Dear author,

Thank you for your responses to reviewers. Your paper is very interesting and it is underline by the two reviewers. I have read your responses carefully and I think that your paper needs corrections before taking a decision on its publication in Climate of the Past. Both reviewers send remarks that have to be addressed in the revised version of your paper. In fact, the reviewer 2 have underlined interresting points in the comments that really have to be followed or better adressed
I want to add below additional remarks and ask other questions:

1 – Title: I agree that the title do not fit with the paper as the deglaciation is develop in a special paragraph in the paper but the terms used of "impact on deglaciation" in the title or of "climate-driven deglaciation" in paragraph 5.1 title are not adequate here in my opinion. So I suggest to change the title in “Climate impact on vegetation dynamics since the Last Glacial Maximum at Moossee” or if you want to conserve the term of deglaciation “Climate impact on vegetation dynamics during the last deglaciation and Holocene” and to change as well the title of the 5.1 paragraph Or you choose to focus only on the deglaciation and your discussion has to be extended more on this period and restricted on the Holocene.

2- Concerning the references, I agree also with Rev. 2 that the important papers published on Les Echets and La Grande-Pile, even if they have not the same resolution as your record, have to be cited at least in the introduction to set the study framework in a width area and highlight the importance of your new work to respond to questions on the climate/environment interaction. You may add one sentence with these references to show the importance of high resolution studies in this area and not only cite paper or synthesis or modelling and regional papers on Switzerland. So please find a way to evoque the old series.

3- Paleo diversity data needs to be shown if such record is informative for the discussion on climate influence and vegetation but not only that you want to show here all your data. Please remove it if not or justify more why you want to present it here.

4- Concerning the interpretation of Sporormiella, I will be very interested to see the influx of Sporormiella and the extension of your discussion regarding the interpretation in occurrence/absence of the curves of this NPP? Did you have other coprophilous NPP that reinforced you interpretation? Please discuss more on that point as it is strange that the coprophilous are present only during the deglaciation. I see that when you present the curve in the Fig 4. Data of Nielsen show the presence of Megafauna are very general. Did you have informations about what happened near your site? And what about the other nearby sites? In the nearby site of Burgäschisee, Sporormiella is not so represented. why?
and what about the Holocene, it is impossible to see anything in your diagram but you say they are sporadic. Does it means that there is no indications of livestock in the studied area in the recent periods? So it means that you have only farming. And what about the nearby sites? Did I understand in the good way? Perhaps this part of the discussion has to be more developed.

5- in Fig. 4 you only show july temperature from modellers? have you test some climate quantifications on your data? it will be usefull to see really what hapenned around your site.

6- In Fig.1, do not use white for the numbering of the sites and the countries limits, please change that, it is unreadable.
In Fig. 3, perhaps it will be more readable if you cut your complete diagram in two parts in portrait one below the other with a remind of the depth, ages, lithology, pollen zones and synthetic trees/shrub/herb diagram. Please do that and you can be able to enlarge the two parts of the diagram that result in a more readable figure.

I am waiting after your responses to my comments and the revised manuscript with corrections in track-mode changes.

With my best regards
Nathalie Combourieu-Nebout

Dear authors,
Please apologize for the length of the review process, it was really not easy to find a reviewer who accepted to have a look on the revised version of your manuscript. So my conclusion has been based on only another external review and those I have done by myself.

After studying the new review and read again in detail your paper, it appears that some corrections are still necessary before definitively state on the acceptance or rejection of your manuscript for publication. Please read carefully the request of the reviewer and follow the recommendation and corrections. In addition I would like you a response point by point to the new review and to my remarks and a new manuscript with your corrections in track mode change. In general, I agree with the remarks done on your paper by the 3rd reviewer and especially regarding the discussion and its improvement. You will find my supplementary remarks below and I hope you will study them carefully too and modify your paper accordingly.

Your paper is very interesting and generally well written. However I would like you add some precision in the text and propose some corrections on the figures:

1- Concerning the age model, please add a sentence to state that all the dates presented in your document have been taking into account to construct the age model

2- Concerning the palynological method, please add a sentence to precise total number of taxa determined in the series and eventually in each sample. The number of NPP counted is important too as you present the results in % and not in absolute abundance or in fluxes. Are they really relevant if you count only few NPP comparing to 500 pollen (and only about 100 in the base of the diagram I understood). Won’t it be better to propose here the curves in spores cm-2 yr-1 such as for the charcoal particles? And so it will be independent of the pollen sum counted.

3- Page 6 line talked about the possibility of having reworked material through the increase of Pine, presence of Abies and Picea. In the same samples, you considered that Sporomiella and other palynomorphs are not in the same case. Could you justified that? Perhaps the hypothesis of long transport may be easier to justify here as Pine, Fir and Spruce live at different elevation. Please clarify that do not leave reader in such imprecision.

4- I have a question about the peak in Juniperus at 14.6 cal BP. Of course it occurs at the same time as those observed in other sites. Nevertheless in your record, how many samples define this event? If you have only one sample, it is not relevant in my opinion and you have to moderate your interpretations.

5- You mentioned a North-South gradient with lagged reaction of the vegetation at the beginning of the Holocene. It would be very impressive to show this response gradient in a figure that represents the changes in the forest in the different series from N to S in the Alps. And in this figure it will be also informative to include the curve of Bergsee record that shows a similar response as in your record and which has a similar time resolution in the period from LGM to 11.5 cal BP. I follow the third reviewer on this point.

6- Concerning the figures there is some amendments that are necessary to improve the read of the paper. First it would be great to have the event chronology e.g. Oldest Dryas, Bolloing Allerod, Younger Dryas, Preboreal, 8.2 event, 4.2 event in all diagrams. It will reinforce your discussion if this was notified on the figures.
a. In the figure 1, could you please add the location of the Bergsee, I think it is possible on your map.
b. In the Figure 2, could you indicate where is the LST age on your age model curve by a star (the arrow is not sufficient in my opinion as we do not know to which date it corresponds on the figure), I suppose it has been included in the age model. Please confirm that in the text and complete the figure accordingly.
c. In figure 3 it remains uneasy to see the low percentages even if you have superimposed the exaggeration curves. I suggest to cut the diagram in two parts (trees and herbs) to have the possibility to enlarge the representation of the diagram. The two parts of the diagram could be represented one below the other with a reminder of the depths, ages and pollen zones. Please try to do that.
d. Figure 4 would be modified to organize it from North the south to see the gradient you evoked in the text. In that case, it would be interesting to add a diagram (synthetic) of the Bergsee to show and discuss more the similarities (Betula development)/differences (no Juniperus peak in Bergsee) and enlarge the gradient by showing other records (at least one more) from the north and the south to confirm the differences. See above too concerning the gradient and in the R3 review.
e. On figure 5 please enlarge the numbering and characters as they are difficult to read at 100%. In fact, I agree with the R3 remarks on this figure as you could add other well-known records to compare to yours.

So some works is still necessary in your manuscript before its acceptance and for this reason I followed the reviewer 3 and propose major corrections. Nevertheless I have no doubt about the potentiality of your paper to be published in Climate of the Past after its improvement and I am waiting after receiving the corrected version soon.

With my best regards
Nathalie Combourieu-Nebout

Dear authors,

I have now read carefully your responses to reviewers and to my comments and I think that they are globally satifactory. You added some sentences in response to some remarks and change the figures even if not all the third reviewer recommandations have been addressed, I chose to accept your paper. Before complete acceptance, I have some minor requests and a last question:

First remove "see " before the citations in the text, it is not necessary

Secondly, I am not convinced by your arguments for your refusal to draw the Bergsee curves in front of your data in Fig.4. I do not understand. It will reinforced your gradient and your interpretation as in the Bergsee pollen data show the same pattern as in the north Switzerland. could you please envisage to test a figure with a synthetic diagram of Begsee on the left of your figure 4. or please tell me if it is impossible for you to do that.

Thirdly, I do not refuse the comparison with Sofular cave but I think that there are nearest speleothem records in Europe that may be also good candidate for comparison. Tell me why you use this one to compare to Switzerland record or change the record.

Thank you for your patience along this long review process lengthened by conditions beyond my control. Your paper is now very close to publication and the little change requested do not take lot of time before your paper will be tranfer to the publication service.

with my best regards
Nathalie Combourieu-Nebout

Dear authors,

Thank you for your clear responses.
Your paper is now ready for publication.
Thank you for publishing in Climate of the Past
Best regards
Nathalie Combourieu-Nebout