Climate Seasonality Mediates Global Patterns of Foliar Carbon and Nitrogen Isotopes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors used symbols in the title of the manuscript which should be changed. Author should explain briefly why this study is required to conduct? Results presentations not in scientific terms, it should need to revise profoundly. Future directions are also not presented well overloaded text should need to removed. it is in the introduction that needs more detail. I suggest that author should provide more justification for your study (specifically, you should expand upon the knowledge gap in the abstract, introduction and all other sections being filled) which should be improved upon before Acceptance. The discussion need to revised and need to make it more focused based on results. Remove the overlapping information/statements. Interpretation was not justifiable, should need to change.Reference are too old in the introduction and discussion section, In so doing, it is suggested that the following articles be used as a reference.There are spelling and grammatical errors in the abstract of this paper. It cannot be accepted until these mistakes have been rectified.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, I have responded to your comments one by one, the contents of which can be seen in the submitted word document named ‘Reviewer 1’.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very nice review manuscript with very good conclusions and the way to collect information already published on the subject and with it find a general form of the different types of vegetation on the planet and understand the importance of climatic parameters in CO2 capture and nitrogen. The manuscript is well organized, quite well explained and written. However, there are some minor concerns that need to be addressed or corrected.
Line 91: Ps, What is this? please be more specific. Among so many variables and parameters, one gets lost.
Line 94: Ts, Same than Ps on line 91.
Line 121-122: equation, Is this valid anywhere on the planet? Explain more, please.
Line 126: Equation 1, What are a and b, these parameters confuses with the VPsat constants.
Line 146-147: What does mean VPD + Pmin? Is there any physical meaning?
Line 173-176: This paragraph could be in discussion section.
Line 182: Figure 2 must be here.
Line 333: Supplementary material, I couldn't access it this way.
Add in the discussion section and probably in the conclusions section, after obtaining these results what would be the effect of climate change
Author Response
Dear reviewer, I have responded to your comments one by one, the contents of which can be seen in the submitted word document named ‘Reviewer 2’.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I consider the paper as an interesting contribution to the ecological science and the idea that support the study is really sound. However, the paper lacks clarity when showing both the climatic variables both the results obtained. I have not been able of having a good idea of the paper just after two consecutive reading. The description of the climatic variables deserves a table for all of them or, at least, for all those with a higher importance for the results.
The manuscript is the result of a very nice data analysis effort, but the discussion lacks strenght after such work. This may be the consequence of a poor presentation of these results. The isotope information is mixed with the climatic information without clear scheme. I encourage the authors to read again their own paper and critically improve it.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, I have responded to your comments one by one, the contents of which can be seen in the submitted word document named ‘Reviewer 3’.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, i am satisfied the revision made by authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper deserves to be accepted in Forests, due to the interesting analysis of data in a global scale. The previous manuscript lack perfetion in terms of quality of presentation, which seriously affected the comprehension of the message.
However, some of the major flaws have been addressed and I cannot find a reason for more changes in this manuscript before accepting it.
