Dear Authors:

Thank you for sending your detailed replies to the referee comments.
The three referees gave insightful comments and in general evaluated your study positively. Although one referee did not find ‘strong relevance to Biogeosciences’ in your results and discussion, others concluded that the study falls within the journal scope. Importantly, the three referees claimed that this is not a ‘long-term’ study, because this study was conducted only for four years. Also, they made many critical comments on the spatial and temporal representativeness of measurements (e.g., monthly interval at three sites). Therefore, you should revise the manuscript very carefully, such that any overstatement on observational representativeness is avoided and possible uncertainties are fully discussed. Additionally, referees made a recommendation about the statistical analysis, such that inter-site difference should be treated as a random effect in mixed effects models. As you replied, although the site effect was not a critical factor, you should update the manuscript by including the statistical re-analysis results.
I’m looking forward to receiving a revised manuscript with major revision.

Dear Authors:
Thank you for uploading the revised manuscript.
I studied the manuscript and found that it was considerably improved in comparison with the previous one. Specifically, you replaced the word “long-term” by “multi-seasonal” and considered the random effect in the statistical analysis. I with this study carries valuable information to research community on the methane emission from a temperate, human-affected lake.
Only one technical correction is needed: in the supplement, please add “S” to the table number (e.g., Table S1).