reconsider/ revise language around small trees/ Fig. 4b

[teixeirak]

@NidhiVinod , the main issue raised by reviewer 2 (and the only substantive issue raised by either reviewer) is that our suggestion that small trees may suffer more under hot, humid conditions is based on thin evidence (see comments below). I will give this some thought and move forward with addressing, but also wanted to flag this for you to have a chance to give input.

"In fact, the abstract reads like the authors cannot decide whether tall trees '... are disproportionately vulnerable to drought and damaging 𝑇𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑓' (l. 33) or understory trees (l. 35). It cannot be both if one is comparing them. In this aspect the abstract comes off indecisive or unclear. This is an element in the review as well (see below)."

"I make a major point of revisions around this idea (l. 35-36) that 'understory trees may be disproportionately impacted under hot, humid conditions'. What evidence is there? There is speculation about what might happen in sunflecks (l. 800-801) but little direct evidence, and there is Fig. 4b which is one study with smoothed results that are not convincing (see above). Yet this statement is contrary to statements made in the actual review, like l. 200-201 to the effect that upper canopy is warming with higher VPD than understory, l. 232 that there are higher leaf-air temperature difference in the upper canopy than understory, l. 275-276 that leaves in the upper canopy have higher leaf-air temperature difference and maximum temperatures than understory, also l. 775-776. If so many arguments have been made for a harsher environment and higher leaf temperatures in the upper canopy than understory, it comes off as illogical to reverse and conclude on the basis of Fig. 4b which is flimsy evidence that, as stated in the abstract l. 35-36: 'understory trees may be disproportionately impacted under hot, humid conditions'. I would suggest that the authors clean up their contentions and not come off so contrary to their own evidence and logic. Certainly this titillating idea of understory tree damage is not to be highlighted in the abstract if so much evidence to the contrary is presented in the review. I would like to see direct observations of the impacts that they suggest for the understory, but in the absence of strong arguments the balance of the review would support upper canopy vulnerability rather than the understory. This is a major aspect for the authors to clarify."

"l.806-807 'trees in the understory might be more negatively affected by chronic stress from warming 𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟'. This is based on such very thin evidence, almost no evidence. Nor do I think that the authors are appropriately highlighting a lack of knowledge very well by their speculation (which is not based on data). They are inferring what would happen with climate warming on the basis of historical evidence, highly indirect in Fig. 4B which only shows modelled results, and when there are highly overlapping CI's. I hardly find it a basis for a strong statement landing in the abstract, especially when it is contradicted by other statements throughout the review."

[teixeirak]

I think we can close this now. @NidhiVinod , please review what I did, as there are some substantive changes.