dear authors,

Your work has now been seen by three reviewers, all of whom find your work of potential interest. They also note its novel aspects, and I agree on both accounts. However, both the introduction and discussion need to be improved before this manuscript can be accepted for publication; I agree with the reviewers that the discussion could be more focused, possibly with more direct comparisons to other studies and more emphasis on quantitative aspects of your results. All reviewers provided constructive feedback on this issue. In your answers to the reviewer's comments, you clearly outlined a strategy to improve your manuscript, and I am looking forward to seeing the revised version. Since the revision will require substantial changes to the discussion section (and the introduction to some extent), the revised manuscript will be sent out to review again.

best regards,
Kees Jan van Groenigen

dear authors,

Your manuscript has now been seen by three reviewers, who agree that the manuscript has improved substantially. Nonetheless, a few outstanding issues still need to be addressed. The reviewers request that some of the methods and results are reported in more detail, and they provide useful minor editorial suggestions to improve the flow of your manuscript. These suggestions call for a minor revision of the manuscript. Although I fully agree with reviewer 3 that further data analyses to connect the biocrust succession and erosion analyses could lead to interesting and important new insights, I think such an approach falls outside the scope of this manuscript. I am looking forward to receiving a revised version, in which you address all other points that were raised by the reviewers.

best regards
Kees Jan van Groenigen

dear authors,

Thank you very much for this revised version. You have satisfactorily addressed the comments that were raised by the reviewers . The manuscript is now almost ready to be published, pending a few minor changes:

- in the introduction, I suggest to remove the sentences starting with "We assume.." (i.e. L81-82, 95-96, 106-108). These sentences aren't necessary, since the hypotheses are stated at the end of the introduction.

- L358-359: if possible, please provide a reference for the large water holding capacity of Leucobryum juniperoideum instead of "personal observation". Using personal observations to support something that supposedly "is known" (according to the text) seems illogical. Alternatively, please rephrase this sentence.

best regards,
Kees Jan van Groenigen