Dear Authors,

Thank you for your thoughtful response to the three reviews we received on your manuscript. As you can see, each reviewer had quite useful comments on ways in which to improve your manuscript. In particular, I would echo the need to highlight the novelty our your results, and encourage you to not only draw attention to the Vanzo et al. paper but also discuss how your results support or add those presented there. Your proposed figures S1 and S2 are a great addition and should be very useful for doing so. Concerns were repeatedly raised about the insufficient detailing of the experimental set-up, so please endeavor to clearly state not only what was done but also what motivated your choices. The fact that leaf temperature was not controlled for is potentially problematic, but I agree with your response and feel these concerns should be alleviated in part by a more detailed description of the experimental set-up. Finally, the difference in canopy position highlighted by reviewer 1 will certainly lead to differences in at least the basal rate of emissions, as leaf physiology is highly acclimated to light environment. This issue warrants some discussion in order to help the reader in their interpretation of your results.

Best wishes,

Trevor