Both referees had insightful suggestions for structural improvements but noted that the measurements themselves were sound (although they could have been described more intuitively - also a structural comment). These and numerous important minor comments were addressed in detail by the authors, and I am convinced that the revised manuscript that results from the authors' responses will be of high scientific quality.

Sincerely,
Paul C. Stoy

I found the manuscript to be well-written and enjoyable to read (with minor English usage errors that will be corrected in the proofing stage). Referee comments were comprehensively addressed. The study design is complicated for sure, which at times makes the analysis unnecessarily complicated, but I still feel that the observations are sound and instructive for understanding nitrogen oxide fluxes in managed and natural tropical ecosystems.

A few minor questions and comments for the purpose of further improving the manuscript:
How frequent are clay vs. loam Acrisol soils in Sumatra? Are both relatively common?

On page 9 (I emphasize that continuous line numbering is always strongly preferred) It is important to state how deep the chamber bases were installed. Too deep can damage belowground structures.

On page 12, please use mathematical symbols for equations (the star means convolution and shouldn't be used as a surrogate for the multiplication symbol).

On line 14, don't use marginal significance here or anywhere else in the manuscript. Decide what is unlikely to happen by chance and stick with it.

The paragraph on page 16 line 13 needs to be rewritten, it was difficult to follow.

What is SFB 900?

Thank you for addressing the comments, the revised manuscript is publishable in Biogeosciences.

Sincerely,
Paul C. Stoy