Overview:
This study analysed the spread and distribution of chytridiomycosis in Rana boylii using field and museum samples paired with biotic, environmental and geographical factors to understand how Bd has spread and been maintained in the speices across the west coast over 120+ years.
The amount of work and collaboration to obtain the samples is impressive, and the modeling to identify key trends had broad appeal.

Overall I think the study is sound and represents important work that is rarely conducted. However, I think that the manuscript could benefit from some tailoring and redirection. I think there needs to be a clear link with the species patterns of declines. And if there are no patterns of declines or the patterns of declines do not follow the patterns of Bd, then this needs to be clearly stated and explained. I also think there needs to be a strong link with how this work can be beneficial for applied ecology, conservation and management. As it stands, I understand the results to indicate that we know when Bd came into the system (roughly) and spread north, although some populations/climatice regions have different patterns of infection. Once infection entered the system and established, infection patterns are seasonal, more prevalent during the juvenile lifestage and also geographically linked to different “clades”. But there is little discussion about the utility of this information. And that is what is going to drive your readers, and what is going to get the paper the noteritety that it deserves.

More specific comments:

Abstract:
“Spaciotemporal patterns and drivers” is jargon
Line 67 – can you link this with when you know the species experiences declines (like mentioned in line 61)
Line 68-69 – clarify here that this is only field samples, as you did not standardize load between field and museum samples
Line 72-73: But what is the value? Awesome finding and I think its interesting and important, but explicitly explaining the practical value of this work is worth it to ensure the reader continues reading

Introduction:
Line 84 – typo
Line 106 – clarify what kind of samples these are (field and museum), and how you made sure they were comparable because there are different detection limits between formalin fixed samples and “fresh”/frozen samples
Line 109 – what do you mean vy infection risk distribution?
Lines 111-112 - Would be good to summarise why this is important and what the practical uses of this study will be to conservation/management etc

Methods
Line 121 – convert to meters
Line 134 – some of this should go in the main text. How were the swabs processed? This is a major part of the methodology. Its not clear in the main text or in your supp methods that you controlled for the different extraction method types when investigating load on the animals
Lines 136-137 – did you account for collection season? Later it seems like no, and most samples were collected during the summer where infection would be lower. Probably want to state this in the methodology and clarify that this is a weakness of your study. An unavoidable weakness, but one nonetheless

Line 143-144: this is confusing and also why is it stated here? You analyze load statistically by log transforming it, why wouldn’t you report the log load, which is common in the literature. If this is only for data visualization then you can place this statement in the figure legend.

Results
Overall the results represent a lot of information, and a lot of it references supplemental figures, even some key results that you mention in the abstract. While you did a lot of work, not all of it warrants being stated in the main text, especially for things like Envrionmental correlates of Bd infection where you found that decade was the only significant predictor – and this is likely due to the methods used/biases of the study sampling design (museum vs field collection).
There are parts that you can move completely to the supp to help streamline the narrative. And perhaps don’t cite all the supp figs in the main text, but create a supp results section where you cite the additional figures. If they are important points, like some of your key findings, then they should be main text figures.
I found the results overwhelming to get through and therefore missed some of the key points.

Line 227-228 – this is mentioned in the abstract and thus should be a main text figure
Line 233 – that 90% of your samples are during the time of year with low infection (summer) probably underestimates the prevalence of infection overall and would not do a great job of indentifying when Bd entered the system. Is the seasonal collection a similar pattern for museum specimen?
Line 232 – the exception of October is not surprising because fall is started in juvs are likely emerging from the ponds. These patterns mimic what we already know about this disease and could be moved to the supp. It's true and important to note, but it's not what makes your study novel and what your study will be used for in the future.
Line 243: this is also listed as a main finding in the abstract so it should be represented in the main text. However, I’ll get into it below but I don’t think this is a particularly interesting or important finding. A pattern that you found, yes, but not a key result. It's pretty common and makes sense given that the bulk of your swabs are from the summer and early fall – when juvs emerge and often have higher loads

Line 253 (section) - Up to this point, I don’t know what this is important or what its supposed to tell the reader. A bit more clarity about why you chose to analyse this would be great. You do explain it in the discussion, but it should be referenced in the intro more clearly
Line 266 (section) – “SPEI24” I would recommend avoiding acronyms - your study is already quite complex with so many analyses its can be difficult to comprehend

Discussion
Line 324 – typo
Line 330 – How does the "wave" you found here in this species match with decline patterns of the species? If it doesn't match, then why is understanding this pattern important at all?
Lines 342 (section) - Could it also be due to the seasonal bias of your sampling patterns? More juveniles are typically captured more frequently in the fall as they metamorphose and the adults move on to prepare for overwintering. I think a reduction of emphasis on this section (sex, season and life stage) would give way to the more novel approach that you performed with identifying climatic clusters and the possible spread of Bd in this species.
Lines 353-362 – I don’t think this finding is novel and certainly doesn’t warrant a whole paragraph. 2 sentneces would be fine, explaining that juvs often have high loads in field studies and they are also most common at a time of year when Bd is also common (e.g., life history).
This pattern of juves being more + with higher load is pretty common, and while yes your study aslo confirms this, I dont think you need to spend this much time discussing it as you have. If anything this pattern could be communicated in the sup so you have more time/space for all of your novel and time intensive findings that you could only perform with this study.
Line 360 – The high prevalence in Juvs could be due to the timing of sampling as well. it was sporatic and biased so you probably do want to discuss that as a confounder of your study. You did the best you could and it was a massive effort, but there are still biases you have to deal with
Line 371 – you should cite McMahon et al PNAS here to clarify that crayfish are a potential reservoir/amplification host
Lines 376-388 – Season and day length and temp are all correlated. Also your samples were not evenly distributed throughout the year so there is bias and you can’t answer this question definitely. Needs to be clarified. and perhaps talk only about the environmental variables that can be decoupled from season/temperatures? like site/types of waterbodies?

Line 401 (section) – this is the key question here, what foes your study results tell us about this species that is supposed to be susceptible to disease
Lines 407-408 – I thought in the intro you said that it was a presumed threat and cause of decline.
Lines 410-412 - These results should be clearly stated. clearance over CMR can tell you a lot about susceptibility in the field. You mention them in the supp but they could be important to the main text, especially if the CMR analyses say there is recovery from disease.
Lines 419-421 – Please comment on the patterns of decline. Otherwise the work does not have a clear utility
Lines 431-432 – Seasonality of the captures is also a bias that needs to be outlined
Lines 439-440 - You don’t know what "high" is for this species. Unless you also have CMR model data to support this and the lack of recovery following high loads? And an understanding of the Bd strain in this region of the country and how many ITS copies it has per zoospore.

Figure 1 – Please make a 3rd panel that merges these two ideas and shows years over geographical spread

Figure 2 – can you put the colours in a key? And what does high and low mean?

Supp methods – there are track changes within the file, and some comments. You’ll want to clean that up and remove the highlighting.

I think you did a great job addressing the comments, and have really clarified the importance and the utility of the work. I think the section added to explain the ecology of this species was an excellent addition. I am happy with the manuscript as is, and am looking forward to seeing it published