The manuscript has now received two constructive reviews. Both reviewers note that the work is of high quality. Both reviewers also had suggestions for how to improve the text of the manuscript to tighten the outcomes and to expand the discussion of the implications of this work.

In particular, Reviewer 1 notes that the manuscript is somewhat unbalanced, with a longer methods section but a shorter discussion section. Based on these recommendations, I’d encourage the authors to consider how they could shorten portions of the manuscript and to expand the discussion section to frame this work in terms of its successes and limitations. One option for revising the discussion section could be to organize sub-sections under statements or questions.

Both reviewers also recommend an additional figure (or two) to clarify methods. These could be added to the main text, or to a supplementary file. I appreciate that the authors have also indicated that a new figure to address these comments would be included in the revised manuscript.

As indicated by the responses of the authors to these reviewer comments, the authors have given serious thought to both reviews as well as the commonalities amongst these reviews. I request that the authors incorporate their proposed revisions into the discussion paper. I also request that the authors revise the text of the manuscript throughout based on overarching recommendations from the reviewers to focus on key messages and shorten the manuscript.

Dear Authors,
The reviewers have affirmed that their comments have been addressed by this revised manuscript. The manuscript is now ready to proceed through the final stages of the publication process.

Regards,
Christa