Dear Authors:

Thank you for contribution to Biogeosciences and for uploading a revised manuscript. I studied your point-by-point response to referee’s comments and found that most points were modified appropriately. However, several comments (though not major) were not adequately addressed, and for improving quality, I encourage further refinement for the following points (they are not mandatory but optional).

6th comment of Reviewer #2 (assumption of respiration)
The constant Rd/Ac ratio seems to be oversimplification also for me, because it means that Rd is zero when Ac is zero. Namely, maintenance respiration was neglected. If correct, please discuss potential bias caused by this assumption.

7th comment of Reviewer #2 (equation)
I agree with Reviewer #2 that the sub-index (i) is not always necessary.

2nd comment of Reviewer #3 (GPP and precipitation)
Here, the Reviewer #3 recommended performing a sensitivity simulation to separate the effect of precipitation variability in a clearer manner. This applies to another minor comment to (previous) pg. 2764 l8.

10th comment of Reviewer #3 (CO2 flux or mixing ratio)
Please check not only line 87 but throughout the manuscript (e.g., line 170, 653, and 663).

Technical correction
Line 185
(Missson 2004) should be (Misson 2004).

My decision is “publish subject to minor revision” and therefore, after re-addressing these minor points, please send a revised manuscript or a reply to me.

Best regards,
Akihiko Ito

Dear Authors:

Thank you for replying my minor comments and for uploading a revised manuscript.
I confirmed that you responded every point properly.
Thank you again for contribution to Biogeosciences.

Best regards,
Akihiko Ito