Dear Authors

Sorry, it took me a while of discussion with one of the referees, whether your responses have changed his/her initial negative ranking of your manuscript and they did.
However I still have one major concern initially raised by referee #2:
"The authors claim that decreased vegetation cover post-fire could be a major factor driving increases in NH4+ availability, but no vegetation data are provided, although these data apparently exist (cited in Discussion as ‘unpublished data’)."

I understand from your reply that you have have differing plans on how to publish the vegetation data, but as Editor I focus solely on assuring that the published work in Biogeosciences is of highest quality. Without the vegetation data, your argumentation is weak. You assume three drivers for the post-fire dynamics of soil mineral N contents, exclude two of them backed on your results and interpretations, and then conclude that the third driver must be the one main responsible. There is the theoretical possibility that none of the three drivers are the actual sole cause for the observed fluctuations in NH4 availability and thus the vegetation data is needed as a fact that backs your otherwise speculative conclusion.
Please change your manuscript according to the suggestions that you make in your replies and include vegetation data to corroborate your conclusions.

Sincerely
Andreas Ibrom

Dear Authors

I'm very pleased to tell you that your manuscript has now been accepted for publication. Both referees have indicated that they are satisfied with your explanations and the way you have adopted their recommendations in the revised manuscript.
Referee 1 asks you to describe the method used to estimate vegetation percent cover (lines 12-13, page 6), which can stay very brief in my opinion.

Sincerely,
Andreas Ibrom

Dear Authors

thank you very much for the requested additions to the text and good luck with the impact of your paper.

With the best wishes,
Andreas Ibrom