In Veits et al., we showed that flowers respond to a range of pollinator sounds by increased nectar sugar concentration. Here we clarify that (1) our argument is relevant to most pollinators, and not limited to bees (2) specifically, bees do access Oenothera Drumondii nectar in this area.

Under noiseless experimental conditions, sugar concentration of secreted floral nectar may increase after flower exposure to nearby sounds of pollinator flight (Veits et al. 2019). However, we reject the argument that this represents adaptive plant behaviour, and consider that the appealing analogy between a flower and human ear is unjustified.

The comment by Gamisch (2020) draws the attention of users of the R‐package RPANDA (Methods Ecol. Evol., 7, 2016, 589) on situations when properly interpreting the results of linear diversification dependencies requires caution. Here we provide clarifications to help users interpreting their results when using any type of functional diversification dependencies with time or the environment.

In ‘Temperature‐dependent body size effects determine population responses to climate warming’ by Lindmark et al . (2018), which was published in volume 21, issue 2 in February 2018, the main effects of Equation 4 were omitted from the text. The correct equation is provided below: (1) Moreover, in Appendix S1, the in‐text equation for should be: . In Appendix S1, Table 1, three parameters have been