Dear Authors:

Thank you for providing author comments in response to the referee comments. Both referees evaluated that your manuscript has good scientific quality and fair to good scientific significance and presentation quality. They acknowledged that your study topic is timely and fits to the journal scope, and recommended to make further data-model analyses with clearer explanations. The tree-size distribution model with a fewer number of parameters would help constrain DGVMs.
I studied the referee comments, your responses, and revised Introduction and Discussion and conclude that the manuscript would be adequately improved in clarity and insightfulness. I am looking forward to receiving the revised manuscript.

Dear Authors:

Thank you for uploading the revised manuscript, in which extensive changes were made. I confirmed that your made appropriate amendments to the manuscript, especially in terms of model description and presentations. Therefore, I conclude that the manuscript is acceptable for publication (please look technical point).

Technical point
Please check the reference list again. For example, Argles et al. (2019) is published as a discussion paper as Longo et al. (2019). For several papers you show both URL and DOI (e.g. Feldpausch et al. 2011, 2012; Kohyama et al. 1991, 2003). Also, please consistently use capital for the first letters of journal names (e.g. Coomes et al. 2003).