Both authors note the benefits to the proposed approach but also important deficiencies in the presentation. Please address all comments carefully with an eye toward quantitative assessment (see the third paragraph of the review by Reviewer #1) and I would be happy to reconsider the manuscript for publication.

Sincerely,
Paul C. Stoy

The authors took great care to account for referee comments and the manuscript has been improved as a result. There are still a number of minor points that I detail below that would be necessary to consider before I recommend the manuscript be published in Biogeosciences.

Page 1/line 12: manufacturer information for the GoPro

1/17: remove ‘education’. The technique seems quite involved with all of the geometric corrections. See also 12/8. ‘Specific training’ is probably better.

1/18: non-forested wetlands.

2/6 ‘bottleneck’ notion could perhaps reference this paper by Dr. P. Crill (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3403.pdf).

2/11 ‘northern wetlands’ is really boreal, subarctic, and arctic non-forested wetlands. (to a lesser degree these habitats are also present at elevation and in the Southern Hemisphere)

‘The long monopod was made from two ordinary extendable monopods taped together’ is unnecessary because single monopods can be of different lengths.

‘The camera battery typically lasts for a few hours after a full charge’ depends on the type of battery used and lithium ion should work better in the cold.

Please use the multiplication sign instead of dots in the equations. Dots can also mean complex conjugate.

9/20 common abbreviation of ‘meters.


Sincerely,
Paul C. Stoy

Thank you for making the recommended changes, the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in Biogeosciences.

Sincerely,
Paul C. Stoy