Dear Authors:
Thank you for providing your responses to the referee comments.
Both referees evaluated that this work has ‘good’ scientific significance, and ‘good’ to ‘excellent’ presentation quality. In terms of scientific quality, the referees made suggestions to improve clarity (e.g., statements for estimation uncertainty). The additional sensitivity analyses, which will be included in the revised manuscript, would be helpful to do so. Based on the referees’ evaluation, the manuscript would be considered after major revision. The authors’ responses seem sufficient to refine the qualities, and I look forward to receiving the revised manuscript.

Dear authors:
Thank you for providing the revised manuscript, which was improved on the basis of referee comments and includes two new aspects. I studied the annotated manuscript and your responses and conclude that this manuscript presents good insights into biogeochemical cycles of biological soil crusts and then is acceptable for publication. The results and the LiBry model would be also useful for atmospheric chemistry studies related to NO and HONO. Both referees provided positive evaluations and I received no additional comments about your responses.