Dear Authors

the reviewers both recognise the value of the work you have submitted. However, they also have concerns about the presentation of the science. Please look through the reviews, and make major revisions to your manuscript in response. I expect to see a thorough reworking of the introduction and discussion sections. Focus especially on the assumptions made in the analyses, and the potential for these to introduce biases. Also clarify the role of soils in your analyses of C cycling. Please improve the writing style for clarity and readability.

Also please provide point-by-point responses to the specific queries raised by both referees. It is highly likely that your revised ms will then be sent out for further review.

best wishes

Mathew

Dear Authors

thank you for your revised ms, which addresses many of the issues raised by there referees. However, the revision is not complete.

Referee 1 raised the issue of soil C fluxes, as a critical component of NEP, and asked for more details. In your response you say C flux (NEP) is a minor focus of the paper and seem to dismiss this request. But 'C flux mapping' is in the ms title, and NEP is shown in many of the figure, so it is clearly not minor. You even state that one of the main objectives of the paper is to map NEP in your letter. This inconsistency is confusing. Likewise, I do not understand why the negative NEP is not shown in figure 4. More information is required about the soil parameters, modelling, and fluxes. Or the ms needs to focus clearly on disturbance, and remove NEP from discussion. If CASA modelling is used to generate products this should be clear in the abstract. Please address these issues and I will then review the ms again.

Best wishes

Mathew