Dear Wendy William,

All three referees acknowledge the potential interest of your manuscript, but between
them, they also raise a number of concerns specially regarding to the methodology
used, and suggested some major revisions that are necessary before publication.

Please carefully revise your manuscript taken into account these comments and
incorporates the necessary changes.

Sincerely
Emilio Rodriguez Caballero

Two reviewers have revised the manuscript again and both give a positive overall evaluation and recommended its publication

Additionally, I have some minor comments, that should be solved before the publication

1) In figure 1 Please modify mm to (mm)
2) In figure 2, it is not clear what N1535; A02337 TBUG 131091 means. Are they codes for the different sampling locations? It will be desirable to use a better description of what they means.
Moreover, as I see in the figure this graph correspond to site 1, but sites are not defined within the methods. Does Site 1 correspond to Boodjamulla National Park Research Site?, or on the contrary it represent an specific sampling location. Please clarify this also in the page 5 of the main document “The number of active days was based on the number of rain days and soil moisture availability measurements for key months using moisture meter data from the site, an example shown in Figure 2”. What secondary Y axis represent


3) In Figure 4 please increase font size in the scale bar
4) In Figure 5, what uncertainty bars represents? Standard error, standard deviation?
5) In Figure 6: It is possible to add regression line, in a similar way as in figure 7?
I would suggest homogenizing regressions equations in figure 6 and 7: equation; F factor; p value; r2. Moreover, units for N fixation are necessary

6) In Figure 8, what uncertainty bars represents? Standard error, standard deviation?
7) In Figure 9 y axis is missing; What N means (N fixation, units not in the correct format (g m -2). What series 1 means and what numbers represent? Please clarify

Thanks you very much for your changes, I highly appreciated your effort

Some minor editing issues needed

Figure 2: New graph do not coincide with the previous version, please can you explain this issue?
Why there is a decrease of soil water content after rainfall events from 10/feb/2010 to 20/feb/2010?

Moreover, I recommend to include series name (Probe depths at 1–3 cm (red squares) and 5–10 cm (blue triangles) in the graphs, instead of Site 1 and Site 1) and rainfall as title for second y axis.

It will be good to use raw data to reedit this figure in a better graphical resolution

In figure 5; and 8: SEM should be explained

Figure 9: Is it possible to introduce uncertainty in monthly values. Black line representing Y axis could be good

Sincerely

Dear Wendy Williams and coauthors
Thanks very much for including all my suggestions, only some minor editing issues before final acceptance.
Once all this minor suggestions will be considered, please, review all figures and figure caption before to submit the last version of your document
Sincerely

Dear Wendy Williams

Figure 2 still need some corrections. Please check small peaks on soil water content. This means that there is a decrease of more than 20% of soil water content for about 1h after a rainfall, or during a rainfall, and then it increase again to previous values. These packs are independent of the general drying trend that it is visible form 2/Feb to 20/Feb. As you see, the effect of individual rainfalls can be seen by slight increase in soil water content of 3-4%, but these packs do not seems to be related to this effect (E.G on 16/Feb there is no rainfall and same pattern can be observed). Please can you explain this issue

Sincerely
Emilio Rodriguez caballero

Dear Dr Williams

Dear Dr Rodriguez-Caballero

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript, "Wet-season cyanobacterial N-enrichment highly correlated with species richness and Nostoc in the northern Australian savannah ", has now been accepted for publication in Biogeosceinces