Dear Authors:

Thank you for providing your response to referee comments.
Your manuscript was reviewed by three referees, who gave different evaluations spanning from minor revision to reject. Their evaluations were especially inconsistent for ‘scientific significance’ of your study. The referee #3 was negative about the scientific significance, because the referee thought that the data and methodology of this study have been published by previous papers (e.g., Leroy et al., 2017, 2019). You justified this manuscript by providing a new model, which is different from those in previous papers. I acknowledge that a series of papers can be published from a single experimental project by conducting different analyses and modeling. However, as pointed out by referees #2 and #3, you should explain the difference (what’s new and original) in a clearer manner; this is the most important point in examining the revised manuscript. For other comments, your response looks reasonable and convincing. Taking all evaluations into account, I conclude that the manuscript needs major revision and the revised manuscript would be reconsidered.

Dear authors:

Thank you for providing your response and revised manuscript.
I noticed you made attempts to improve the manuscript; one referee has minor
and another referee has still has critical caveats on it (major points are given below).
Please read all comments and referee report (in PDF file; if you do not find it,
please let me know) carefully and provide satisfactory response.

* major points ***************************
There are two areas that need major improvement.
1. Explain the differences between this study and the two previous studies that use the same dataset. How and why are they different? Why does Table 1 in each paper have slightly different values for in-common parameters? Why was it not appropriate to include the current analyses in one or the other previous publication? This explanation should take up several paragraphs across the entire manuscript, including Introduction, Methods, and Discussion.
2. Rigorous proof-reading and careful attention to English writing. Some of the mistakes would have been easily caught by any proof-reader, almost regardless of English skill level, such as the complete copy of a sentence.
****************************

Dear Authors:
Thank you for uploading your response and a revised manuscript.
I confirmed that you responded appropriately to the comments by both referees.
In terms of the difference (novelty) from previous papers, your additional explanation would be convincing.
Technical points:
1. Insert blanks before and after "±".
2. For every "gC", insert a blank between "g" and "C".
3. Page 2 Line24: remove "submitted to Biogeosciences", because it is obvious.
4. Page 2 Line24: remove duplicated ",".
5. Page 6 Line 17 (Table 1): "PAR" should be "PPFD" if you keep consistency.
6. Page 10 Line 12: "PPDF" should be "PPFD".
7. Page 14 Line 19: Check the status of "D'Arrigo in prep". In general, manuscripts in preparation (i.e. before submission) should not be included in reference list.