I carefully read the responses to referee comments and agree with some concerns regarding model inputs, but also agree that logistical constraints are somewhat pronounced in this case, and methane emissions from boreal lakes in W. Siberia is an important global topic that requires multiple approaches to improve our understanding. The revisions were considered carefully and will result in a much-improved manuscript.

Sincerely,
Paul C. Stoy

I find the revised manuscript to be well-written and of interest to the readership of Biogeosciences. The modeling approach taken was quite cautious and pointed out a number of important limitations to current model parameterizations that are challenged by the new and interesting dataset. It is interesting in particular that the model fits poorly across the entire middle taiga zone, bringing to mind a number of important questions regarding controls over methane efflux from these lakes. Whereas the Discussion regarding these limitations wanders at times, I agree from the analysis that that maximum methane production rate is a critical control (albeit a bit circular) over methane efflux and understanding controls over it will inevitably lead to model improvement.

I question the distinction of 'strong' and 'faint' correlations based on R2 thresholds as these distinctions seem to be chosen at random and one would expect few 'strong' (R2>0.5) relationships in the case of measuring multiple small lakes.

I recommend the manuscript be published in Biogeosciences after another round of edits that focus on simplifying a complex manuscript that combines both measurements and process-based model predictions.

Sincerely,
Paul C. Stoy