Dear authors:

Thank you for providing your responses to referees’ comments. As you noticed, the two reviewers gave controversial recommendations to your manuscript. Both referees positively evaluated the scientific significance of this elaborate review, but they differ in the evaluation of scientific quality. One referee thought that this manuscript needs thorough restructuring, including improvement of presentation quality. The other referee thought that this wide review has excellent scientific significance and made several constructive suggestions.

The open discussion was closed, and no additional comment was posted so far. Considering the author’s responses (e.g., agreement to re-organization), I recommend that this manuscript is subject to major revision and re-considered; I try to invite additional comment(s) to the revised manuscript for making a final decision. As the referees stated, it is highly recommended that you refine the manuscript by re-ordering structure and by improving clarity. I acknowledge that it is difficult to fulfill all requirements (e.g., avoiding lengthiness vs. additional model and GHG reviews) but I expect you do your best by sharpening contexts (and then improving scientific qualities) through the manuscript.

Dear Authors:

Thank you for providing the revised manuscript on the basis of the open discussion with two anonymous referees. The manuscript is actually long as is the case for informative review papers, and I appreciate re-organization of the manuscript for improving readability. The new appendix sections including fundamental explanations would be helpful for readers. It became clearer and better focused on key topics and issues. Although the referees made different suggestions on your first manuscript, I believe that this modification would satisfy both referees.

Technical points:
Reference list is especially important for a review paper. Please look through carefully before submitting the final manuscript. For example, followings should be corrected.
Page 42, Line 7: Please check DOI of Alpert et al. (2005). It looks broken.
Page 63, Line4: Please check author names of Ju et al. (2009).
Page 66, Line 15: Please correct records in Lindenmayer et al. (2012).
Page 82, Line 21: Add page numbers to Trentmann et al. (2003).