Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was prepared in a very comprehensive manner and was conducted in a 50-hectare forest area. I congratulate the work team for their devoted work.

1-Keywords should be simplified.

2-It is recommended that you rearrange the references in the last paragraph containing the hypothesis by moving them to the previous paragraph. In general, the last paragraph should contain the purpose and hypothesis of the article.

Apart from the issues mentioned above, there are no errors or corrections in the article. The study was designed comprehensively, and the results were supported by the literature. It may be published after minor corrections.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Muller et al.

The manuscript appears to be ready for publication essentially “as is.”  I detected no serious flaws nor needs for mandated revision, although must admit to not having the expertise to evaluate the phosphorus testing and chemistry.   As with any exploratory study, an outside observer may wish to see aspects of the topic that “should be investigated,” but that’s not a deficiency in the present exploration.    It stands on its own, and can spin off other work later.

A few thoughts may be of interest to the authors as potential minor adjustments:

1.  Include a map or satellite image of BCI and/or the study site, with grid coordinates?  Mention the Smithsonian Research station if relevant? And the intensity with which BCI is and has been monitored and studied?    Web link?

2. Provide richer literature review on tropical trees in relation to P?   Many references are cited. Could they be woven more richly into the introduction? This might be worth a look:https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2136/sssaj2012.0374

3. Table 1. Include reference(s) to taxonomic authority(ies).  S that list based on inventory records and/orCroat’s 1978  Flora of BCI,  with updates.   Include standardized author abbreviations for the species names?   Who identified the species and when?  Are there vouchers?   Are the names current, and if so, based on what…WFO Plantlist?

4. Line 486 plus.   This is a key paragraph in the paper summarizing the big news.  Is “will cause” slightly overstated even if obviously implicit? And are lines 289 and 290 too obvious a broad generality to be in a key “headline” paragraph referring to the results in hand?

5. Line 329.  Is “instead” an appropriate word choice?  Nutrient trading and phylogenetic conservation are not mutually exclusive.

6. In the discussion of Legumes.   Legumes have three distinctive subfamilies (or separate families in some interpretations).  Which subfamilies for the listed species?   For that matter, and this is probably too demanding for the existing small sample, how do the results within Legumes, Moraceae, Burseraceae compare with cladistics within each families?   Spread around or on single clades?  Is there specific  literature on P relations within any of these families?

None of these notions rise to the level of a need for further work,  and are offered with the hope that they aid in a useful nip or tuck.    It will be a pleasure to see the published article soon.  Thank you for the opportunity to read and learn.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

please add additions to the manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf