Dear Authors:
Thank you providing your responses to referee comments. Both referees evaluated scientific significance of your study positively (high to good), but one referee required refinement of presentation quality. Indeed, your manuscript can be improved in terms of readability (i.e. “phrasing and word choice”). Interestingly, both referees thought that you could have and use LAI data in the analyses; in contrast, you replied to the referees that LAI measurement of such low vegetation was difficult. In the revised manuscript, you had better clearly explain this point. I studied all comments and conclude that you are going to revise the manuscript in a satisfactory manner. Otherwise, you justified your selection. Finally, I conclude that the manuscript needs major revision and re-examination before being accepted for publication. Again, I recommend refining presentation quality by paying attention to every paragraph and sentence.

Dear Authors:
Thank you for providing the revised manuscript.
I studied the annotated manuscript to find out how it was improved from the previous one mainly on the basis of referee comments. Indeed, you tried to improve presentation quality and readability in many parts. The extension of introduction looks helpful by giving basic information on the Arctic research. Both referees evaluated scientific significance of this study positively, and I confirmed that you made adequate (major) revision. Therefore, this manuscript would be accepted for publication.