The authors made key changes in response to the recommendations of the referees, and the uncertainty analyses and clear suggestions to use results to guide future studies are exemplary. I recommend a few minor revisions to improve accuracy and readability.

Please clarify 'successful' process-based models on page 3. The approaches that were discussed may have addressed (in part) the study objectives and therefore may be considered successful depending on the criteria for success (noting also 'successfully applied' on page 5).

Page 11 top line 'integrating'. Also, why take the square root of equation 4 when the variance is arguably more common to report than the standard deviation?

Page 12 'could be a better predictor'; note also non-subscripted 2 in N2O.

On page 17 the sentence 'In forests we observed C/N ratios...' could be simplified.

Section 3.4 includes a very long paragraph with lots of information that is a bit difficult to read. Simplifying the structure of this section would aid readability.

Units should appear more frequently on page 22 line 4.

Please avoid using the dot to denote multiplication in the Fig. 3 legend.

Thank you for considering all of the referee and editorial comments, the manuscript as written is publishable in Biogeosciences.

Sincerely,
Paul C. Stoy