Dear authors
I would like to express my recognition to the efforts you have made to improve your manuscript. The topic fits the special issue and it is potentially interesting. However, I would like to request that you resubmit your manuscript with track-changes, so that I can visualize where you have responded to the referees' concerns, and what is the content of these changes. Moreover, besides the useful comments from the referees, I would like you to consider some extra concerns (please see attached document) in your final revised manuscript. Some are structural (reshaping the current manuscript, and some are conceptual). If you decide to resubmit your manuscript after responding to all the exposed concerns, we will then take a final decision (with no guarantee of acceptance).

I would like to warmly acknowledge the authors' efforts to improve their manuscript and their thorough consideration of the previous comments and suggestions. The reviewed version is better targeted and scientifically more robust, in my opinion. We are, however, still one step away from its acceptance, since some further changes are needed (please check for individual comments in the attached pdf: bg-2015-154-manuscript-version2_editor comments.pdf, and address those most important)

1. The English is very good for a non-English speaker but the use of a native editor would be desirable.

2. Introduction: It is much better but it is too long as it is now, it needs shortening (1/5). A few ideas are not well connected and other are too developed (the warming potential of CH4 can be summarized in 1 line). You expose the importance of your research at the end of the introduction, but it is unclear why a backward extrapolation of wetland area to 1950 is important for current emission estimates, please briefly explain (e.g. current emissions are not your goal, but the the evolution of CH4 fluxes from 1950 to 2010.). Also offer information not only on the variability of the current estimates but on its mean value. On your main questions you should also include: to produce less uncertain estimates of national CH4 fluxes for the last 60 years, by reproducing national wetland area estimates back to 1950. Also please note that wetland area might have decreased by changes in land use (e.g. wetland to agriculture, wetland to forests) but it is unlikely that the changed areas are emission free (you overestimate the emission reductions). Also note that when drying wetlands, CH4 decreases, but N2O increases, so in a more general balance, GHG emissions might not be fully decreasing. These last comments are to observed at some point, but not in the introduction.

3. Material and Methods: This is currently your weakest point. It currently has 7 pages. Please reduce to 4 and move the rest to SOM. Mental aggregation and summarizing are truly needed here (use tables to summarize data input if needed). The subsections are well design, but are too long. The description of the model is good though. Use the diagramme flow to explain the most important steps and avoid details.

4. Results: It is quite good but you include discussions elements in the results (e.g. why the fluxes peak in certain months, etc). Make sure that the discussion is left in the discussion section, and that the results are not repeated in the discussion, as it currently happens. Aggregate results and focus on the most interesting, the key messages. Move the rest to SOM. You have ran lots of analyses for multiple time and spatial scales, it is a complex paper, but summarizing is needed to favor the readers' interest. Do not offer all details, just most important and novel results, also those that are less known (e.g effect of freezing, frosting, on CH4 emissions)

5. Discussion: It is quite good but please see comments on the manuscript. Use the same order of captions than in the results, and avoid repeating the results again. Summarize and aggregate.

Dear authors

Thanks for the new ammendments of your manuscript. It is reading much more easily now. There are some minor grammatical errors, but the text is more robust and the research is very interesting. Thanks for your scientific contribution.
Kind regards