This study collected shrub tree-ring samples from 26 sites in a region influenced by both the westerlies and East Asian summer monsoon (EASM). By establishing chronologies and analyzing the relationship with climatic factors, the study found that water is the primary limiting factor affecting shrub growth. It is found that shrub growth shows no clear relationship with the westerlies and EASM on an interannual scale, characterizing by a positive correlation with westerlies and a negative correlation with the EASM on a decadal scale. I recommend a revision.

Major comments:

Lines 263 and 274: Figure 5 and Table 1 show a strong correlation between the tree-ring chronology and the westerlies and EASM. However, this correlation is based on time-series data obtained from 11-year moving average. This may introduce spurious correlations, creating the illusion of strong correlation. As shown in Figure 4, the correlations are not strong at the interannual scale. And the differences in decadal trends, shown in Figure 5, are quite pronounced. These increase the likelihood of spurious correlation.

Line 402: The authors use the foehn effect to explain the negative impact of the EASM on tree growth. However, EASM has a dual role, bringing both moisture and the foehn effect. Analyzing the impact of EASM on drought in the study area would help strengthen the conclusions.

The authors aim to elucidate the interaction between the westerlies and EASM on the climate of the study area. But, shrub growth under different westerlies and the EASM (Figure 5) does not adequately answer the scientific questions. The authors have identified that shrub growth in this region is influenced by moisture conditions. So, I suggest establishing structural equation models (or other functions) comprising factors such as westerlies, EASM, climate factors and chronologies. By comparing the direct and indirect effects of the westerlies and EASM on shrub growth, you can demonstrate the direction and intensity of their effects.

Text and figures require correction. Such as the punctuation in Line 160, the font size in the figures and the order of sub-figures in Figure 7.

This study uses 26 desert shrub-ring chronologies to reveal the differentiated impacts of the westerly-monsoon circulation system on the climate of the three deserts in Alxa Plateau, which is of great significance for understanding regional climate change, desertification processes, and the related driving mechanisms. This study is a series of works previously published in Climate of the Past (Xiao, et al., 2024). It is a broader expansion of research on the interaction of the two major circulations in the surrounding mountains to the core desert area of the Alxa Plateau. At the same time, dendroclimatology studies based on desert shrubs hold significant value in areas without tree distribution. I suggest that this manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.

Specific suggestions for the issue are as follows:

1. The full text must be uniformly labeled：such as Chen et al., 2019a; Chen et al., 2019b” should be as Chen et al., 2019a; b”, “Xiao et al., 2024a;b” as “Xiao et al., 2024a; b”, “Ren et al. 2026” as “Ren et al., 2026”, and so on.
2. The dashed lines should be consistent throughout the text：— as -, L92-93，these two circulation systems—the interior desert region of the Alxa Plateau—remains notably scarce. L128-131: 1957-2017, 1959-2017 should be as 1957 - 2017, 1959 - 2017.
3. L183：mean ±1 standard deviation should be added the（δ）.
4. L 224–235: These two paragraphs should be merged into one paragraph.
5. 4： The dashed line between the two images of RW and RY should be removed.
6. 5： The writing format of R and P should be consistent.
7. The notation of the significance level (P) is inconsistent throughout the text: line 207 uses an uppercase "P", whereas line 241 uses a lowercase italic "p". Please unify to the latter (lowercase italic p) throughout.
8. In Figure 1, the light blue and dark blue arrows represent the EASM and the Westerlies, respectively, but in Figure 6 the assignments are reversed. Please make them consistent. Figure 6 has too many arrows and looks very cluttered.
9. There are some typos and grammar errors in the manuscript. The authors need do a thorough check on the writing of the paper.