Fig 3 Comments

[NidhiVinod]

[NidhiVinod]

[NidhiVinod]

[NidhiVinod]

[teixeirak]

Agree, but we're only changing the one variable at a time. Just need to make this clear.

[teixeirak]

This is either a semantics issue, or a case where the reviewer is expecting greater realism that what we're actually doing. You should make that clear in the caption (also addresses comment above), and perhaps use "humid" and "dry" (rather than drought).

Also note that well-watered would refer to soil moisture, and require modeling water transport through roots and stem. Drought could refer to either soil dryness or atmospheric dryness. In my mind, it's always been the latter.

[teixeirak]

Do you understand this comment? How would such a point be defined?

[NidhiVinod]

Do you understand this comment? How would such a point be defined?

I couldn't entirely understand this, but I thought maybe the reviewer suggested to add a visual marking (point) to represent typical values for canopies and understories in the plots? But I'm actually unsure about what this means

[teixeirak]

Do you understand this comment? How would such a point be defined?

I couldn't entirely understand this, but I thought maybe the reviewer suggested to add a visual marking (point) to represent typical values for canopies and understories in the plots? But I'm actually unsure about what this means

Perhaps put a dot at the "typical" value used in the other simulations? That would make sense, and be useful.

[NidhiVinod]

Do you understand this comment? How would such a point be defined?

I couldn't entirely understand this, but I thought maybe the reviewer suggested to add a visual marking (point) to represent typical values for canopies and understories in the plots? But I'm actually unsure about what this means

Perhaps put a dot at the "typical" value used in the other simulations? That would make sense, and be useful.

@teixeirak, I'm trying to figure out what a typical value would be. Would I refer to other studies that show typical for eg. Tleaf-Tair for a typical wind speed?

[teixeirak]

Hmmm, I was just thinking of putting a dot on the line at the x value that is used in the other simulations. Typical values would be tough.

[teixeirak]

This is either a semantics issue, or a case where the reviewer is expecting greater realism that what we're actually doing. You should make that clear in the caption (also addresses comment above), and perhaps use "humid" and "dry" (rather than drought).

Also note that well-watered would refer to soil moisture, and require modeling water transport through roots and stem. Drought could refer to either soil dryness or atmospheric dryness. In my mind, it's always been the latter.

@NidhiVinod , on second thought I think we should revisit this, and use "moist and drought". As the reviewer points out, the variation in g_s represents an assumption about soil water availability. Here's what I put in response to reviews: We changed to "humid" to "moist" (as opposed to "well-watered"). We chose the term "moist" because it conveys both high soil moisture and atmospheric humidity, which is what we aim to capture.

If you agree, could you please change this on the figure?

[teixeirak]

@NidhiVinod , for responding to the R2 request to show typical values, I'd do something like this, where the dots represent the values assumed in the other simulations:

I think this would be very helpful.

[NidhiVinod]

@teixeirak, would the other simulations be from other research papers?

[teixeirak]

No, by "other simulations" I mean those in the other panels. So, for example, when swr isn't the variable we're adjusting, we use the values indicated by the dots that I added in my example figure. I think that helps a lot, and is quite straightforward-- no more data needed.

[NidhiVinod]

This is either a semantics issue, or a case where the reviewer is expecting greater realism that what we're actually doing. You should make that clear in the caption (also addresses comment above), and perhaps use "humid" and "dry" (rather than drought). Also note that well-watered would refer to soil moisture, and require modeling water transport through roots and stem. Drought could refer to either soil dryness or atmospheric dryness. In my mind, it's always been the latter.

@NidhiVinod , on second thought I think we should revisit this, and use "moist and drought". As the reviewer points out, the variation in g_s represents an assumption about soil water availability. Here's what I put in response to reviews: We changed to "humid" to "moist" (as opposed to "well-watered"). We chose the term "moist" because it conveys both high soil moisture and atmospheric humidity, which is what we aim to capture.

If you agree, could you please change this on the figure?

Okay, I see. That makes sense to change it to moist and drought. Then, I would just have to change the information representing the lines for overstory and understory as overstory moist and overstory drought, understory moist and understory drought, right?

[NidhiVinod]

No, by "other simulations" I mean those in the other panels. So, for example, when swr isn't the variable we're adjusting, we use the values indicated by the dots that I added in my example figure. I think that helps a lot, and is quite straightforward-- no more data needed.

ahh!! I see, that is easy to do!

[teixeirak]

Correct. And don't forget to change the labels in the table too.

[teixeirak]

You can also mention in the response to the reviewer that we're not aware of corresponding measurements. It's not like you're failing to include info that's out there...

[NidhiVinod]

@teixeirak, let me know what you think:

[teixeirak]

Looks great! Perhaps add a dot to the legend titled "default constant"?

[NidhiVinod]

@teixeirak, do you think a black dot? or for the two colors?

[teixeirak]

black is fine.

[NidhiVinod]

@teixeirak, I added a constant. Let me know what you think

[teixeirak]

Looks good! I think we can close this.