Dear Authors,

Thank you for your response to the referees comments. As you can see from their reviews, both referees find your study of interest, but the manuscript lacked crucial information on the model assumptions used to estimate GPP, necessary for a proper interpretation of the the results. I will therefore be asking the referees for a reevaluation of your revised manuscript, now that a more detailed description of the methods used has been presented. In addition to their comments, I would also suggest that you include some discussion on how the assumptions inherent in the GPP model could affect your results.

Best wishes,
Trevor

Dear Authors,

Both referees concur that your revisions have greatly improved the manuscript and suggest publication. As you can see from my comment on the discussion forum however, I have some suggestions as to how the ms could be further improved. I would not like to hold up publication of your manuscript at this stage, but would ask you to consider my comments in your revisions, as the uncertainty associated with the modelling assumptions is important for a proper interpretation of the results. Of course, please feel free to respond to my comments on the discussion forum.

Best wishes,
Trevor F. Keenan

Dear authors,

Please fix the typo 'maong' on line 340.

Best wishes,
Trevor