The responses to referees were comprehensive. Please upload the revised manuscript that addresses these comments following this message. I note that the revised manuscript currently uploaded in the interactive discussion, but there should be a subsequent prompt for uploading the new manuscript.

Sincerely,
Paul C. Stoy

The historical context of geoscience and bioscience as diverging disciplines is interesting and the justification for their further re-integration is well-written. I appreciate the attention to detail regarding the benefits and disadvantages of the network approach given high-profile criticisms of many network approaches (e.g. Lindenmayer et al., doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2017.10.008).

Note on line 266 that flux towers measure these fluxes, although sometimes they have to be estimated, and of course all measurements include uncertainty. I also wouldn’t say that flux-gradient techniques have ‘collapsed’ as they are still in use, albeit infrequent. (I do very much agree that attention to soils in FLUXNET is cursory at best.) The paper would also benefit from a quick check for usage (see for example line 563 and rogue minus sign on line 623). Note also, as it happens, that there is an interesting study on animal contributions to biogeochemistry in Luquillo (doi: 10.1007/s00442-002-1071-9). Fig. 2b doesn’t come from Hood et al., 2006. Please make these rather minor suggested changes and thank you for the comprehensive overhaul of the manuscript in response to the referee comments.

Thank you for responding to the remaining comments, I am happy with the edits and recommend the revised version for publication.

Sincerely,
Paul C. Stoy