The Resilient Recurrent Behavior of Mediterranean Semi-Arid Complex Adaptive Landscapes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, many thanks for your serious effort in improvement of submitted manuscript. I have found you corrected the manuscript precisely following most of my previous comments, I apreciate it. But, the presentation of results in the corrected manuscript is still very confusing because of bond between original results and discussion. I repeatedly recommend you to divide this part od manuscript to clearly presented single section Results and single section Discussion. I think this reworking of the manuscript would improve a quality of manuscript significantly.

Author Response

We strongly thank Reviewer 1 for the comments and suggestions. We have improved the description of the results and reorganized the discussion in order to help the reader in following the main meanings of the results. We have also improved the description of the main aims of the manuscript as well as we have highlighted the novelty of the approach. The paper has been revised to improve the English language

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the introduced changes, however, I think they have not been properly addressed. I believe the paper has not improved from the last version, so my definitive recommendation is rejection. I look at very similar drawbacks from the last version:

- The study has not been summarized, it is very long and is difficult to read because it is not well structured and is repetitive.

- The discussion chapter is practically the same. It has only been modified in punctual sections and very slightly. The authors have only added the word Discussion in the section title, but there is still no debate between the results found by authors and the available literature. Please, It's not about adding or removing sections with titles in this Chapter, rather than discuss your results with available literature. 

- The novelty, originality, and scientific contribution of this study in its respective field are not well presented.

- Please, you should summarize the Conclusion chapter. It should be a brief section where only the main points reached in this investigation should be presented. Besides, a conclusion chapter must avoid as far as possible to include citations.

Author Response

I appreciate the introduced changes, however, I think they have not been properly addressed. I believe the paper has not improved from the last version, so my definitive recommendation is rejection. I look at very similar drawbacks from the last version: 
- The study has not been summarized, it is very long and is difficult to read because it is not well structured and is repetitive. 
We have taken into consideration the comments of Reviewer 2. We have summarized the ms and we have improved its structure. 
- The discussion chapter is practically the same. It has only been modified in punctual sections and very slightly. The authors have only added the word Discussion in the section title, but there is still no debate between the results found by authors and the available literature. Please, It's not about adding or removing sections with titles in this Chapter, rather than discuss your results with available literature.  
We have changed the discussion chapter, and we have modified the section of the results 
- The novelty, originality, and scientific contribution of this study in its respective field are not well presented. We have added the novelty and the scientific contribution of the approach, avoiding to go through too much technical details. 
- Please, you should summarize the Conclusion chapter. It should be a brief section where only the main points reached in this investigation should be presented. Besides, a conclusion chapter must avoid as far as possible to include citations. 
Summarized as requested 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf