In this letter, the authors report a study that links the local availability of fruit to display activity and female visitation in a lekking species. The paper is well written, and the results are intriguing, although based on a relatively small sample, and bring a novel perspective in our understanding of lek mating systems.

I have a few comments that hopefully will help the authors to improve the MS.
Methods: I am not familiar with methods for surveying fruit abundance; therefore, I was puzzled by the description of the methods used by the authors. How can the number of canopy fruits be estimated from the ground? What is the accuracy of such measurements? It would be useful if the authors provided some references or some additional information about this important aspect of the study.

Pg 8, ln 121: I am not completely convinced that lek centrality should be included among the environmental variables, as it may rather be the result of individual choices resulting from social interactions between males. In fact, the main difference between the hot-shot and hot-spot hypotheses is whether the location of courts refers to social or environmental variables. For this reason, it would be interesting perhaps to run alternative models where lek centrality is included among the behavioural variables. Same logic applies to the nearest neighbor distance.

Pg 9, ln 139: if feasible, it would be interesting to use a model with nested factors, as courts are nested into leks.

Pg 10, ln 163: The use of terms exogenous and endogenous in this context appears a little odd to me. These adjectives are typically used when referring to variables measured in, say, a blood sample, which are either produced by the sampled individual (endogenous) or up taken from the environment (exogenous). Another typical use is in distinguishing rhythms derived from the biological clock or dictated by external cues. I would simply use the adjectives ‘environmental’ and ‘behavioral’ instead. As already mentioned above, I have some doubts in the attribution of lek centrality to the category ‘environmental’.

Pg 12 ln 219: There is an alternative hypothesis, i.e. seed dispersion could be higher around leks because of the increased concentration of frugivores, resulting in higher concentrations of fruit trees. I do not know how likely this interpretation is, however, it should be mentioned and discussed as there is no evidence for a causal association between fruit availability and location of courts.

Pg 13 ln 242: In either case, i.e. males compete for courts closer to fruit resources or males compete for ‘hot-spots’ and consequently gain courts that are closer to fruit resources, it would be the same quality males that benefit from the local fruit availability, so I am not sure how this would mask male genetic quality.

The authors have addressed very carefully and extensively my concerns. I have no further comments.