Dear Papastefanou and coauthors,
Thanks again for consider publishing in Biogeosciences Journal.
Based on the reviewers comments I regret to inform you that your paper is not acceptable for publication in its current form. Although the two reviewers support the publication in their comments, which are considerably similar, there are serious criticisms that you’ll have to consider before resubmission. Below are the major comments you are asked to address thoroughly:
a. Concerning the 3 rainfall databases used in the study, the issues of the differences between the databases, the benefit (if any) of using the ensemble of databases and he spatial and time differences between them should be addressed.
b. Similarly, and partially developing from the above, the methods of calculation and the accuracies of the derived drought indexes should be addressed.
c. Seems you agree with the problematic correlation between forest carbon loss across the study area to the drought data, thus the need to be minimize this part in the paper.
d. The use of a fixed ET value for the whole Amazon basin. Like reviewer 2, I would strongly encourage the authors not to use a fix value and consider using available (more) detailed information.
The notation of ET = 100 mm (it is not clear if this is an annual value?) for the whole region is unclear as well. There are good reasons to believe the annual ET is much higher and dependent on biome types, climatic and soil conditions. A short search I did for Amazonian Eddy Covariance ET values provided annual value of ~1100 mm for that given site.
Of course others comments of reviewers also need to be addressed.

Thanks again and king regards, Eyal

Dear Authors,
Based on the reviewers’ recommendations for this round, I am sorry to say that I cannot recommend to except the paper at current stage, but to be reconsider for publication after another major revision round.
Please consider that both reviewers were highly critical at the paper fundamental arguments and for the way data has used. Specifically, for the correlation between forest above ground carbon loss and drought severity at different areas in the Amazonian basin and in droughty years and for how the deferent precipitation databases where treated in the paper.
There are also others important comments by the reviewers the authors should carefully address, for this reviewing cycle, if considering his publication.

I would like to thank you for choosing BG, wishing the good luck and at nowadays situation, a healthy time.
Kind regards, Eyal

Dear Papastefanou and coauthors,
I'm again regret to let you know that following the reviewers’ comments I cannot recommend your paper for publication. To my judgment, the two reviewers invest time, efforts and raise important and constructive comments, some of which were already mentioned in the first reviewing round. Their comments and point of view on the paper at this stage are very clear. Pity, in my letter (Oct. 1st) I clearly remarked that addressing specifically the reviewers’ comments on the representativeness of the rainfall databases and on the mortality and accumulated aboveground biomass dependences with the drought intensity in the region are key to the paper acceptance.
Are you attending to consider another reviewing cycle?
Sorry for that email.
Have my best wishes and looking forward to hear from you, Eyal

Dear Authors,
Long way. It is now over 1.5 years since submitting the first copy to Biogeosciences.
No doubt, thanks to the reviewers’ constructive comments and how you handled those, the paper’s final version, as a reviewer commented, is at this stage that “…this study would be of interest to many readers”.
There are still a few comments by the reviewers which you asked to address. Pay special attention to the comments (by both reviewers), pointing to the need to highlight the deviations among the Amazonian spatial precipitation databases. Any studies in the region on drought affect the carbon uptake, trees’ survival, evapotranspiration spatial pattern and dynamics in time and space, and many other topics depend on this.
Kind regards and looking forward to the final version, Eyal

Thanks, authors, for your hard work,
I am happy to say that the reviewers (and I) are pleased with the paper’s current version and the changes you proposed to perform for the final manuscript. I can only repeat the two reviewers by saying that the article is now more comprehensive and robust and that this study would interest many readers.
I want to suggest that in the acknowledgment, you would also thank the reviewers for their very constructive and positive comments throughout the three reviewing steps. I would also like to praise the positive and productive cooperation which has developed over those two difficult (COVID!) years between you, the authors, and the reviewers that brought the paper to its current successful stage. In my opinion, it is an excellent example of the proper scientific approach.
I hope the paper will be well received in the scientific community and wish you the best in your future activities. Eyal