All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Both reviewers found your revision well done, and I concur with their assessment. Nice paper!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Dezene Huber, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I find that the author adequately has responded to my comments
I appreciate the author's work to respond to my previous comments.
I found this work interesting and a contribution to the world of modeling plant cover data.
The two reviewers - experts of plant cover modelling - saw value in your paper, but they made a number of important comments regarding the model formulation and how your model and its implementation in stan are related to current literature.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
It is an important subject. However, I have some reservations regarding the model and generally the English could be improved.
The formulas are not numbered so in the following line 113+ means the formula after 113.
Line 113+. I do not understand the time-series model. Why not an AR2 model (that should be discussed) and what happens if years are missing as is the case for the empirical data set.
Line 117+. The spatial variation among quadrats are here modelled by a random variable. But this variation is also modelled by delta. I suggest you save the random variable for among-plot variation and test if delta are adequate to model the within-plot variation. In the current model, the parameter delta cannot be interpreted.
Line 122+. Why not use a strong prior instead (as in line 117+), please explain.
Line 169. Only one plot is modelled. It would be more convincing if all plots were modelled (see also comment to line 117+).
Figure 4. Explain that class 0 and 1 was modelled as 1 class (if this is the case).
Figure 5. The mentioned red and black curves are missing.
Figure 6. I am not familiar with a “rootogram”, please explain
please see my uploaded comments on the pdf of the article.
I feel sort of awkward basically saying "you should cite my work." But I hope providing those connections in the literature are helpful for all of us. My main confusion was around the highlighted section and the intepretation of Figure 2, but refer to my commented pdf.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.