Two of the reviewers suggested minor revisions are necessary, one recommended acceptance after major revisions. The intentions of the authors to modify the paper as formulated in their author comments are in my view reasonable and I thus invite the authors to upload a revised paper. Based on the revised paper and possibly another round of reviewer comments (the reviewer recommending major revisions expressed interest in seeing the revised paper again), I will then make a decision for acceptance in BG.

Two of the reviewers (#2 and #3) recommended minor revisions, while reviewer #3 argued that major revisions will be necessary to make the manuscript acceptable for BG. I have sent out the revised manuscript to reviewer #1, who indicated that he would be interested in re-reviewing the revision.
After having given the revised manuscript a read myself and after consulting the authors response to the reviewer comments I am inclined to accept the paper for BG because the authors have dealt with most of the reviewer comments in a satisfactory fashion.
Reviewer #3 argues that the data basis, three days, is too poor to draw defensible and generalizable conclusions from this work and thus suggests that additional measurements are needed to make this a significant contribution. I tend to agree, but I also think that given the fact that little published work exists on this topic, this study deserves being published even though the data basis is admittedly limited, as it still provides a detailed and largely unseen picture of the spectral distribution of light in the plant canopy.