Dear Authors,
thank you very much for your replies.

Both reviewers are generally positive but make some remarks related to the scope of the study. Your replies make sufficiently clear how you limit it. But it is good to mention this explicitly in the text that this is not a full LCA.

Your strategy on non-CO2 GHG fluxes is clear and you made a reasonable compromise between efforts and role of these gasses for the GHG budget. Maybe you can discuss whether you deem high emission events like freeze thaw cycles relevant for your site that might have not been included in your manual chamber measurements.

I appreciate that you split your results part and for a discussion section.

At this stage I can’t evaluate how successful your changes are, as you did not copy them into the reply. In your revised manuscript, please mark-up all changes and refer to them in your response. To clarify, you do not need to add further explanations but you should give references to the final manuscript for any change you make in the existing text.

Sincerely,
Andreas Ibrom

Dear Authors,
thank you very much for submitting the final manuscript version. Reading it, I had the impression that you implemented the necessary corrections well, but the text needs careful copy editing. However, before we can proceed I would like you to rewrite the entire Conclusions section..

Try to derive a few but important general conclusions that clearly relate to your objectives and findings. Give them a structure after their importance. Please consider herein and mention the limited scope of your study, i.e. that you focussed on GHG budgets and not on e.g. ILUC etc..

Please follow the suggestion of Reviewer 1 to use shorter sentences. Don’t repeat yourself. E.g. sentence 2 repeats largely the message of sentence 1. You mentioned the importance of the initial carbon loss twice (789 and 795-796) . Avoid symbols, or re-introduce them, as some readers will only read the conclusions.


Minor comments (L, line number, based on track change version, ‘->’ = replace with ) :

L38-40 the sentence is unclear, please reword

L44/45 mention sign convention or use net CO2 uptake and positive numbers.

L76, SRCs -> SRC

L115; replace ‘warming mitigation’ by ‘Climate Change mitigation’

L225: Remove ‘mass’, the physical definition of density is mass per unit volume.

L229: give a range of measurement heights and the distance over d + z0

L310: ‘flux detection limit of the GC was ...’ -> ‘flux detection limit due to the concentration measurement was’

L331: ‘a’ laboratory

L370: Please distinguish between a LCA and a LCI, (life cycle inventory). What you wrote was that you used data from a LCI data base.
When mentioning that your study is not a full LCA you should point to the difference. One very important aspect that can change everything is the indirect land use change (ILUC) that needs to be considered when replacing arable land by biomass production. It would also be good to mention the different scopes of this study and a full LCA and discuss the limitation for the interpretation of this study. As already said, the scope of the study needs also to be mentioned and considered in the conclusions that one can draw from this study.

L475 dissimilarity -> difference

L679 reached-> persisted?

1127 here you refer to unit per ha and activity or per ha and year? clarify

1135 remove ‘of the ecosystems’

Sincerely,
Andreas Ibrom

Dear Authors,
thanks for the corrections. The manuscript is now ready for publication, but needs careful copy-editing.
With kind regards,
Andreas Ibrom