Fig. S4

[teixeirak]

@mcgregorian1 , two things from R3 related to Fig. S4.

1. • "LMA is not shown in Figure S4, and in Table 2 there are no tests so we cannot judge whether there are differences among species for that leaf trait. Please, add also LMA to Figure S4." Note that the same applies to WD.

2- Figure S4 and line 333: are differences expressed by different letters correct in Figure S4? Particularly for $\pi_{tlp}$ (S4d) the boxplot suggests differences (more than, e.g. in b) among different species but then letters are similar (as discussed in line 333).

[mcgregorian1]

@teixeirak two questions

• one, do i need to make parallels of this figure for Rc and Rs?
• two, in order for LMA and WD to fit, we either need to make the crown position plot narrower or split this into two figures (probably not based on available space)

[teixeirak]

• 1- let's just focus on Rt. The only difference would be in the exclusion of different outlier cores.
• 2- whatever's easiest, but keep in mind the need to renumber some references in the text if you make 2 figs.

[mcgregorian1]

I have updated it - let me know what you think when you have a chance!

2- Figure S4 and line 333: are differences expressed by different letters correct in Figure S4? Particularly for $\pi_{tlp}$ (S4d) the boxplot suggests differences (more than, e.g. in b) among different species but then letters are similar (as discussed in line 333).

As for this, the letters express the significantly different groupings per variable. That is,

• the PLA values for a species in group "b" are significantly different from the PLA values for a species in group "c", and
• group "b" for PLA is not the same as group "b" for LMA, etc.

[teixeirak]

Figure looks great, except that "suppressed" is cut off.

I think the reviewer may have just been confused by alignment of the letters with the species codes-- that's a bit tricky. I wouldn't worry about it though, so long as its correct.

[mcgregorian1]

Whoops sorry about that - it's now fixed