Dear authors

First I apologize for the long duration until you get a reaction from BG. First I decided to call for new reviews as you put in question the competence of the first two review. To my surprise and also frustration it was difficult to find qualified reviewers. As this is a voluntary job, I cannot force somebody.

In the meantime the review process of BG was modified as now a mandatory decision of the associate editor after the discussion phase is needed. This mainly to give a guideline to the authors how to go along with the revision or to reject the paper. So formally I can take up the process at this point and make the decision.

I judge the paper as interesting and as a useful contribution to questions around the interpretation of chamber measurements. I would like to invite you to submit a revised version that I will then evaluate.

I have two concerns that should be improved. I have a hard time to exactly understand your setup. Figure 1 is a picture and I don’t see from there where the different sensor have been placed and especially where the flux data have been taken. From the description I do assume that static chamber have been used corresponding to the inner toroid. It would be helpful to add a technical drawing showing the chambers including lids etc. Please note that to“non native” English speaker some details might easily escape. Don’t hesitate to add descriptions for interested “Dummies”.

Secondly ( I agree here with the third reviewer) you inferred the flux from the linear increase of the concentration given the r2 > 0.9. From our own measurements with static chambers we saw that flux calculated taking into account a non linear behavior (we used the HMR approach published by Pedersen et al..) even for r2 > 0.95 fluxes can be twice as high as the flux based on a linear regression. This is more pronounced for CO2 as e.g. for N2O due to the higher precision of the concentration measurements. It would be interesting to investigate whether part of your effects that you measured are reacting to e.g. a HMR approach.

I am looking forward to get your revised manuscript that I might send out for an additional review if I feel that my own competence is not sufficient.

With kind regards
Albercht neftel, Co-editor-in-chief, BG

Dear authors

In your revised version most of the concerns raised have been adressed. The reader get a better impression how your setup is working. In the abstract you point out "Our findings support the need for a revised conceptualization of soil-atmosphere gas exchange." But it is important to address in a small paragraph in the discussion how your finding affect the enormous amount of published chamber data on GHG exchange.

With kind regards
Albrecht Neftel Co-editor-in-chief, BG

Dear authors
I do accept your paper for publication in BG. Please read carefully the proof reads as the copy editing process might introduce editorial misunderstandings.

With kind regards
Albercht Neftel, Co-editor-in-chief, BG