Dear Authors,
After assessing the reviewers’ comments and your answers to their suggestions I had the general impressions that you addressed they key points of the reviewers.
However, from my personal reading of the manuscript, I think some additional points need to be addressed as stated below.
I found the introduction a bit too short, with not many references to previous relevant work, and for example no studies cited on the impact of pH on the fluxes (which seemed to be a key result). There should be a more comprehensive case for what was measured and why in the study in the introduction. Please expand this part. Same for the discussion, which could be expanded.
In the discussion it is stated that highly acidic pH limit methanogenesis, but Fig. 8 a shows a negative relationship. Please explain if the impact of pH is different on the methanotropic community, and/or if this results is due to reduced methanogenesis (and add references for dependence of both processes on pH).
Page 14 lines 25-26, this is very interesting, but you should provide some references to studies showing a similar result.
Page 15 line 1, it is not clear how the figure can help explaining the linkages between vegetation communities and fluxes. Also, on page 15 line 3-5: the aerenchima does not transport photosynthate, please correct, and explain better the link with vegetaiotn, and expand your references on this topic.
Figure 4 shows a decrease in CH4 emissions with water table shallower than -20 cm in VSR1 and 2. I cannot find an explanation of this in the discussion.
The figures use fonts that are too small, please increase font size. Also, negative values for the water table are used in Fig. 4, while in Fig. 2 positive values are used. Please be consistent, and explain which sign convention you use.
Please be consistent with the tenses used, sometimes the present is been used and sometimes the past to refer to results of this research.

Please address these comments and submit a revised version,
Best Regards,
Donatella Zona

Dear Authors,
I am glad to notice that your manuscript substantially improved and that you addressed my previous comments. I suggest some last corrections before final publication. In the introduction there are still some concept not clearly explained: page 3 lines 1-3, please explain why this difference in the pH ranges and the processes behind this difference. In general, in the introduction it should be more clearly stated WHY we should be putting effort into quantifying these greenhouse gas emissions from forest-mire ecotones. The manuscript could possibly be strengthened stressing out the importance and novelty of the study.
Finally, there was a few incorrectly structured sentences, e.g. Page 2, Line 12, Page 6, Like 17, Page 16, Line 19. even if overall it reads well.
Please implement these above mentioned suggestions and upload the final document,
Best Regards,
Donatella Zona