The motivations for the presented study are legitimate and clearly within the scope of the Journal of Ecology. The authors explain well the importance of understanding the distribution and abundance of lianas within the context of carbon cycling under climate change. They convincingly argue that a data gap in paleotropical forests exists and should be filled by studies such as this one. The article builds logically on previous work from the authors on assessing liana infestations with UAVs (https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13318). The information on the biotic and abiotic drivers of lianas presence adds to the understanding of tropical forest ecology.
In general, the methodological considerations were good but, I believe, there are some key places where the execution fails to meet the standard required to draw all the conclusions made. I have some concerns over the appropriate use of data and statistical methods. I would have liked to have had more detail on some aspects of the methods. Given some data was collected a number of years ago (e.g. LiDAR, soil) it would be helpful to know if/where this data has been published previously.
Improvements to the structure and clarity of the piece would allow a reader to more readily grasp the meaning of the analyses presented. For example, the abstract and introduction give very little indication as to the types of analyses included. The phrase “comprehensive analytical framework” is not particularly informative. The tables should be improved to make the results more accessible.
While I have highlighted several parts where I feel the approach currently falls short, if the concerns described in the attached report can be well addressed the article will be of value and interest to the Journal of Ecology readership.

Well done on the revisions. Please see the the pdf attached for my detailed response.