Dear,

Following the discussion of the referee comments, I would like to invite you to prepare a revised version of your manuscript. A key requirement for the revised manuscript to be accepted is to deal with the issue of defining recovery as noted by both referees. Rather than setting and defending a single arbitrary threshold (now 15%), the sensitivity of the results to this threshold could be quantified. Feel free to use alternative methods for quantifying the impact of this definition on the outcomes of the study; the sensitivity analysis is just a suggestion.

Looking forward to receive a revised version of the manuscript,

Thank you for submitting a revised version of your manuscript. The manuscript has now been seen by an associate editor who despite the positive assessment of the changes made follwoing the open discussion, recommends major revisions before sending the manuscript to the intial reviewers.

In “Understanding Tropical Forest Abiotic Response to Hurricanes using Experimental Manipulations, Field Observations, and Satellite Data” the authors present an 16 year-long time series of experimental data to describe the change and recovery of abiotic variables following a hurricane in tropical forest. Although the authors made an effort to address the comments of the reviewers, the poor structure of the manuscript makes it difficult to evaluate its scientific merits. I, therefore, propose that the authors restructure the manuscript before it is being send out for review by the initial reviewers. The revision should not simply try to please the reviewer by ticking the boxes listed below but should consist of a thorough effort guided by the referee’s comment to enhance the presentation and the flow of the study.

A paragraph should be between 10 and 15 lines long and should contain a single idea. Paragraphs help the readers to absorb the information in a natural way. The manuscript contains too many paragraphs that exceeds the recommended length as well as paragraphs that touch on more than one idea/issue (L115-133). Use paragraphs correctly to increase the flow of the text.

The method section should contain a description of all methods used in the study. Over 20% of the result section should be moved into the methods section. Use subsections to better structure the methods. One way could be to have a subsection describing the experimental treatments followed by an individual subsection for each variable. At present it is written that the canopy was trimmed and readers are referred to other papers. This manuscript should be a stand-alone piece and readers should be able to grasp the essence of the trimming experiment without having to access other papers. For each variable the methods before and after 2015 should be described as well as the methods used to homogenize the time series. The section could be completed with a subsection explaining how recovery was defined and calculated. The 2015 drought plays a central role in the discussion and its length, intensity and impact should thus be characterized. The tower is mentioned for the first time in the discussion.

In the result sections the authors should draw the attention of the reader to the most interesting results (which should be put into context in de discussion). The current result section contains too many information on the methods or simply repeats the information contained in the captions of the figures (for example 212-215, 222-228, 249-252, 290-325, 344-370, 372-382). A major effort is needed to enhance the quality of the methods section.

The figures basically show the time series but fail to convince at a glance what is being written about the quality of the experiments compared to effect of a real hurricane and subsequent recovery. The effect of the experimental treatments and the hurricane on the abiotic environment is being dwarfed by its seasonal variation. Statistics, for example effect sizes, could be used to focus on the figures on the effects rather than the seasonal variation. More processed figures would contribute to the potential impact of the study. Simply showing time series require the readers to do a lot of the work themselves. Can you think of better formats to show the impact and recovery in a single figure? For example, calculate the intercept and slope between control and treatment within a moving window. Plot a time series of the intercept and/or slope (with their uncertainty interval). Differences right after the disturbance should be the largest. Similarities between time series should increase when approaching recovery. An important challenge in science nowadays is to find compelling ways to present large data sets and especially the lessons that can be learned from these data sets. The present figures are not very helpful from that point of view.

The first paragraph of the discussion is interesting but it is not backed up by the results. L291 to 300 as well as L328-334 should be moved to the results.

Specific comments
L119 recovery instead of recognition?
L126- seems to belong to the previous paragraph.
L137 Not clear how measurements were made above the canopy. I guess a tower was used but this nowhere stated. It is mentioned in the discussion which is too late.
L139 this drought has not been mentioned before and it should be characterized.
L151 adding a couple of words would enhance the flow of this sentence.
L162 5 m seems low compared to the typical height of a mature canopy, i.e., >30 m.
L182-185 this sentence is not clear to me.
L179 ter Steege 2018. Given the timing of the experiment this cannot be the primary reference of the method
L211 how was the “uniform overcast sky factor”determined?
L231 replace altering by alternations, changes, deviation, …?
L345 be more precise than “quite large”
L349 check the grammar of “concluded in previously”
L369 soil or air temperature?
L377 “in all plots of Fig 2”. This is the discussion so refer to the ecology: give the names of the variables that changed.
L429 check grammar of “this will creating”
L437 Satellite data are poorly integrated in the study. Scaling issues of large pixels vs small scale observations is a well-known issue. It is interesting to see that this issue of scales is leading to an apparent faster recovery. This conclusion is not shown in the results, not embedded in existing literature in the discussion and therefore comes a bit as a surprise in the conclusion.

Dear authors,

Thank you for revising the manuscript "Understanding Tropical Forest Abiotic Response to Hurricanes using Experimental Manipulations, Field Observations, and Satellite Data". Although I appreciate the efforts that went into preparing this revision, I agree with referee 1 that this paper should not be published without a discussion of the impact of the definition of recovery time on the results (backed-up by own analyses). The suggestion of referee 2 seems to reflect the same underlying concern, i.e., the current approach fails to convince that the reported recovery times are robust and reflect the ecological recovery of a biophysical process rather than simply reflecting the assumptions made when defining "recovery time" in this study. I would, therefore, like to encourage the authors to evaluate and report the impact of alternative definitions on the recovery times. This analysis should help to convince the readers that the recovery times of different biophysical processes are indeed different or contrary that this differences disappear when different definitions are used.

Kind regards,

Dear authors,
Following your latest revisions, I'm happy to accept the manuscript for publication in Biogeosciences.
Kind regards,