Dear Authors,

thank you very much for you responses and comments to the referee reports.

I have three additional remarks:

1. When measuring the result of the cumulated CO2 evolution in differing time intervals, i.e. in sealed samples, the O2 concentration will fall under the experiment, accordingly.
Was the reduction in O2 concentrations considered and if not, what were the consequences for the interpretation of the results?

2. In your comment to Robert Grant's report, you mention (page 3 at the end of the second paragraph):

"Adding further complexity would introduce parameter identifiability problems and add no relevant information."

If you intend to use this argument in the discussion, I would ask you, to consider the situation that two or more drivers affect the same process in a similar way. Examining only one of them, will include the risk of falling for a “wrong” one in the empirical analysis. So, one should be careful when going for simplicity and discuss the risks of doing so.

3. In your comments to Thomas Wutzler's report, you mention on page 6 that you based your parameter space exploration and choice of initial parameters on preliminary work ('manual'...) .

I would rather recommend using the appropriate statistical methods (as suggested in the report) and document the robustness of the approach. Then give the corresponding parameter correlation matrix (appendix) and discuss the main parameter correlations in the text also in the light of model complexity and equifinality (see point mentioned above).

Please make sure to use a methodology that is reproducible (the 'manual' is not).

Otherwise I ask you to prepare and submit a revised, track changes and a final version of your manuscript together with your final comments to the points raised by the reviewers and to my points above.

With kind regards,
Andreas Ibrom

Dear Authors,

thank you very much for the carefully revised manuscript.

I have no further comments, but I'd like to give the two reviewers the opportunity to evaluate whether the revised manuscript is now ready for publication.

With kind regards,
Andreas Ibrom

Dear Authors

I am very happy to be able to tell you that your manuscript is now accepted for publication. There are still a few minor remarks by one of the reviewers, that you are encouraged to consider when finalising the manuscript, where applicable.

Thank you very much for submitting this excellent manuscript to Biogeosciences and also for your patience and constructive attitude during the review process.

With kind regards,
Andreas Ibrom

Dear Authors,

thank you very much for carefully taking the last reviewer comments into account in the revision of your manuscript.

With this, the manuscript is now accepted for publication in Biogeosciences.

With the very best wishes also for the scientific impact of study,
Andreas Ibrom