August 2020.
I would like to thanks the authors for the detailed response to the reviewers’ comments.
Outcome of the reviewers’ recommendations leads to deiced for a major revision. When preparing your response please consider also the following points:

1. Please note that while addressing those comments you need to specifically answer them; the answer that it is included in the aDGVM2 model algorithm (e.g., page 4, the few first sentences is not enough.
2. Projected temperature change for the whole region provided in the manuscript, is within the range of 1 – 6 degrees. However, the forecast of precipitation changes is not given, although it is important information to assess the projected climatic changes in the region. If possible please provide figures with maps of current air temperature and precipitation and their projected changes for the whole region, as well as their differences, as in the panels of figure 1.
3. Figure 6 presents annual ET values ranged between 300 to 440 mm/a (0.8-1.2 mm/d), for the given MAP range. Given the region high precipitation range (800 to 1600 mm/a in that figure), those ET values seems very low and are not match the values of Figure 1. Please explain this discrepancy.
4. Large number of papers predicts tree mortality due to future higher air temperatures and precipitation reduction (e.g., (Choat, Brodribb et al. 2018), (McDowell, Williams et al. 2016)), extension of the Earth dryland area over wetter regions (e.g., (Huang, Yu et al. 2016)) and many other studies show that the CO2 fertilization effect could not overcome the higher atmospheric water demand thus considerable WUE changes (e.g., Franks PJ,2014)). Although there are others opinions, naturally, the authors cannot ignore those effects in stating that (starting from line 346):
“Under future conditions, the spatial distribution, extent and biomass of evergreen forests mostly remained at the current state, and evergreen forests were more resistant to climate change than deciduous forests. Expansion of deciduous forest into open biomes due to increasing woody cover resulted in significant loss of savanna area in the Deccan region under both RCPs with eCO2 by the end of the century. Transition from deciduous forests to evergreen forest was simulated for the mountain regions of South Asia.”

Choat, B., et al. (2018). "Triggers of tree mortality under drought." Nature 558(7711): 531-539.

Huang, J. P., et al. (2016). "Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change." Nature Climate Change 6(2): 166-+.

McDowell, N. G., et al. (2016). "Multi-scale predictions of massive conifer mortality due to chronic temperature rise." Nature Climate Change 6(3): 295-300.
Franks PJ, Royer DL, Beerling DJ, Van de Water PK, Cantrill DJ, Barbour MM, Berry JA (2014) New constraints on atmospheric co2 concentration for the Phanerozoic. Geophys Res Lett 41: 4685–4694.

August 2020.
I would like to thanks the authors for the detailed response to the reviewers’ comments.
Outcome of the reviewers’ recommendations leads to deiced for a major revision. When preparing your response please consider also the following points:

1. Please note that while addressing those comments you need to specifically answer them; the answer that it is included in the aDGVM2 model algorithm (e.g., page 4, the few first sentences is not enough.
2. Projected temperature change for the whole region provided in the manuscript, is within the range of 1 – 6 degrees. However, the forecast of precipitation changes is not given, although it is important information to assess the projected climatic changes in the region. If possible please provide figures with maps of current air temperature and precipitation and their projected changes for the whole region, as well as their differences, as in the panels of figure 1.
3. Figure 6 presents annual ET values ranged between 300 to 440 mm/a (0.8-1.2 mm/d), for the given MAP range. Given the region high precipitation range (800 to 1600 mm/a in that figure), those ET values seems very low and are not match the values of Figure 1. Please explain this discrepancy.
4. Large number of papers predicts tree mortality due to future higher air temperatures and precipitation reduction (e.g., (Choat, Brodribb et al. 2018), (McDowell, Williams et al. 2016)), extension of the Earth dryland area over wetter regions (e.g., (Huang, Yu et al. 2016)) and many other studies show that the CO2 fertilization effect could not overcome the higher atmospheric water demand thus considerable WUE changes (e.g., Franks PJ,2014)). Although there are others opinions, naturally, the authors cannot ignore those effects in stating that (starting from line 346):
“Under future conditions, the spatial distribution, extent and biomass of evergreen forests mostly remained at the current state, and evergreen forests were more resistant to climate change than deciduous forests. Expansion of deciduous forest into open biomes due to increasing woody cover resulted in significant loss of savanna area in the Deccan region under both RCPs with eCO2 by the end of the century. Transition from deciduous forests to evergreen forest was simulated for the mountain regions of South Asia.”

Choat, B., et al. (2018). "Triggers of tree mortality under drought." Nature 558(7711): 531-539.

Huang, J. P., et al. (2016). "Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change." Nature Climate Change 6(2): 166-+.

McDowell, N. G., et al. (2016). "Multi-scale predictions of massive conifer mortality due to chronic temperature rise." Nature Climate Change 6(3): 295-300.
Franks PJ, Royer DL, Beerling DJ, Van de Water PK, Cantrill DJ, Barbour MM, Berry JA (2014) New constraints on atmospheric co2 concentration for the Phanerozoic. Geophys Res Lett 41: 4685–4694.

Dear Authors,
Thank you a lot for resubmitting your work and your efforts to address the reviewers’ comments.
Considering the amount of reviewers comments, their profoundness, their importance for the holistic view of the manuscript and your extensive replies, I find the revisions by the reviewers a necessarily step forward.
As already mentioned in my previous stage comments, many of the replies to comments you are considering that those effects included in the aDGVM2 model (e.g., temperature sensitivity) and that in current submission it is better described how the model treat those comments. I would suggest to provide further evidences substantiating the way of modelling of these effects, based, as much as possible, on field observations or others models for this or others regions.
An example for such comment reply: Reviewer 1 stated that: “… the manuscript under discussion, line 349 (page 12), predicts the expansion of woody forests compared to Savannas in mountainous regions. Similarly predicts that in Deccan plateau may change to evergreen forests from deciduous forests” and he continue “… these situations and the conclusions drawn seem to be quite simplistic without applying appropriate knowledge in the forestry sector.” Your reply is that: “A transition from deciduous to evergreen forests has been simulated for the mountainous regions, i.e., the Himalayas and the Western Ghats.” Can you provide any observations/model results others than your model to support your claim?

Warm regards and wish you healthy days in those scary period, Eyal

Dear Dr. Kumar and the co-authors,
Below is a comments letter sent you on Oct. 26.
Seems, you had overlook and did not response to the reviewers comments . They can be found in the link:
https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2020-169/#discussion).
Your ae kindly ask to address those before farther evaluation of the paper.
Be well and healthy and looking forward to the reply, Eyal

Associate Editor Decision: Reconsider after major revisions (26 Oct 2020) by Eyal Rotenberg.
Comments to the Author:
Dear Authors,
Thank you a lot for resubmitting your work and your efforts to address the reviewers’ comments.
Considering the amount of reviewers comments, their profoundness, their importance for the holistic view of the manuscript and your extensive replies, I find the revisions by the reviewers a necessarily step forward.
As already mentioned in my previous stage comments, many of the replies to comments you are considering that those effects included in the aDGVM2 model (e.g., temperature sensitivity) and that in current submission it is better described how the model treat those comments. I would suggest to provide further evidences substantiating the way of modelling of these effects, based, as much as possible, on field observations or others models for this or others regions.
An example for such comment reply: Reviewer 1 stated that: “… the manuscript under discussion, line 349 (page 12), predicts the expansion of woody forests compared to Savannas in mountainous regions. Similarly predicts that in Deccan plateau may change to evergreen forests from deciduous forests” and he continue “… these situations and the conclusions drawn seem to be quite simplistic without applying appropriate knowledge in the forestry sector.” Your reply is that: “A transition from deciduous to evergreen forests has been simulated for the mountainous regions, i.e., the Himalayas and the Western Ghats.” Can you provide any observations/model results others than your model to support your claim?

Warm regards and wish you healthy days in those scary period, Eyal

Dear Authors,
Recently we get the reviewers comments, for the second reviewing stage, and they were generally positive.
For the next step, I will follow the recommendation by the 2nd reviewer, asking for ‘accepting subject to minor revisions’ of your paper.
Looking forward to this revise version.
Sorry for this long process. Best regards, Eyal

To the Authors,
Following 5 massive comments by different reviewers it is time to wrap this paper.
A technical note to address: if water fluxes are present in mm the units are mm/time, not mm/m2/time. The comment applies to lines 241-2 in the manuscript.
I would like to thank you for the determination and for the larger efforts, good luck with the submission, good health and happy holiday time, Eyal