Dear Authors,

meanwhile we obtained the comments from two referees and you also responded to these already. In a next step, please prepare and upload a fully revised version of your manuscript, fully considering all the comments of the referees. In addition to these I also would like to comment on the figures shown in your manuscript: In its current stage Fig. 2 only comprises very little content, which could easily be told in the text; thus, I would suggest to either add some more content to it or to delete this figure. Figure 3 shows some nice microscopy images, but some of them (e.g., Fig. 3 f, g, h) look rather unsharp. Can you please exchange them for photographs of better quality.

Based on the revised version of your manuscript we will reconsider its publication in Biogeosciences.

Kind regards,

Bettina Weber

Dear authors,
Thank you very much for submitting a revised version of your manuscript. Whereas many reviewer comments were treated, there are still several issues which need to be solved:
1. Overall, the manuscript needs to be thoroughly checked for language issues
2. Although reviewer 1 has asked for an explanation of the silvicultural management index (SMI) I still cannot find a thorough explanation.
3. In the response letter, e.g. on page 3 and 4 many reviewer comments are not clearly commented!
4. Figure 1: Labelling as a, b, c, d is missing; in the lower images a scale is needed
5. Page 2, line 15: …sperm germination of vascular plants…: This is very strange indeed; please clarify!
Based on these and the former reviewer comments please prepare and upload a revised manuscript and a revised reply to the reviewer comments. These will then also be sent to the reviewers to obtain their opinion if their comments have been sufficiently considered.
Kind regards,

Bettina Weber

Dear authors,

thank you very much for submitting an improved version of your manuscript. Whereas most of the concerns have been solved in a satisfactory way, there are still some issues which need to be treated. Please carefully consider all comments and issues brought up by both reviewers and also reconsider the title of your manuscript. I am looking forward to a revised version of your manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bettina Weber

Dear authors,
Thank you very much for submitting a revised version of your manuscript. During a final check of the manuscript the following issues were observed by me on page 5 and 6.
Proposed title: Algal richness of BSCs in forests…
Page 5 line 17 f: I would not be sure that BSCs form the most productive biomass in many drylands. Perhaps state it more carefully, as e.g. BSCs form highly relevant communities in many drylands …
Page 5 line 22: I would suggest to write “However” instead of “Anyhow”
Page 5 line 29 f: …a ubiquitous genus often regularly occurring in BSCs worldwide because of its broad ecophysiological tolerance , as e.g. towards low pH.
Page 6 line 1: …which might affect their P cycling
Page 6 line 11 f: …dunes with sparse vascular plant vegetation or disturbed areas …typically host BSCs
Please generally replace “higher vegetation” by another term, as e.g. “vascular plant vegetation” or “vascular plants “
Page 6 line 19 f.: Especially tree falls after storm events are a rising problem
Page 6 line 20: www.dwd.de: please replace by a valid citation
Page 6 line 21 f: Please remove comma prior to “from erosion”
Page 6 line 22: Regrowth of vascular plants is initiated by the…
Page 6 line 29: BSC cover without “s”
Page 6 line 32: Last sentence on page not clear
Also on the subsequent pages there are many language and punctuation issues. Thus, unfortunately, I cannot accept the manuscript before it has been thoroughly checked and corrected.
Kind regards,

Bettina Weber

Dear Dr. Glaser and co-authors,

thank you very much for the thorough language correction. I am glad to let you know that your manuscript is accepted for final publication.

Kind regards,

Bettina Weber