This manuscript was read by two reviewers, who both have thoughtful comments. Referee 1 is quite positive although recommends clarifying the descriptions of the various phenology schemes, and has some concerns about the temporal scale of comparisons. Referee 2 also finds many points of interest, but is troubled by some methodological issues and lack of clarity; recommends improved and expanded comparisons with other, similar studies; and has some suggestions for improving the clarity of the text.

I have read the ms and broadly agree with the referees. This is an interesting and overall well-done study but the reviewers raise some significant issues that need to be addressed before further consideration. From your responses to the referees I believe all of the issues can be addressed, and look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Thanks for your careful revisions and thoughtful responses. Referee #1 is satisfied with these and generally complimentary; Referee #2 was not available. I have reviewed the revised manuscript and agree with R1 that it is stronger and clearer throughout. Please consider R1's one remaining minor suggestion, but otherwise I think this is acceptable for publication.