Dear authors,

Thank you for your contribution to the on-line discussion in which you have addressed most of the reviewer's comments. Based on your discussion and my own reading of the paper, I would like to invite you to prepare a revised manuscript. While revising the manuscript, please, consider the following comments in addition to the concerns raised by the reviews:
- Reviewer 1 raised an important issue on the sensitivity of the model. Although I find the content of your response satisfactory, I would like to see this issue addressed by means of a comprehensive discussion. For example, a table showing for which parameters the sensitivity has already been tested (and the sensitivity itself) and for which parameters the sensitivity has not yet been tested.
- Please, discuss the validity of the model to simulate absorbed radiation (see above). Is the absorbed fraction calculated as the residual of the reflected and the transmitted fraction? Has absorbed light been validated against field measurements?
- Reviewer 2 raised the issue of understory and the possible role of lichens in the boreal zone. There is quite some literature on the effect of lichens on albedo. Please, discuss this issue in the light of forest management (see for example studies linking reindeer grazing - which is a non-wood forest use - to lichens, soil freezing and albedo).

Dear,

Since your submission of the revised manuscript a month ago, seven external reviewers (including the initial reviewers) have been contacted for advice but all rejected or missed the deadlines. To avoid further delay, I decided to base the decision solely on my own judgement.

Comments:
Readers should be able to read the manuscript and benefit from the discussion phase without having to go the journal website and actually read the discussion. The assumptions, insights and caveats identified by the reviewers should be used to improve the manuscript. This implies that the responses addressing the reviewers concerns – which satisfied the reviewers and myself- should be integrated in the manuscript.

When providing a revised manuscript, please, include a version of the manuscript where the changes are clearly marked (''Regarding author's changes, a marked-up manuscript version (track changes in Word, latexdiff in LaTeX) converted into a *.pdf and including the author's response must be provided'' copied from http://www.biogeosciences.net/for_authors/submit_your_manuscript.html).

I’m looking forward to receive a revised manuscript at the earliest of your convenience,

Sebastiaan Luyssaert

Thank you for the final revisions. In the revised manuscript the reviewer comments are well addressed. I, therefore, recommend the manuscript for publication.