Dear Authors:

Thank you for uploading your responses to three referees.
I studied these comments to make a decision. The referees evaluated your study positively and recommend this manuscript to be accepted for publication after appropriate revision. They pointed out several insufficiencies in the manuscript in terms of descriptions of study site and statistical analyses and interpretation (e.g., importance) of the results. I found that you properly replied to these concerns and expect you to revise the manuscript accordingly.

Dear Authors:

Thank you for sending your revised manuscript.
I confirmed you made revision as you replied to referee’s comments. I found several technical issues in your manuscript and suggest you to make corrections. After the corrections, this manuscript would be acceptable for publication.

Technical issues:
1. Please do not use “R” to denote rainfall. This is confusing with regression coefficient. Also, please use the same symbol in text and table. Namely, in the present manuscript, you used “r” in text and “R” in tables for regression coefficients. Instead, for example, I suggest using “P” for precipitation and “R” for regression coefficient through the manuscript.
2. In general, fluxes should have units of mass per unit area per unit time (e.g., g m-2 s-1 or mol m-2 h-1). However, in your manuscript, many flux terms lack necessary dimensions. For example, in Figure 1, DOC flux may have units of (kg C ha-1 yr-1). Please check all figures and tables, including those in Supplementary materials.
3. The surface CO2 flux in Figure 2a seems too high, if the unit of y-axis (mg CO2 m-2 s-1) is correct. Please check.