Dear authors,

I have carefully read your response to reviewers and had a look on what you proposed to modify your manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer 2 asked major revisions and I agree with this decision. You propose a collection of corrections but it appears that several of them are not sufficiently discussed or not enough detailed in the text. Please see the following comments and remarks.

1- The reviewer 2 ask you to remove figure 3 and not figure 2. I would like you conserve this picture. I think that the figure 2 is informative for local climate. However, it will be better to add this “ombrothermic” diagram directly on figure 1. It will have a sense as you show a map with the location of the site and the nearby towns. In this figure localities names and elevations values on the coloured map on the right are too small or too light and then unreadable. What is the little rectangle on the right and at the base of the map at left, it is completely unreadable.

2- Reviewer 1 ask you about the concentration compared to percentages. This have to be discussed in the method. Your choices have to be described as they are the base of discussion. Perhaps you can show the figures proposed in your response as additional data and only justify your choices in the text with reference to the additional document

3- As the two reviewers, I think that the relation between plant and fire sensitivity is not sufficiently developed (in the revised version too). In fact you add some words but it remains insufficient as you use largely the opposition between fire-adapted and fire non-adapted plants or groups of plants. You have to explain more which taxa are fire sensitive and which are not in your record. Perhaps it will be good to add a paragraph on that when describing the vegetation or in the methods. This discussion has to be supported by references in my opinion. It is important to reinforce your paper discussion. You begin an explanation in the response but it is not developed in the corrected manuscript in my opinion. Your sentence about the vegetation of the Hengduan Mountain is not sufficient. What is requested is a detail about which taxa are expected to be burned preferentially and which not, based on observations (present day or past data).
It will be good to use references such as Zhang et al 2015 before page 7 in this discussion.

4- Concerning the standardization of your data, rephrase your sentence, it remains unclear. Explain more.

5- You changed the zonation labelling. OK it was requested by reviewer 2. However the pollen zonation may be still traced on the figure I front to the charcoal one (used in the text) for a link to other papers even if it is not commented in the text (only mentioned in the figure with the reference to the published paper).

6- As commented by the reviewer 2 there is difference in the time span of the H1 event in the studied record and the theoretical interval. The H1 has been defined in North Atlantic and you have to respect the chronology established there. If your event does not cover the whole interval or extend more or if you have differences and specificity in China, please explain more and discuss this fact.

7- I agree with reviewer 2 about Artemisia and Poaceae significance. If you interpret as human influence, you have to justify more. Have you Cereals pollen since 4.3kyr? if not Poaceae occurrence even in high percentage do not be explained by human influence and Artemisia is then considered as expressing climate response of the vegetation. Perhaps you have other arguments to assess human impact sinde 4.3 kyr.

8- The reference of Marlon has not been deleted in the bibliography of the manuscript I received.


This paper is certainly interesting and brings new approach of the data presented within the text and figures. However I would welcome a new version implemented accordingly to the additional comments and corrections that I request and a reply to my remarks listed above. I would probably send the paper back to other reviewers on receipt.

sincerely yours

Nathalie Combourieu-Nebout

Dear authors,

We have now received new reports from two reviews concerning your paper. Both reviewers (especially two of them) made important comments about your manuscript that need to be absolutely taken into consideration in a new version. Particularly one of the reviewers would like to have more details about your hypothesis about diversity and to develop what you want to demonstrate with this curve, the dynamic of diversity in the studied area and the comparison with the other data. Precision and adjustments are also needed about fire effect on the different component of the vegetation and it is necessary to amend the discussion on fire too.

I am strongly recommending you to reply quickly to both reviews, justify your response to all comments and follow the reviewers suggestions and remarks.

Please prepare a revised version of your paper accordingly. In the revised version,
I would like to see your corrections in track change mode. Please, don't forget to send, with your revised version, a replies to all the comments explaining how you have modified your manuscript.
With the new manuscript and your response, I will decide if your paper will need again other reviews.

Waiting after your new version
Best regards
Nathalie Combourieu-Nebout

Dear Authors,

We have received the report of one reviewer that asks you other corrections after having a look on your corrected version.
Please take carefully into account the remarks and corrections and send to Climate of the Past your new corrected manuscript with amendments in track change mode.

I will take my decision after looking on the revised version and decide if you paper will need supplementary reviews.
Best regards

Nathalie

Dear authors,

Thanks you for your documents. I have read carefully the revised version of your paper and your response to the reviewer
It seems that you follow the comments and corrected accordingly.
However I have now some questions that your new document generate when I read it again. Moreover I request some modifications in the text and figures :

1- First, the figures needs to be amended because the characters’ size used is definitively too little? Take care to that because your figure has to be readable in 100% format and probably in a portrait presentation.
On Figure 1, could it be possible to place the onbrothermic diagram out of the map and enlarge its size, it is not possible to read it now in the figure. And do not forget to use bigger characters for the names and legend. In your revised manuscript the figure as in black and white and in the first version it was colored. Finally what do you choose? Probably it will be better in colored format to better see the different elevation with a color panel from white to black
On Figure 3 Could you please indicate at the top what corresponds to your data, what originate from other site and what is from Arabian Sea?
On the same figure, I do not understand what you mean with the colored band as they are not in phase. If it corresponds to the climate phases of the deglaciation and Holocene, defined by the isotope curves (H1, B/A, …) it appears strange to have different width for the different curves as the duration of these periods have been defined in several papers from isotopes and ice cores results (for example Björk et al;, 1998 and Walker et al, 2012 and others like those you have cited).
In addition, you compare with the Arabian Sea. OK I am not a specialist of Asian region but there are probably other marine records nearest from your site that show this period in detail. Justify why you choose that one instead of nearest ones.
In the supplementary data please make the names in SF 1 and 2 and ages especially ages in SF2. Perhaps you may delete one age label per two and enlarge the characters.

2- Page 14. Could you please define the acronyms DCA and PCA. Lot of people know but when you introduce an acronym it is better to define it the first time. In addition you talk about these mathematical analyses without any presentations. I know that it corresponds to previous study but does it bring anything in the discussion? You compare DCA in your core to PCA in another core. May be more explanation are needed to reinforce your text. One or two sentences only will be necessary.

3- Page 17-18. Your discussion about flammability of Quercus is very interesting. Did you try to determine the macrocharcoals? I do not know if it is possible but I think it will help you too. There is no real conclusion at the end of this paragraph. What did you conclude for your site? Which hypothesis did you choose to interpret the Quercus curve at your site? Perhaps it is the organization of the paragraph some conclusion are before the hypothesis proposed by other authors.

4- Concerning Alnus, don’t you think that Alnus takes the place of Quercus and Lithocarpus/Castanopsis in the upper 4kyr?

5- Page 19 - Line 26 to 30 I don’t understand the first sentence?? “dominant species are not evident”??
The other two sentences need a following one to explain what implies the first two. When reading this paragraph, at the end we wonder its aim.

6- Page 20 the sentence “the low fire……. declining” is not so clear. You talk about “the decrease in richness and increase in evenness” I think that talk about the vegetation and then mark “vegetation richness” and “vegetation evenness”
And justify the last sentence.

7- Last paragraph of the conclusion: delete” it is necessary that…. “ and begin with “further lacustrine sites…… China” and continue with “remain necessary to improveour understanding …interactions”

8- Acknowledgments: please do not forget to thank the reviewers even anonymous.

9- References: please verify the bibliography. I did not find Birks and Line, 1992; Li, 2004 in the text

Suggestions for modifications in the text:

Line 9 page 13 add “that” between reveals and fire
Line 17 page 14 “HS1 occurs” or “is dated between”
Line 23 page 14 “this climatic tendency…” can be replaced by “this climatic trend is also recorded in other data from”
Line 8 to 10 page 15 rephrase this sentence, it is not clear or cut the two ideas in two sentences
Line 22 page 15 change “in the dry period” by “during the dry period”
Line 23 page 15 same remarks concerning the wet periods.
Line 24 page 15 what is the HE profile??
Line 24 page 15 add “in” before “northwestern China”
Line 19 to 23 page 17 rephrase. It is not clear. Simplify or cut in two sentences.
Line 21 page 18 delete “the” before “other regions”
Line 16 page 19 change “for” by “of” before “fire-sensitive”
Line 20 page 19 “that floristic… ” I do not understand what you mean. I prefer “where floristic…” but is it what you want to say??

Please pay attention to these remarks and submit a new revised version and I will state about the acceptation of your manuscript.

Best regards
Nathalie Combourieu-Nebout

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your new manuscript.
You have corrected your manuscript according to my last remarks.

Just a final point concerning the figures. As I already said before, there is definitively too little characters on all the figures. Take care on the character size on all Figures and color of the characters on the Figure 1 (white characters on the map are partly unreadable, same problem with all the names). I noted some other things on Figure 1 and 3 (corrected in the revised versions) but the same size problem exists also on figure 2 and others.

please take care on the references, some of them are uncompleted especially the journal name : see "Palaeogeogr, Palaeocl."?? I suppose it corresponds to "Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol."
So take care to that before sending your manuscript for publication.

Thank you for publishing your research in Climate of the Past

With my best regards
Nathalie Combourieu-Nebout