This paper has been improved in the revision and is close to being acceptable for publication. Unfortunately Reviewer #3 did not find the manuscript to present novel information, and also found the text to be difficult to read. So, although the manuscript has been much improved from previous versions, it still requires some careful proofreading. The citations are generally a bit old and could be updated. Furthermore, the authors are encouraged to highlight the novel aspects of their work in a revision.

Specific comments:
Proofread all text including figure captions.
Line 38: This *trend* towards hot temperature…
Line 122-123: This refers to Figure 1 which appears to be on a log-log scale. However the equation does not reflect the logarithmic nature of the relationship. Please clarify. Also check the formatting of the equation, because the space in front of the decimals is strange. And furthermore, are 4 decimals on the coefficients really significant?
Line 133: with confidence (not confident)
Line 135: Please make sure to indicate whether you are referring to direct measurements of ANPP vs satellite derived ANPP via iEVI. To use the terms interchangeably is not valid.
Line 173-177, note that Smith and Knapp have some important papers indicating the importance of precipitation on grassland productivity.

Fig 1 caption, proofread “upper lower inset” should be “upper inset” also please indicate in the caption that it is a log-log scale

It looks like the concerns have been addressed.