Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research  is relevant and interesting.

1. The titles of tables and figures are very long;

2. Method of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) need to be described more clearly;

 

3. I recommend not to use old literature sources;

4.  Chapter "Material and Methods" must be moved after discussion.

 

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes the effect of amplified drought on three forest species’ litter.  I think this is a very well written manuscript with some English corrections that I have noted below.  I feel that the descriptions and tables of the metabolites are too long and not necessary for this manuscript. It would be better to have a succinct summary of these metabolites and how they differ by treatment. I believe that this manuscript should be accepted after minor revisions.

Line 66: “indirectly affect”

Lines 74-76: Rephrase this sentence

Line 115: “Fixed upside down to not exclude”

Methods: It might be helpful to have a map of the three forests within France.

Line 163: Was it total phosphorus, Ca, K, Mg, and Na? 

Line 167: “100”

Line 173: “compound”

Line 184: “weighed”

Tables 4 and 5: These tables might be better in an Appendix.

Lines 333-375: I feel that this information could be shortened or removed from the manuscript.

Line 418: “loses”

Line 432: “needle”

Line 436: “nutrient”

Line 442: “under increasing water stress”

Line 457: “antioxidant”

Line 492: “which may be due”

Lines 499-500: This study does not seem relevant here.

Line 550: “may negatively impact”

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf