please add more precise sentences that present the results and conclusions of the manuscript.
2. introduction section, please add more recent studies related to your study and aims, enhance your motivation, and highlight the scientific meaning of this study.
3. the method section is too precise to clarify all the content, please add more content that supports your results.
I think the equation (3) and (4) are well-known things and not necessary to be listed in your manuscript.
4. result section should not include any content or sentences that are related to the discussion, for instance, "The relationship between tower GPP and MODIS GPP agrees with results previously reported in the literature [53-55,30], with stronger correlations if compared to similar analysis carried out in tropical forests [55]." also, put the clear figures in the manuscript.
5. currently, the discussion is very weak, the authors should discuss your works, and compare them with the published works. what are new findings, what is different from others, and why? do not include the normal thing that we already know in the field. and also highlight your novel finding and potential scientific meaning. moreover, what are the uncertainties in your work, and what is the future in your outlook?
6. keep the conclusion precise, it's too heavy now.
7. a lot of writing problems and typos, please check all things carefully.
Reviewer 3 Report
the paper itself is ok, but there are just a few flaws
* references - too much of single citations, see teh discussion, which is based only on couple of papers, while in introduction you cite enormous amount of papers (see 1-7, 16-29) - reduce these to only some really siginificant
* havent noticed clear remark about short period of the analysis, this must be emphasised
* go throughout the manuscript and correct small errors (e.g. Ta at the beginning and Tair later on)
