Both reviewers appreciate the modelling efforts conducted and indicate its importance. At the same time though, both indicate to have had major problems with the flow of the story line and with the lack of details on some crucial points of the modelling. Both need to be significantly improved to become acceptable.
My suggestion would be to:
- eliminate the extensive descriptions of the sites and the performed incubation experiments. These experiments certainly do not constitute the novel part of this manuscript (numerous similar results from similar experiments are available in literature) and it is now distracting (e.g. why extensively discussing Q10 while - I hope- it would be an emergent property from a mechanistic model?). essentials can be moved to suppl. info.
- start the methods with a proper model description, possibly using and extended version of fig 2 to guide the flow, then model validation and then model sensitivity. The results section can start with what is now 3.3.

I also have a number of additional comments:
- To me, model validation while using a number of initial state var. is quite fine (and is less confusing to me than model initiation), but I don't understand why measured pH was used as parameter in that analysis after the extensive discussion of the authors in the introduction that pH estimates should be based on mechanisms. If you use pH to initialize the model, it does not seem based on mechanisms. Or, to put it more generally: how mechanistic is your model and what is your scientific advance on this topic.? That does nowhere become clear and is also related to my next two comments:
- I (and one of the reviewers too) have problems with some claims on the lack of anaerobic decomposition in ESMs. The authors are well aware, I believe, of the ensemble of ESMs developed to model global methane emissions, each of which take anaerobic decomposition processes into account (incl. a model from the CLM family if I am not mistaken). So, how should we see the advance made by this model in this respect?
- The authors next argue that mechanisms should be included and indicate that Eh and pH of models should be based on (thermodynamic) mechanisms. Such models are available and extensively used (e.g. in modelling the dynamics in anaerobic sludge reactors, but also for anoxic soil systems) and some of those models are explicitly based on humic acids and/or iron reduction. Moreover, from the current description it does not seem that pH or Eh are prognostic variables in the presented model either. So again: how does the model advance our understanding compared to existing models?

Dear Authors, both reviewers suggested that minor revisions are necessary before we can proceed with the publication of your manuscript.
Please revise your manuscript considering the major concerns of Referee #1 and please improve the model documentation as suggested by Referee #2.
Best wishes,
Anja Rammig

Dear Authors, thank you for sending the response to the referees comments. Please upload a revised version of the manuscript and mark the changes you made.
Best wishes,
Anja Rammig