Fine to me. Good job

This explains my comment about residual "green"s

Clear to me. Good job.

Great edit!

Seeing that, I am surprised that PC1 and PC2 effects are not significant. But maybe I miss something.

S8, related to previous comment

Caption does not show.

The y-axis does not show well on panel A for me. And the x-axis is much thicker than on panel B.

Stupid question here: why does % variance explained go above 100 %?

Very general comments about the discussion here, as most elements are too far from my knowledge domain for me to feel legitimate in commenting an already well polished discussion. I know space is limited but I was expecting a few sentences about the reasons why climate affects funct. dispersion (mostly) and richness in palms and frugivores differently, and consequently FTA. When effects are significant on functional variables in a given trophic level but not on FTA, does it mean that there is some kind of compensation going on? (for instance Mammal FRich affected by PC2, but neither Palm FRich nor FTA_rich) Similarly, are colder climates more limiting and constrained to exhibit a "good" trait matching with low FTA? Are mammals able to diversify further their foraging traits, beyond what's expected given palms in some climates? Etc... In sum, is there room to discuss a bit more these results? Also answering Figure 1 and some predictions from the intro? A large part of the discussion aims at proposing FTA as a great framework to understand the impact of climate change on trophic interaction network. I think this is great, but I fear this could take too much space in the discussion. I let you decide of course. Maybe just 1 or 2 sentences discussing further the results summarized in the first discussion paragraph to loop the loop started in the intro could be enough.

Dot.

Formatting issue

reshuffle?

How were the domains defined here? By taking the provinces at extreme positions of the PCs?? Since there is a discretization, it should be explained further I think.

On this figure, it looks like the two components of FTA both reply to climatic variations in opposite directions, but as this is not significant for FTA_richness we cannot really conclude that. Am I right?

also blue here

Maybe it should be Effect ON Functional richness/dispersion on the y-axis text.

How was space taken into account? Categorical variable associated with biogeo provinces? x-y variables? MEMs? Without having read what comes next, this indicates to me that when model support remains unchanged, most of the variables explaining the spatial structure in functional diversity patterns in mammals are already accounted for, while some might be missing for plants and mammal FR (and related either to spat. structured env. variables or from spatial contingencies due to phylogeography or other legacies).

and

same comment

functional richness SES was...

I find all this sub-section and the map that goes with it super clear, and efficiently summarized and illustrated (by the map layout).

You managed to simplify the methods in a very important way. Congrats

Congrats for explaining your SES in such a clear way.

Answers my previous question I think. I suggest to harmonize.

I would remove that part of this sentence. "..across the Neotropics and together explained...."

regions here, province before, is there a link between these scales? beyond the difference in terminology. In other words, do they match and could the same world be used interchangeably?

To keep and move at the end of the last paragraph or even before the last sentence.

This is redundant. Probably a compiling error.

producing biogeographic province-level (to avoid confusion with administrative provinces?)

in-text citation without brackets here

At which position? Overall for each panel and for a given position of the climatic gradient Is the climatic gradient the same for each panel? I would suggest adding letters or numbers to refer to each panel in the caption and explaining the conditions to which each of them refers. Is it equally valid for FR and FDis? (these are a lot of suggestions but I like the figure and I just think it would benefit from these clarifications)

It appears blue to me.

can be an indicator of the relative importance....

Suggestion: Mutualistic.... frugivores are an ideal system to study spatial patterns of FTA as these interactions are important.....(refs), and FTA could therefore substantially influence the latter.

Does it change the meaning here if you remove "over the interaction niche"? It seems implicit to me.

I would rephrase this sentence to give the main idea first, and then specify that it is computed in SES units. For instance:

FTA is the difference in either functional richness or functional dispersion between trophic levels, and is expressed in SES units to account for taxonomic richness differences between these levels.

"could potentially shape large-scale patterns of species interactions, affecting community assembly and constraining the structure or topology of trophic networks (refs), yet these effects remain poorly known" (or equivalent: understudied, remain to be uncovered, etc.)

I would split this sentence. In a multitrophic context, traits mediating.... also mediate the responses of.... Consequently, the effects of env. filtering.....

Similar comment here and I suggest to vary a little bit the phrasing to limit repetition.

In contrast, FDis quantifies the degree of redundancy and clustering of the trait space characterizing a community of species. As such, it can serve as a proxy for the strength of the partitioning of the trait space across species. (not convinced by the last part, but this is an alternative suggestion, you're the best judge)

Maybe this sentence could go before the previous one. FR typically measures... Consequently, it is often used to estimate...

with which?

...to jointly shape multitrophic communities remains limited

or "structures" since it is contemporary and not changes over time or you mean that consumer functional strategies are reshuffled across contemporary climate gradients?

from varm, wet and stable climates to colder and drier regions with more seasonality.

You see if that improves. I am not sure

species distributions and data on functional traits and pairwise mutualistic interactions to estimate....