The manuscript uses a valuable observational dataset by integrating

dual-site (TZ/XT) vertical measurements with ERA5 and HYSPLIT

backward trajectories to investigate dust transport pathways, dynamical

and thermal mechanisms, and dust flux/profile characteristics over the

Taklimakan Desert. The study provides useful evidence for understanding

the seasonally varying controls on dust-storm development and helps

bridge site-based observations with regional-scale atmospheric

conditions. These results are also relevant for improving process-based

interpretation and short-lead monitoring of dust-storm occurrence in arid

regions. I recommend that the paper be published after the following

comments are addressed.

1. Main comments

a) The study period and event sample are described inconsistently in

the Abstract, Table 1, and the main text. Please unify the time span, total

number of observed events, any excluded cases (with a brief reason), the

final sample used for analysis, event numbering (Dust1–Dust8), and the

definition of spring and summer throughout the manuscript.

b)The Introduction provides a solid background, but the narrative

could be made more coherent. I suggest refining the logical progression

from motivation to knowledge gaps and then to the specific

objectives/contributions of this study, and updating the citations with the

most relevant literature published in the last five years.

c) Please streamline the Methods and clarify how each method

supports the study objectives and key conclusions. A short

method–objective mapping paragraph at the beginning is sufficient.

Briefly state the role of HYSPLIT (pathway classification and source

indication), ERA5 diagnostics (dynamical: ΔP/wind/geopotential;

thermal: ΔT/instability/BLH), and flux/profile calculations (vertical

structure and terrain effects).

d) Please improve reproducibility by clarifying key definitions and

settings. Define the anomaly baseline used for “anomalous wind/anomaly

wind field”. Specify whether the 24/12/6/3 h windows are referenced to

event onset or storm time/peak. Provide the spatial averaging domain and

essential HYSPLIT settings (starting height, back-trajectory duration, and

pathway classification criteria).

e) Please correct the inconsistency in Table 3 where ΔP appears in

the header while the text discusses ΔT. Ensure the table title/header, in-

text description, and any related figures/citations are consistent after

revision, and confirm that Table 3 matches the variables plotted and

discussed in the Results.

f) Please strengthen the Discussion by adding comparisons with

previous studies from the Taklimakan Desert and other deserts. Focus on

seasonal dynamical and thermal controls, profile differences over flat and

undulating surfaces, and transport-pathway classifications. Reduce

repetition of the Results, and consider organizing Sect. 4 as: summary,

highlights, limitations, and outlook.

2. Technical comments

a) Replace “HYSPIT” with HYSPLIT in the Sect. 2.4 title.

b) Standardize terminology throughout (e.g., use “850 hPa

geopotential height” consistently). In the flux/parameter section, unify

units (cm s⁻¹ and m s⁻¹) and clearly state any conversions where

needed.

c) Several figure captions show numbering or formatting issues

(e.g., “Fig.11 10 …”). Please verify figure order/numbering and

standardize caption style and wording.

d) The reference list includes clearly irrelevant items and possible

duplicates. Please remove unrelated references, merge duplicates where

appropriate, and ensure one-to-one consistency between in-text citations

and the reference list.

e) The keywords include “Causation Analysis”, but corresponding

methods/results are not clearly presented. Please remove this term from

the keywords and any related statements to avoid overstating the scope.

This manuscript investigates dust-storm processes in the Taklamakan Desert using dual-gradient tower observations from two sites with contrasting terrain, combined with ERA5 reanalysis and HYSPLIT backward trajectories. Its goal is to characterize dust-storm transport pathways, distinguish the relative roles of dynamic versus thermal drivers, and compare horizontal and vertical dust-flux structures between the interior and peripheral desert sites. The topic is relevant, and the observational setting is potentially valuable because vertically resolved in situ measurements from the Taklamakan Desert are relatively rare. The manuscript also attempts to connect local tower observations with larger-scale meteorological fields, which could be useful for understanding seasonal differences in dust-storm behavior. However, I found a few major issues and more critically large amount of technical glitches. 

In its current form, the manuscript remains largely descriptive, and the main conclusions are not sufficiently supported by the limited number of events analyzed. The distinction between spring dust storms being dynamically dominated and summer dust storms being thermally dominated is plausible, but it is inferred mainly from qualitative case descriptions and map-based interpretation rather than rigorous quantitative analysis. As a result, the manuscript currently reads more like an observational case summary than a robust mechanistic study. In addition, the paper contains numerous technical and editorial problems, including table errors, corrupted notation, inconsistent terminology, and problematic references, which substantially reduce confidence in the care of the manuscript preparation. 

Major issues

1. Too small sample size: The study is effectively based on only eight dust-storm cases from a single season in 2024, after one event was excluded because of missing data at one station. This is too limited a sample to robustly establish generalized trajectory classes, seasonal controls, or forecasting windows. The manuscript often phrases its findings in broad terms, but the evidence is based on a very small number of cases, making it difficult to separate systematic behavior from event-specific variability. 

2. The central claim that spring storms are dynamically dominated while summer storms are thermally dominated is reasonable, but the manuscript does not provide sufficiently strong quantitative evidence to support this as a robust mechanistic conclusion. Much of the argument relies on visual comparison of maps, narrative interpretation of pressure and temperature changes, and descriptive contrasts between a few cases. Similarly, the proposed 12–6 hour “key prediction window” is inferred from variance behavior rather than validated with any formal predictive framework or skill assessment. These conclusions therefore appear suggestive rather than firmly demonstrated. 

3. The paper attributes summer dust storms to stronger surface-atmosphere temperature contrasts, convection, and vertical motions, and discusses terrain effects on vertical and horizontal dust fluxes. These ideas are plausible, but they are not supported by direct analysis of quantities that would better establish the proposed mechanisms, such as vertical velocity, boundary-layer depth, turbulent mixing, instability indices, or a more formal decomposition of forcing terms. In several places, the manuscript presents interpretations as conclusions even though they are more appropriately framed as hypotheses. 

4. HYSPLIT interpretation: The paper classifies dust trajectories into three pathway types using HYSPLIT and ERA5 wind fields. However, the manuscript itself notes that the station-based backward trajectories cannot fully represent wind direction and sources across the full desert region. This limitation is important because air-mass back trajectories do not automatically identify true dust source regions or emission processes, especially over complex terrain. The pathway classification should therefore be presented more cautiously. 

5. The study’s conclusions about differences in horizontal and vertical dust flux between the two sites are potentially interesting, but the manuscript does not adequately discuss uncertainty, observational error, sampling representativeness, or sensitivity of the flux calculations to assumptions in the method. Since the flux results are central to the paper, this omission weakens the reliability of the interpretation. 

List of technical glitches and editorial problems

1. Table1: XT(, XT), XT should be the same? 

2. Event dates and periods are not consistent. 

3. Station naming is not consistent throughout the manuscript. 

4. HYSPIT? 

5. Table 3: mislabeled? 

Please find the supplement.